The following is the draft translation of a political analysis article written in Arabic.
Question: The twenty five chiefs of the European Union met in London on 27.10.2005, but before the eve of that day they ended their summit without announcing anything important, does that mean that the European Union is on the way of disengagement?
Answer: There are two matters which effect strongly the European Union:
1. The Nationalities.
2. The conspiracies of America
As for the first, the national trend is an instinctive aspect in humans, a person likes to be with his nation, and rebels with them against others. This instinctive trend will not be solved except with Islam, because it is the true religion which Allah (swt) has sent a mercy to people. It is the religion in which Allah said: "The most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you" [Al-Hujurat: 13], and the saying of Rasulullah (saw): "There is no favour for an Arab on a foreigner except in being more pious", this is what made several nations and tribes organize and melt in the crucible of Islam.
Nothing will solve this problem other than Islam, this was a point of weakness in the Soviet Union, and it is also in the European Union. Therefore the interests of the countries of the European Union control its political work, hence the political work of the Union, that is why the interests of France the agricultural country were other than those of Britain the non-agricultural country… and so on.
As for the second, America penetrated the countries of the Union by special relations with some countries especially the ten countries which joined the Union at the beginning of July 2004, most of them are regions of influence for America, Romano Prodi -former head of the European legation- said on 19.04.2003: "Some of the new countries of the European Union has strong relations with the united States concerning issues of security." Therefore America has effect in their settling and moving. That is why when the chiefs of the European Union met (which was previously agreed upon since their former summit in June 2004, concerning the issue of the Union’s budget 2007-2013) the problem which failed the former summit was still without solution:
Britain refuses the support for agriculture or any kind of protection, and wants freedom of trade, supported in that by Denmark, Poland, and others, but France insists on keeping the protection and support for the agricultural products and refuses the freedom of open trade, fearing that it will affect its peasants, supported in that by Germany’s Shroeder. America was the absent and present in the meeting, it refuses any agricultural support, and it convinced the delegate of the European Union -Peter Mendelson- to discuss the issue of cancelling the support. France warned the delegate from presenting any preposition to reduce charges which protect the European peasants from the International competence which is less in price, (In spite of that, the European delegate presented two days after the summit of London on 29.10.2005, a proposition for a gradual reduction of the support and also a reduction of the tax charges between 35-60%, in front of the agricultural imports in other countries, yet America agreed only on a reduction of 55-90%) any way, those who support free trade took upon themselves to fight the policy of protection, the Danish Prime Minister Rasmusen said: "Europe has to cling to open economy and competence, and must refuse protection". He added: "last summit was a political catastrophe -pointing to the disputes of June- we have to originate a better atmosphere".
Blair called for a (more rational method to spend the money of the European Union) Blair seeks to reach an agreement which will renovate the priorities of the agreement of the European Union away from supporting the agricultural products. While the French President demanded more protection for the French labourers and refused to discuss transferring the money specified to support the peasants, to other purposes and to direct it towards innovation -this is what Britain wants- before the year 2013.
The former German consultant Shroeder said: "the free economic-system according to the British model, do not represent a model for all the countries of Europe."
Thus, the meeting carried its failure with it, the main problem is disputed upon among the countries of the Union, and they are divided into two groups and the third one is silent. Therefore the description of one of the economic analysts of the European Summit saying: "the chiefs were not in a good mood to hold that Summit" was a correct description. Some newspapers issued that, limiting the summit to one day was upon the wish of Chirac the French President. Anyway, such disputes will stay in the corridors of the European Union as long as there are nationalities, and as long as there are interferences and conspiracies from America in Europe, even before the origination of the Union in its present condition and after that, the interference of America in overthrowing Degaul, and its conspiracies in Germany against Shroeder, are tangible matters, even one of the satellite channels issued yesterday 18.11.2005 a declaration for the Russian politician (Jeryenuviski) which points to American fingers in the incidents of the suburbs of Paris. As for the disengagement of the European Union, this is unlikely in the near future, because political, economic and currency institutes were formed for the Union, but we can say that -to reach a political unity with one resolution, and to have one international effect- will stay a matter of discussion, pulling and drawing according to the two formerly mentioned matters.
07 Shawal 1426 AH
09 November 2005 CE
Question: The twenty five chiefs of the European Union met in London on 27.10.2005, but before the eve of that day they ended their summit without announcing anything important, does that mean that the European Union is on the way of disengagement?
Answer: There are two matters which effect strongly the European Union:
1. The Nationalities.
2. The conspiracies of America
As for the first, the national trend is an instinctive aspect in humans, a person likes to be with his nation, and rebels with them against others. This instinctive trend will not be solved except with Islam, because it is the true religion which Allah (swt) has sent a mercy to people. It is the religion in which Allah said: "The most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you" [Al-Hujurat: 13], and the saying of Rasulullah (saw): "There is no favour for an Arab on a foreigner except in being more pious", this is what made several nations and tribes organize and melt in the crucible of Islam.
Nothing will solve this problem other than Islam, this was a point of weakness in the Soviet Union, and it is also in the European Union. Therefore the interests of the countries of the European Union control its political work, hence the political work of the Union, that is why the interests of France the agricultural country were other than those of Britain the non-agricultural country… and so on.
As for the second, America penetrated the countries of the Union by special relations with some countries especially the ten countries which joined the Union at the beginning of July 2004, most of them are regions of influence for America, Romano Prodi -former head of the European legation- said on 19.04.2003: "Some of the new countries of the European Union has strong relations with the united States concerning issues of security." Therefore America has effect in their settling and moving. That is why when the chiefs of the European Union met (which was previously agreed upon since their former summit in June 2004, concerning the issue of the Union’s budget 2007-2013) the problem which failed the former summit was still without solution:
Britain refuses the support for agriculture or any kind of protection, and wants freedom of trade, supported in that by Denmark, Poland, and others, but France insists on keeping the protection and support for the agricultural products and refuses the freedom of open trade, fearing that it will affect its peasants, supported in that by Germany’s Shroeder. America was the absent and present in the meeting, it refuses any agricultural support, and it convinced the delegate of the European Union -Peter Mendelson- to discuss the issue of cancelling the support. France warned the delegate from presenting any preposition to reduce charges which protect the European peasants from the International competence which is less in price, (In spite of that, the European delegate presented two days after the summit of London on 29.10.2005, a proposition for a gradual reduction of the support and also a reduction of the tax charges between 35-60%, in front of the agricultural imports in other countries, yet America agreed only on a reduction of 55-90%) any way, those who support free trade took upon themselves to fight the policy of protection, the Danish Prime Minister Rasmusen said: "Europe has to cling to open economy and competence, and must refuse protection". He added: "last summit was a political catastrophe -pointing to the disputes of June- we have to originate a better atmosphere".
Blair called for a (more rational method to spend the money of the European Union) Blair seeks to reach an agreement which will renovate the priorities of the agreement of the European Union away from supporting the agricultural products. While the French President demanded more protection for the French labourers and refused to discuss transferring the money specified to support the peasants, to other purposes and to direct it towards innovation -this is what Britain wants- before the year 2013.
The former German consultant Shroeder said: "the free economic-system according to the British model, do not represent a model for all the countries of Europe."
Thus, the meeting carried its failure with it, the main problem is disputed upon among the countries of the Union, and they are divided into two groups and the third one is silent. Therefore the description of one of the economic analysts of the European Summit saying: "the chiefs were not in a good mood to hold that Summit" was a correct description. Some newspapers issued that, limiting the summit to one day was upon the wish of Chirac the French President. Anyway, such disputes will stay in the corridors of the European Union as long as there are nationalities, and as long as there are interferences and conspiracies from America in Europe, even before the origination of the Union in its present condition and after that, the interference of America in overthrowing Degaul, and its conspiracies in Germany against Shroeder, are tangible matters, even one of the satellite channels issued yesterday 18.11.2005 a declaration for the Russian politician (Jeryenuviski) which points to American fingers in the incidents of the suburbs of Paris. As for the disengagement of the European Union, this is unlikely in the near future, because political, economic and currency institutes were formed for the Union, but we can say that -to reach a political unity with one resolution, and to have one international effect- will stay a matter of discussion, pulling and drawing according to the two formerly mentioned matters.
07 Shawal 1426 AH
09 November 2005 CE
Comments