The First Question:
On Monday, 30/03/2009 CE, the 21st Arab Summit was held. Instead of continuing for two days as scheduled, the summit completed its task on the same day. What is behind this summit, and how effective are its decisions?
The Answer:
There is nothing behind this summit, nor did it produce any significant decisions to warrant questioning their effectiveness. To clarify the picture further, we mention the following:
1- Summit conferences have become "routine," held in March of every year.
2- Major powers have grown accustomed to exploiting Arab summits for their projects related to the Palestine issue, which they have termed the "Middle East issue." The influential countries at the beginning of the summits in the sixties were America and Britain. When Britain's influence weakened afterward, America became the influential force and the driver behind these summits.
3- Recently, America's circumstances have become shaky and turbulent. It has priorities that take precedence over the Middle East issue, especially since the economic crisis hit, in addition to its predicament in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, it has focused its attention on these priorities.
4- Therefore, although Netanyahu publicly states that he does not want the two-state project advocated by America, and although America could have toppled him in the elections as it did previously, it left matters alone and did not occupy itself with them. It settled for including Barak with him to save face—suggesting that Netanyahu did not hold power entirely alone, but rather had someone who advocates for its project, which is Barak! At the same time, America realizes that the weak number of votes Barak received will not enable him to prevent Netanyahu from pursuing his views.
All this indicates that America has not placed any solution for the issue on its agenda, even a meager one. That is, it has left matters to run in the region without serious intervention until it finishes its priorities or makes significant progress in them. After that, it will turn toward the "Middle East issue," and it will not be hindered then by Netanyahu or anyone else from the Jewish entity, especially since the life and death of the Jewish entity is in the hands of America. Until it makes progress in its priorities, it has left movement on the Palestine issue to its loyal follower, Hosni Mubarak, to fill the vacuum as required, and not to a summit it does not wish to be occupied with at the current time. During this period, it sends a representative or an envoy to monitor the current reality and gather information until the "turn" for the Middle East issue comes after America makes progress in its priorities.
5- Therefore, America left this summit to proceed routinely; meaning the Arab rulers met, ate, drank, smiled at one another, "bickered" with one another, and spoke about reconciliation in broad, ambiguous terms.
Consequently, the best description for this summit is that it was a public relations conference between Arab rulers... until America completes its priorities or makes progress in them. Afterward, it may hold large and small summits driven by America to take decisions that serve its interests.
The Second Question:
On 23/03/2009, the President of the Republic of Turkey, Abdullah Gul, paid a visit to Iraq that lasted two days. It was the first visit by a Turkish president in 33 years. He met with President Talabani and Prime Minister Maliki, as well as with Nechirvan Barzani, the Prime Minister of the Kurdistan region, which led the latter to state: "The Turkish President's meeting with me is a recognition by Turkey of the Kurdistan region (25/03/2009, Turkish News TV)." Talabani also stated in a press conference with the Turkish President: "The PKK must lay down their arms or leave." (Radio Sawa, 23/03/2009). Does this mean that the Turkish PKK's existence in Iraq has ended in exchange for Turkish recognition of the Iraqi Kurdistan region but within the state of Iraq? Consequently, have the Kurds of Iraq despaired of America’s promises to them of an independent state from Iraq? Furthermore, does the visit have an international dimension, or is it limited to the relationship between Iraq and Turkey?
The Answer:
1- Yes, America's promises to the Kurds of Iraq for the establishment of a state were never serious promises. Rather, it promised them to exploit them to strike their brothers in Iraq in order to facilitate the occupation of Iraq. Similarly, Britain promised Mahmud al-Hafid in 1919 that he would attack the Ottoman protectorate in Sulaymaniyah in exchange for a promise of a Kurdish state. So they attacked it and killed their Ottoman brothers in the protectorate and expelled those who survived. Then Britain broke its promise and even exiled Mahmud al-Hafid to its colony, India. Likewise, Britain insisted in the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 CE with the Ottoman State on including a clause related to establishing a Kurdish state to annoy the Khalifa Muhammad Wahiduddin, as the Khalifa's delegation was the negotiator. When Britain later succeeded in installing Mustafa Kemal as President of the Republic and the Khilafah ended, and the treaty became with the republic of Mustafa Kemal in Lausanne in 1924, Britain refused to include the clause for a Kurdish state because it had achieved its goal, which was toppling the Khilafah. Thus, there was no longer a need to exploit such a matter. Britain used to stir up Kurdish nationalist sentiments and all nationalist sentiments in the region, exploiting and inciting those it stirred to disobedience and rebellion against the Islamic State until it achieved its objectives, after which it would discard those who collaborated with it or employ them as agents when it installed them as so-called rulers and leaders. America came and played the same role and the same game, and it did the same to those who collaborated with it—mere promises exploited to serve its interests, until its interests were achieved, its promises vanished as if they had never existed!
2- It is not unlikely that Turkey will officially recognize the Kurdistan region but within the state of Iraq without a separate state for them, on the condition of expelling the PKK. Abdullah Gul stated to journalists after his meeting with Nechirvan Barzani: "I told him explicitly that the PKK terrorist organization and its camps are in your region. You should take a clear stand against it. When it is eliminated, everything between us and you is possible. You are our neighbors and relatives." (Reuters, 25/03/2009). Gul had met with Talabani on 17/03/2009 in Istanbul on the sidelines of the 5th World Water Forum and stated from there the impossibility of establishing a Kurdish state, and that a Kurdish state exists only in Kurdish poetry. He demanded that the PKK lay down its arms.
It appears that the rulers of the Kurdistan region want to respond to Turkey's requests in exchange for Turkey's recognition of them. Nechirvan Barzani said: "We want the relationship with Turkey to be good, and we understand Turkey's concerns." (CNN American, 25/03/2009). He added, "We do not accept attacks on neighboring countries from Iraq or from the Kurdistan region." (CNN American, 25/03/2009). It was recently announced by sources in the Turkish Foreign Ministry that Turkey accepted the request of the President of the Kurdistan region, Masoud Barzani, to visit Ankara. (CNN, 26/03/2009). This visit relates to the same subject, which is the expulsion of the PKK from the Kurdistan region in exchange for Turkey's recognition of the region within the state of Iraq; this is despite the fact that the PKK's presence in northern Iraq was under the cover of Barzani’s "Kurdistan Democratic Party"!!
3- Alongside this, Gul's visit also touched upon settling the Kirkuk issue; Turkey refuses to annex Kirkuk to the Kurdistan region. Abdullah Gul met with representatives of the Turkmens and assured them that Turkey refuses the annexation of Kirkuk to any party. He did not focus heavily on it because it comes in second place for Turkey, and on the other hand, Turkey knows there are major obstacles preventing the annexation of Kirkuk to Kurdistan, and Turkey is one of those obstacles.
There were other issues discussed such as oil transportation through Turkey, trade, and increasing the amount of water; both parties showed they agreed on them.
4- As for whether the visit has an international dimension, yes, and it is the most important part. The visit of the President of Turkey to Iraq comes after the American decision regarding the gradual withdrawal of their forces from Iraq except for sensitive centers. America wants countries loyal to it to play the role in its place so that another major power does not come and exploit the situation and replace America or work to disrupt its influence.
From here was the role of Iran in coordination with America, which it agreed upon, and this was crowned by the visit of the Iranian President to Baghdad last year. However, America does not want to rely on a single state; one state might be able to play a certain role, but it cannot do everything America asks of it. Therefore, America wants a role for Turkey and Syria as well... hence Gul's visit to Iraq. Following Gul's visit, the Foreign Minister of Syria visited Iraq and met with Talabani. America cannot achieve all it wants in isolation from neighboring countries. This applies to every country. We see it seeking help from Pakistan and Iran, neighbors of Afghanistan, to achieve its goals in Afghanistan, even seeking help from countries where its influence overlaps with British influence, like Saudi Arabia, to influence the mujahideen there to accept negotiations. The Hague Conference held yesterday, 31/03/2009, regarding Afghanistan is the strongest evidence of this. About seventy countries attended, and one of the most prominent attendees was Iran, whose delegation head met with the US envoy for Afghanistan; the meeting was described as "cordial"...!
America wants to maintain its influence in Iraq and its status as the world's primary superpower after tasting the bitterness of the defeats inflicted upon it there at the hands of those resisting it, which almost lowered its international status and displaced it from its position as the leading state in the world. Nevertheless, confidence in it as the primary superpower, which claimed to do whatever it wished, has been shaken.
Therefore, Obama's message to Turkey was that America wants to seek help from Turkey. America’s seeking help from Turkey, or more accurately, America's use of Turkey, is not only regarding the situation in Iraq; there are several issues America wants to use Turkey for, such as the Caucasus and Russia issue, and the Middle East issue. For this reason, the new American President, Obama, announced that he would visit Turkey soon. Obama had directed another message to Iran to seek its help, or rather use it, in the Afghanistan issue alongside the Iraq issue.
The Third Question:
Sheikh Sharif Ahmed has become the President of Somalia. Does this mean the Islamic Courts have returned to Somalia as they were two years ago? If so, then why does Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen stand against it, when it was part of the Courts or close to them? If Sharif Ahmed has changed and Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen stood against him because of his deviation, does this mean Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen is a sincere and faithful movement?
The Answer:
Yes, Sheikh Sharif Ahmed today is not like he was yesterday. When he was the head of the Islamic Courts Union previously and reached power in Somalia, he was at that time fighting the foreign ambitions of the colonialist kuffar in Somalia and calling for the implementation of Islamic Sharia. However, his political awareness was weak, as is the case with most armed Islamic movements. Therefore, "sincere people" sent him a delegation advising him not to negotiate with the government of Abdullahi Yusuf, as it was a subordinate of America, and not to negotiate with America either directly or indirectly through its agents or under the shadow of the United Nations, the Arab League, or the African Union... for the fingers of America, even its hands, are not absent from tampering with and directing all of those. The delegation also advised him to continue his hostility toward the colonialist kuffar... However, he did not take the advice correctly; rather, he negotiated with Abdullahi Yusuf's government in Khartoum and under the shadow of the United Nations, the Arab League, and the African Union...
This was while he was in power. As for after the Ethiopian invasion and Sharif’s exit from Somalia to Kenya, and later reaching Djibouti, he became the head of the Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia (Djibouti wing) after the Islamic Courts split into two wings, settling in Asmara and Djibouti, despite the two countries being pro-Western...! During this time, Sheikh Sharif immersed himself in direct and indirect negotiations, until things reached the point of him heading a government in Somalia that does not differ much from Abdullahi Yusuf's government, with the blessing of America, the West, and agents... and things proceeded as follows:
1- After Sheikh Sharif left Somalia following the defeat of the Islamic Courts at the end of 2006 CE against the Ethiopian forces—which America pushed to invade Somalia on its behalf—when he went to Kenya, he met with the US Ambassador to Kenya in the presence of CIA officials.
2- After the Courts split and had two wings, Sheikh Sharif Ahmed headed the Djibouti wing, and negotiations began between him and Abdullahi Yusuf's government and Ethiopia until the Djibouti Agreement was signed on 26/10/2008 CE.
3- The agreement came under American sponsorship and with Ethiopian approval. This was because the Ethiopian army had suffered several losses and wanted to leave but by saving face, meaning through an agreement that stipulated that. Therefore, after the signing of the agreement, Ethiopia began making statements about withdrawing its forces.
Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported on 28/11/2008 that Ethiopia would withdraw from Somalia by the end of the year in two official letters to the African Union and the United Nations. The agency said that Wahidi Bella, the spokesperson for the Ethiopian Foreign Ministry, told it: "We have reached the conclusion that it is inappropriate for Ethiopia to keep its forces in Somalia. We have done our job and we are proud of that, but the hopes we placed in the international community were disappointed." This Ethiopian spokesperson had previously commented on 24/11/2008 to the same agency on the agreement in Djibouti, saying: "It is in line with Ethiopia's position and the orderly withdrawal of its forces."
Somalia's affairs matter to Ethiopia, not only as a proxy fighter for America, but also because it is a neighbor and occupies the Somali Ogaden region, over which Somalia fought a war with Ethiopia in 1977 and 1978 to recover it but failed. Ethiopia wants a government in Somalia that does not threaten it or demand Ogaden, in addition to Ethiopia's service to America's interests in the Horn of Africa. It was America that sent Ethiopia into Somalia, and it was America that asked it to withdraw after the Djibouti agreement on 26/10/2008 CE, when it found its goal in Sheikh Sharif.
4- America saw that Sheikh Sharif was the most capable of facing the mujahideen because he has an Islamic background. Ethiopia, as an African state, cannot continue battling the Islamists, so it was better for America to use one of the Islamists to play this role. America set its agents in Kenya and Sudan upon Sharif to win him over, especially Sudan. Political expert Hassan Makki says: "The Sudanese government told Sharif that he cannot bypass the Ethiopians, and he cannot deal with the international community as if it does not exist, so he began to listen to these tips, especially since he is a graduate of Sudanese educational institutions." He adds: "The Sudanese mediator played a major role in these reconciliations"—meaning in the Djibouti talks.
Thus, America succeeded in winning over Sheikh Sharif to the point that he began praising it. In an interview with "Voice of America – Somali Section" on 20/02/2009, he described American policy toward Somalia as positive since the start of negotiations until now. He said: "We hope these efforts continue."!
5- After Sheikh Sharif became President of Somalia by a majority vote from the parliament that existed during the era of Abdullahi Yusuf! The next step was choosing the Prime Minister. Here too, the role of America came. Omar Abdirashid Sharmarke was chosen; he lived in the United States and is described as moderate by US standards. He held several positions in the United Nations and was Somalia's ambassador to Washington during the government of Abdullahi Yusuf, and he is the son of a former Somali president.
America was keen on him taking the premiership because of his previous residence in America, and also because he was not tainted by the civil war as he was far from it and his country. Therefore, he had a kind of acceptance among the general public in Somalia.
It is worth noting that, as is the habit of colonialist states, if they find their interest with another man other than the one currently serving them, they discard him like a date pit and bring in the other who achieves their interests with better capability. America abandoned Abdullahi Yusuf, who had become burnt out, hated, and exposed for his betrayal of Somalia. He was forced to resign on 29/12/2008 CE and leave Mogadishu for his birthplace in Puntland, the region he had ruled from 1998 until 2004 when he was declared President of Somalia; he later took refuge in Yemen...
7- America thought that by succeeding in having Sheikh Sharif reach the presidency—being of an Islamic background in the Courts which had public support during their rule—and also by having a Prime Minister who was far from the civil war, which would give him acceptance among the general public, it had succeeded in seizing control of Somalia. However, its expectation was disappointed when the reality of the new government in Somalia was exposed. It became clear that this government does not differ much from the previous one, except that it wears clothes that are more decorative and beautiful than the clothes of the previous government.
The difference between the two regimes, if we think well of them, is that Abdullahi Yusuf was serving America knowingly, while Sheikh Sharif serves America out of ignorance, thinking he is doing good for Somalia! We would have loved for Sheikh Sharif to remain as he started, far from the conspiracies of the colonialist kuffar, and perhaps he will return to his former self, by the will of Allah.
8- In light of what has been revealed about this government, Muslim resistance has continued at its strongest, the most prominent of which was Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen.
Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen split from the Islamic Courts Union, both the Asmara wing and the Djibouti wing, after they signed the Asmara agreement in September 2007 CE, accusing them of allied with secularists and abandoning Jihad in the way of Allah...
It declares that it wants Jihad against Ethiopia and against America to liberate the entire Horn of Africa region, and it also wants to establish an Islamic rule that transcends narrow nationalisms... The US State Department issued a statement declaring that the Al-Shabaab movement is an extremist and violent group, several of whose members belong to the Al-Qaeda organization. (People's Daily Online Chinese, 18/03/2008). The United States had arrested its former leader Ismail Arale in mid-2007 in Djibouti and placed him in the Guantanamo detention center. The movement chose Mukhtar Abdirahman "Abu Zubeyr" as its leader and Mukhtar Robow "Abu Mansur" as its official spokesperson. (Al-Arabiya, 22/12/2007). This official spokesperson responded to the US State Department by saying: "Our relationship with Al-Qaeda is the relationship of a Muslim with his Muslim brother, and at the core of the Muslim's creed is (Al-Wala' wal-Bara') and (to distance ourselves from the kuffar and to connect with and love all Muslims)." He said that the movement "is happy and proud of the US decision to place it on the terrorism list." A statement issued by the movement on 05/04/2008 CE said: "We know with certainty that we were not targeted because we are Somalis, but because we carry the thought of Jihad in its general sense, which does not recognize imaginary borders or what is called 'international legitimacy'."
Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen succeeded in controlling many Somali cities, far exceeding the government's control. It appears from this movement that it fights the colonialist kuffar with sincerity and faithfulness... However, the point of weakness, as we mentioned, in armed Islamic movements is the weakness of political awareness. We ask Allah (swt) for this movement to continue its strong stance against the colonialist kuffar.
Nonetheless, it is more aware than the Islamic Party (Hezb al-Islami), which also opposes Sheikh Sharif's government and is composed of four movements, the most prominent of which are: the Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia (Asmara wing) led by Hassan Dahir Aweys, and the other three movements in the Islamic Party: the Kamboni Camp, the Islamic Front, and the Faruq Camp. The "Greeing website" page asked on 24/01/2009 CE—a page close to the Al-Shabaab movement—asking Hassan Dahir Aweys about the reason for his presence in the Eritrean capital, Asmara. He replied: "These people have become to us like the Negus was to the early Muslims!!" This is what he says!!
We ask Allah (swt) for the Islamic movements to have sincerity to Allah (swt), truthfulness with the Messenger of Allah (saw), and complete awareness of the plans and conspiracies of the kuffar. Indeed, they plot against Islam and harbor evil for it beyond what they declare.
قَدْ بَدَتِ الْبَغْضَاءُ مِنْ أَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَمَا تُخْفِي صُدُورُهُمْ أَكْبَرُ
"Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater." (QS Ali 'Imran [3]: 118)
And whoever relies on them will lose his worldly life and the Hereafter, and that is the manifest loss. The evidence for this is abundant and extensive...