Middle East and Politics of Imperialism

UN Secretary General Mr. Kofi Annan’s last ditch diplomatic efforts have saved US-led air strike against Iraq. With this, it appears that the issue has been resolved. But, the fact is that the postponed bloodshed and the grand scale mobilization is part of hide-seek game which is being played in the area since the last 50 years and which shall continue in future as well. Presently, the Security Council is working on modalities of a draft resolution to ratify Feb.23 Baghdad Agreement. But it is now presumed that the inspection process will go on as before, with Iraq getting regular drubbing from America and its partner Britain. What the two primarily want is that President Saddam Hussein’s presidential sites should not be left out of the rigorous and intrusive process of inspection.

The present crisis of Middle East reflects a stage-run tragedy of the Ummah. This tragic drama is being enacted jointly or severally by America, the West, UN, Israel, the Arab world ruling junta, leadership in Turkey and the ruling clique of Iraq, headed by Saddam Hussein. The modes through which this drama is justified and floated around the globe via CNN and BBC, are the activities like creating warlike situations, then undoing them, imposing sanctions and relaxing them, claims and reasoning, real intentions and conspiracies, frequent dangling, holding out promises and flouting them later. While the Muslim masses, who are the real heir and rightful claimants of this land, have no role to play. After the 1991 Gulf War, the plot of this drama became all the more manifest. Ambiguity, if there was any in this regard, should now stand removed. What is happening today is exactly according to the whole preconceived scheme.

What seems imminent in the present Middle East crisis situation is that turgid atmosphere shall prevail; peace shall be hard to achieve, human rights shall be eschewed, and; whilst America and Europe shall continue drawing oil premium, the Muslim rulers will slumber and remain immersed in pretentious luxury. Resultantly, Palestine issue shall become all the more entangled; Israel’s prowess shall be enhanced, and ultimately, America shall overshadow the entire region economically, politically and militarily. War, threat of war, creating war situation and then evading it — all constitute means to firm-up grip on region. With fresh pretensions, deceptive designs and multi-billion dollar projects, the efforts are on to deprive Ummah of its authority and freedom in this area of historic and pivotal importance. The objective is to snatch development fruits, growth opportunities, people’s faith, their rich culture, civilization and legitimate aspirations.

In such circumstances, it is necessary that the real game must be understood and the situation should not be looked at superficially. Muslim Ummah should be awakened and prepared to frustrate the enemy maneuverings. The present tussle in Iraq provides an opportunity to analyze the situation the Muslim Ummah should not let go waste.

Historical Perspective

The fate of the Middle East during the 20^th century remained in hands of Imperialist powers, Britain and France. Then Italy grabbed its share. Towards the end United States and Russia stabilized their position here. With Russian retreat over a decade ago, America has been free to play a key role in making and marring the scenario as world power.

Before the end of WWI, the geo-political map of the Middle East had already been drawn up. Its basics were decided in the Anglo-French Agreement of May 1916. Under Sykes Picot Agreement, the two Imperialist powers had appropriated the entire region between themselves. Later in 1917 a place was carved out for Israel through Balfour Declaration. The Ottoman Empire was obliterated under the 1920 Treaty of Severs. The Turkish authority over Antolia was saved due to the grand Turk mujahedeen struggle under the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. Turk Republic over a limited area was recognized with precondition to implement a secular system of governance and the burial of Khilafat-e-Usmania — and that too after rendering Turkey limbless.

T.E. Lawrence — a British spy and agent — describes in Seven Pillars of Wisdom (London, 1940, pp. 23, 56) some features of the game that was played to destroy Ottoman Empire, to abuse Arab nationalism and to stabilize British Imperialism. Arabs were aroused against Turks. Instead of Islamic nationalism, linguistic and regional nationalism was encouraged. Lawrence acclaiming his success among Arabs, says: "I meant to make a new nation to restore a lost influence." Painting a rosy picture, he says: "We could see a new factor was needed in the East. Some power or race which would outweigh the Turks in numbers, in output and in mental activity."

This new force was apparently the promised Arab State that never came into being. In its place there emerged about a dozen (now 22) Arab occupied areas. All of them were brought under the suzerainty of Western nations. Finally, Israel was developed into the strongest and the most superior power of the region. It was provided protection and military cover by the United States and the European nations. From the 1919 Treaty of Versaille, the 1922 Protocol of Mandate of the League of Nations to the 1948 Resolution of the United Nations leading to division of Palestine and establishment of Israel, and later from the Security Council’s Resolutions of 1967, 1973 and 1991 till today, and from Camp David Agreement to Oslo Agreement — all efforts proved instrumental for keeping the Middle East divided, impotent and controlled. While the Imperialist powers were busy enacting this drama, the role of some of the leaders of this area was no less deceptive. They acted as Imperialist powers’ agents and tools merely for personal gains, domination and for lust of money. The state of affairs continues even today with changed names and characters. A young Urdu poet puts it as: "This house has been set ablaze by its own dwellers’ machinations."

An Arab intellectual Haleem Barakat pictures the situation arising after the Gulf War in The Arab World, Society, Culture and State (California University Press, Berkeley, London, 1993, pp. 269-277), saying:

The Gulf War seems to have shattered the conviction of Arabs that they can bridge the gap between reality and dream to make a fresh start. Suddenly, they find themselves in a situation not unlike the one they experienced at the end of World War I. Instead of a new era of independence and unity, they are overwhelmed by Western domination and threats of further fragmentation. Disturbing nightmares seem to have replaced their hopeful dreams, leaving them disoriented…Arabs blame the West for their defeats and failures, but they also blame themselves…I wish to reiterate the thesis that a devastating condition of alienation is responsible for the correct Arab plight. My basic argument is that Arab citizens have been rendered powerless because they have been excluded from the political process. Marginalised, and isolated from the human and material resources civil society should place at their disposal, the people of the area suffer from state tyranny over society…Arab states and rulers have become a force against their own society. No wonder then, that the Arab people experience acute feelings of alienation…Arabs have also been denied the right to influence decisions on how to utilize oil resources and the immense resources they generate. Economic power, not unlike political power, has become the privilege of a few families and tribal chiefs…Externally, Arabs suffer from Western-Zionist hegemony. Internally they suffer from lack of freedom and dignity.

This is the realistic presentation of the state of affairs that helps in understanding the factors of their weakness. The analysis of the Western thinkers is not different from it. Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Adviser of President Carter, while surveying the Arab world, writes in his recent book Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty First Century (A Touchstone Book, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1995, p. 214):

Conflict and instability are likely to remain as central and continuing realities in the Islamic crescent — the arc of crisis — which spans the Middle East and Southern Eurasia…Traditional Arab disunity, deliberately abetted by the Western powers interested in retaining control over the Arab supply of oil, will also contribute to persistent regional instability.

Gulf War Drama?

To understand the blood-bath that is repeated every now and then in the Middle East and the way crisis after crisis engulfs this area and one country is pitted against the other, it is imperative to look into the internal scenario and the Imperialistic game of the external forces. Gulf War is not simply Iraq attacking Kuwait (although it was and is condemnable in all respects), but it has to be seen in the light of realities and background that is now the tragedy of the Middle East.

Today America and Britain are looking for excuses to attack Iraq and try giving their own interpretations to the UN Resolutions. But a deep insight into the state of affairs prevalent now shall reveal that these are the plots of a despicable drama. Islamic Revolution in Iran, Jihad Movement of Afghanistan and Intefada in Palestine are indicators of the advancement towards the goal of Islamic revival of the Muslim Ummah in general and the Arab World in particular. But these are the very factors which alarmed the West. Imperialist forces thus entered the arena, equipped with strategies to obstruct revival of Islam, both in academic and practical spheres. Saddam Hussein, now being dubbed Hitler, was raised to this position then by the Western nations themselves. He was supplied with most lethal weaponry, while the Arab countries flowed oil towards him when the Iraq-Iran War engulfed the entire Middle East region. The war blew in smoke seven to eight hundred billion dollars of Iran and the Arab countries. Besides, hundreds of thousands of people were killed.

On conclusion of war, America and the West felt threatened by the immense military might that Iraq had acquired during the war. Such a threat could alter regional power equation in future. Since supremacy and protection of Israel was central policy target, there arose a need for a war afresh that may destroy Iraqi potential and the economic affluence of the Arab countries. Thus, on one hand Saddam was given green signal to attack Kuwait (the proof of remark lies in statement of the American ambassador and the evidence of the former British Minister Tony Boun, according to which Saddam himself told them about his having been persuaded to do it), and on the other hand American allied forces launched an attack on the pretext of saving the Arab countries. It was done without consultation and in face of intense hatred of the Arab and Muslim masses. When war erupted, Saddam as well as his army, who talked of the "Mothers of all Wars" and was not prepared for any timely amicable settlement, did not act in any significant manner. The result was large scale massacre of civilians and destruction of the major portion of his military might. Israel remained unhurt. Arabs had to bear burden of war and the devastation that followed. According to the estimates of the Arab Economic Fund itself, the loss amounted to $760 bn., which is double the external debt of the entire Muslim World.

Present Scenario

Despite all, Saddam Hussein still remains in his saddle and will be allowed to remain in position with the objective to keep American forces on Arab soil and in the Gulf waters. Here, they shall continue receiving compensation with compound interest for the ‘grand’ services rendered by them. For Arabs, the ‘danger’ of Saddam Hussein should remain lurking in their minds. There should be skirmishes from time to time for Americans and Israelis to continue availing opportunities for executing their plans in the region. This is an Imperialist game whose characters can be seen with open eyes. In addition to all this, different methods have been employed to befool the masses. Might of Western media has been set a task to captivate the intellect and to create an atmosphere conducive for their designs.

After the 1991 War, three open lies were so forcefully and perpetually propagated that masses’ minds were poisoned. As a result, a war situation cropped up automatically. Later, the reality was unraveled that these lies were coined with intent to create an atmosphere and to make people submit, that:

• Iraq was going to attack Saudi Arabia;
• Iraq is going to be nuclear, and;
• Iraqi forces took out babies from the incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals and killed them.

In January 1996, the British TV Channel IV prepared a documentary "The Lies that Made the Gulf War." It exposed the three intentional, general lies and described as to how the media was utilized for waging the war. This is not an isolated event. The game is being played continuously. Even today, an atmosphere is being created for waging a war. Of course, the theme has changed. Today the stratagem pertains to chemical and bio-weaponry and now what is being propagated is that Iraq is in a position to destroy all the human beings of the world with gas and bacteria.

Some Alarming Aspects

We have no sympathies with Saddam Hussein or with the ruling junta in Iraq. They are also a character of this drama like many others. What we are concerned with is Muslim Ummah — be it in Iraq, in the Arab World or in any part of the world. We want to express our apprehension in this regard. We have reasons and evidence that America and its agencies have on various occasions eliminated the political leadership of ‘rogue’ countries through illicit means by violating the international law flagrantly and even killing them, e.g. Dr. Musaddaq in Iran and Dr. Salvadoralanve of Chile. They could have done the same with Saddam Hussein, but they have not. Their objective was not the removal of Saddam nor is it now. They only want to blackmail the whole Arab world projecting Saddam as a security risk. Their real objective is their hegemony and control over the Middle East, supremacy of Israel in the region. They want to prevent any power from emerging, lest it may become a threat to Israel. In this framework Saddam Hussein and Iraq are playing a very useful role for them. The managing editor of a well known American magazine Foreign Affairs, who is also co-editor of Newsweek, depicts an eye opening picture of this whole game. The background is the deployment and action of the Saddam army in 1986 in the peripheral areas of Iraq — the areas that had been specifically protected by America and the UN and where America has been supporting one Kurd party against others. It reads as under:

The latest round of salvo between Saddam Hussein and the United States has once again reminded Americans that Saddam is still alive and in power, which is said to bring home the incomplete close of the Gulf War and failure of American diplomacy in the Middle East. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If Saddam Hussein did not exist, we would have to invent him. He is the linchpin of American policy in the Middle East. Without him, Washington would be stumbling in the desert sands.

The Persian Gulf is an area of vital interest to the United States, with vast resources of oil — the lifeblood of the industrialized world — and a slew of historical ties to America. Simple balance of power politics suggests that no hostile state should dominate this area. The United States has maintained such policy for more than 40 years, from Washington opposition the Egypt’s quest for regional hegemony — disguised as Pan-Arabism — in the 1950s to its reversal of the Iraqi invasion in 1990.

Since the United States needs to maintain a long-term policy as the region’s balance, it needs allies abroad and public support at home. The existence of Saddam Hussein immeasurably helps both tasks. If not for Saddam, would the Saudi royal family terrified of being seen as an American protectorate (which in a sense it is), allow American troops on their soil? Would Kuwait house more than 30,000 pieces of American combat hardware, kept in read, should the need arise? Would the King of Jordan, the political weather vane of the region, allow the marines to conduct exercises within his borders? (Newsweek, Sept. l6,1996, p-17)

Mr. Brunt Eschokraft, the National Security Adviser of President Ford and President Bush, has in his own way acknowledged the efficacy and the need of Saddam Hussein who fits in the American policy which is not for removing him (see Newsweek of Sept. 23, 1996, p.19).

For continuing this game, what is needed is occasional disturbances, some encounter dramas, military movements, wars as and when needed and large scale killings as well. This game is being played ruthlessly. Further, the price of these services is also being charged very cunningly, not only from the Arab rulers but from the poor Iraqis as well.

The magnitude of the military might with which America and Allies invaded Iraq in 1991 can be gauged from the fact that more than 3,000 fighter planes participated along with 500,000 heavily mounted men. America utilized 70 per cent of its entire global air force and 40 per cent of its total tank force to kill the Iraqi ‘sparrows.’ It used 6800 tons of bombs over Vietnam during 8½ years, while in Iraq 106,000 ton bombs were dropped within 43 days; thus Iraq was turned into an occupied land. Since the 1991 Gulf War, 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed either during the war or due to its aftermath including sanctions. Children under 5 years of age whose mortality rate was 500 per month is now 6,500 per month and the mortality rate of the children above 5 years has increased from 1600 per month to 18000 per month. Is it not incessant genocide?

Discovering the underground Iraqi weapons is another astounding scandal. It has taken seven years already and more than 450 inspectors are engaged in the task. (By way of classification — out of the 450 only 41 were asked to quit as they were branded as US and British spies. But they were allowed to resume work after punitive threat of air attack). Seventh year is running out but these inspectors have not finished their work. They have destroyed the nuclear potential of Iraq. As many as 36,000 chemical bombs and artillery shells, 690 tons of chemical agent, and 817 out of 819 Scud missiles have been destroyed, beside total annihilation of many industrial plants. One of the inspectors has currently admitted about the role of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCI) saying that it has taken over Iraq through remote control. But the question now is for how long can it be tolerated?

Dual Standards

Here we need to ponder as to how America is maintaining double standards in this regard. Iraq has two objections to the unending role of this Commission. One, these inspectors insist on trampling down the political sovereignty of Iraq and the self respect of its rulers. This humiliation knows no bounds. Secondly, the majority of these inspectors is from America and Britain whose spite towards Iraq is an open secret, and one is expected to carry out impartial investigation. Both the objections are valid in principle and that is the reason that France, Russia and China have given weight to these objections and have expressed their dislike about the irresponsible statements of the Chief of the Commission, including the aspersion that Iraq can destroy Tel Aviv with its chemical bombs. Even UN Secretary General, Kufi Annan, has expressed concern about it. But America insists that it shall play the role of policeman, advocate and judge all together. The duplicity of America has been badly exposed by the law that has recently been passed by the American Senate. America has signed the Chemical Weapons Convention — which Pakistan has also signed without any discussion or deliberation at national level or taking into confidence the Parliament and the nation. Under this Convention, the UN inspectors can inspect the concerned sites within two weeks on receipt of any complaint. In this regard the American attitude, even after the confirmation of this Convention by the Senate, is that out of the total 20 occasions twice it has not allowed the inspectors when attempts were made to carry out inspections. Both of them were from the Organization of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, but American objection was that these inspectors were from Iran and Cuba. If America has the right to veto any inspector of the UN, then why cannot Iraq or any other country exercise the same right!

Article 307 of the law pending for approval is even more objectionable, according to which America wants to acquire the authority to deny inspection of any of its sites in the name of its national security. The law is conferring this authority upon the President and it is also being legislated that this law would not be challengeable in any court of law. Related provisions are as under:

The President may deny a request to inspect any facility in the United States in cases where the President determines that the inspection may pose a threat to the national security interests of the United States.

In another Article it has been provided:

any objection by the President to an individual serving as an inspector…shall not be revisable in any court for inspection. (The Guardian: Feb. 12, 1998, p.13)

The daily, The Guardian, in its editorial comments adjudges it as double standard for inspection. It declares in clear terms that Saddam Hussein is not the only one stretching the rules, America is also stretching them. Now who can defend the ethical position of America with this duplicity? As an Urdu poet has put it: "What was termed darkness of my deeds has become the adornment of your looks."

False Pretensions

1. To Serve Humanity

A fundamental question is whether America, Britain or any other country enjoys the right to ride over Iraq in the name of UN. This game is still on; 7 years have passed and now this oppression is fully exposed. The UN Resolution 687 makes mention of the stockpile of weapons but the permission for the use of force is not there. For that purpose Britain wanted to move a new Resolution but America was not willing, apprehending lest Russia, China or France veto it. It is clear admission of the fact that the use of force on the question of inspection is unjustified both legally and morally. Further, even the permanent members of the Security Council are not unanimous on this issue. Rest of the world is also against it. But America is bent upon forcing its own will, brushing aside the views of the world community. So obstinate they are that President Clinton boasted a number of times and even repeated it in his ‘State of the Nation’ address that "in case Saddam did not follow the unanimous view of the world community, we are prepared to punish him and we shall do it." But excepting America and Britain, all the countries of the world are opposed to the use of force on this issue. Russia has gone to the extent of warning America that in the event of America acting unilaterally, there is the possibility of Third World War. Russian parliament (DOMA) has passed a resolution formally and President Boris Yeltsin in his interview to an Italian paper has said:

History shows that attempts to establish world hegemony are always short lived. I realize it is not easy to break old habits…but I have to say the attempts of some countries to impose a unipoler model on the world, to assume the role of leader, are unrealistic and even dangerous. (The Guardian, Feb. 9, 1998, p.11)

Arab League represents 22 Arab countries. Its secretary general not only opposes this military action but calls it as obduracy and obstinacy of America. Most of the British national Press has criticized policy of the British Government and has declared it as surrender to America. During 1991 Gulf War, American and British Army Generals had also considered it dangerous and unproductive and had opined that it shall yield nothing except massacre of innocent people. American targets have been termed as ambiguous and just a Fuzzy Symbolism. (The Independent, Feb. 12, 1998). Mostly, the intellectuals treat it as an Imperialistic game, pure and simple. Herald Pinter, a writer and an intellectual, as well as Cardinal Basle Hume, have bitterly criticized USA. Pinter’s words are worth reproduction:

The USA is a monster. It is actually USA that needs to be stopped. Every one knows that war is appalling but what we lose sight of is that it is been abstracted now and sanitized to such a degree that Mr. Clinton has killed children and he has not even noticed it because they are actually abstractions — they are children dying of his sanctions…Despite continued references to the solidarity of the international community, the United States in fact held international law in contempt for so long it has succeeded in rendering the concept meaningless…The USA is now a bovine monster out of control. (The Independent, Feb. 13, 1998)

Scores of writers and political observers in America are condemning this bloody game and appealing the human conscience to rise against it.

2. To Uphold UN Resolutions

Another aspect of this invasion of Iraq is that it is being projected enforcement of Security Council Resolutions. But in these Resolutions there is no mention of the use of force. Even if this is ignored, question arises if the Security Council Resolutions relate to Iraq only? Whether all the Resolutions about Israel are simply blessings and benedictions in nature and need no enforcement? Israel has been openly violating not only one but dozens of them with full intransigence and America backing it. Is the Security Council Resolution No 242 not enforceable? Is it not a fact that the Security Council has passed more than 40 Resolutions about unlawful settlements in Palestine? Why these are not enforced? Is it also not a fact that thrice in 1997 the General Assembly passed almost unanimously Resolutions against the construction of fresh housing settlements in Baitul Maqdis by Israel with only one vote against it (i.e. one single vote of Israel; America too abstained in regard to these Resolutions), but Israel spurned all of them and declined to comply. There is none who can force Israel to comply with these Resolutions. Has not India openly flouted the three unambiguous Resolutions of the Security Council on Kashmir?

The renowned Egyptian paper Al-Ahram spells out this reality in clear terms:

Current tension in the region should be blamed on Israel, not Iraq. Each time the United States toughens its limb on Iraq and overlooks the nuclear, chemical and biological arsenal of Israel, which occupies Arab lands, it exposes its double standards. America will lose whatever remains of its creditability in the region if it launches aggression against Iraq. (Quoted in Middle East International, London, Feb. 13, 1998, p.5)

Reality is that America not only remains silent in regard to Israel’s excesses but the whole game is rather played to build up Israel as the supreme power of this region. Since the last 20 years, America has been providing economic aid to Israel (not loan but open assistance) amounting to $1.2 billion per year and $1.8 billion as Arms aid which adds up to $3 billion. This is happening at the juncture of a time when the external aid of all poor countries has been stopped or transformed into interest bearing loans. Israel is the richest country of the region — its GNP having risen from $20 bn. per year to $98 bn. per year during the last 20 years. Of this amount, 20 per cent is spent on its war preparations. From the next year America has promised to increase the military aid of Israel from $1.8 bn. to $2.4 bn.

While Israel is being patronized richly, the state of Israel is not only stultifying the UN Resolutions but it is not even prepared to fulfill in the least the promises held out to America in the Oslo Agreement itself. Under the Agreement, 30 per cent of the West Bank area of river Jordan was to be surrendered to the Palestine Authority, but practically only two and a half per cent area has been handed over. Israel is not prepared to give any more. None is now prepared to discuss anything as to the punitive action against it. Instead, in response to each case of obstinacy, America comes out with an assurance of support and backing to Israel.

This is the character of the world powers. Still the Arab world and the leadership of Muslim Ummah with its eyes shut, reposes all confidence in and lay hopes with America.

How to End the Game?

A survey of the situation brings out the salient features of the real game of the Imperialist powers. It is frivolous to expect anything good from them. Finally, the question is what the Muslim Ummah should do to meet this situation? Should the Ummah surrender to these powers? Should it forget its faith, give up the objectives of its life and accept the chains of new slavery willingly and wishfully, or fight valiantly against the forces of evil as was done in the past, and once again draw up the battle line relying on Allah and take the way of Intefada for the sake of our faith, our deen, our self-respect, our future at every front and ultimately at the universal level?

This is the only way leading to freedom, existence and respect and this too is the decision of history that the week and the vanquished always struggled through this way to get rid of the oppressors’ clutches and thus change the course of history itself. It is lesson of the history that no super power remains a super power for ever — limits to each power is set. History is the graveyard of at least 26 super powers and at least two such powers (Britain and Russia) have gone down in our life time and we saw super powers becoming powerless. What is needed is determining the objectives correctly and undertake planning for a long enduring struggle. About America’s future role in Muslim world, Brezenski could not resist saying:

Yet that preponderance is likely to remain quite superficial and even brittle, largely because there is no underlying bonds of shared values of political culture or religion between America and its Arab client states. American power rests largely on an alliance with local governments which, in several cases based on corrupt and obscenely rich classes, increasingly run the risk of losing touch with their own populations…With both religion and nationalism comprising against an alien regional hegemony, the current American supremacy in the Middle East is built, quite literally, on sand…

Arab hostility towards the United States is also certain to intensify if American efforts to promote the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict should form to be a failure…American support for Israel could be viewed as a necessary expression of American self-interest as well as an out of moral obligation towards the Jewish people. But in the era of one-sided American preponderance, an American failure to promote peaceful termination of the Arab-Israeli conflict is likely to facilitate the mobilization of religious fundamentalism and nationalist radicalism against continued American regional supremacy. (Out of Control, pp.162,163)

Deliverance of the Muslim Ummah lies only in setting its own house in order and in renovating it too. Faith, reliance on Allah, mass awareness, fighting for the protection of their rights and popular Intefada against Imperial dominance and dictatorial system of government, are the weapons with which the worst despotic powers are to be encountered. The real issue is not the American position in regard to Iraq only, but it extends to Imperialistic dominance over the whole Islamic world; and it is not the external forces only that are working towards this end, but insiders too are towing this line. We can ensure our freedom, the safety of our faith and religion by encountering both of them at a time. Therefore, it is essential to have correct conception of the real danger, to recognize all the characters of the game and to draw plans for encountering them through developing force of faith, organizing public power for an unrelenting long struggle. Muslim Ummah, instead of dreaming for quick returns, has to think in terms of solid and enduring Jihad on every front of life.

Muslims all over the world should protest against this assault from America and the western nations and urge upon our own governments not to behave like silent spectators in the situation now prevalent. It is a matter of sorrow and grief that when some intellectuals, writers and politicians of the West are raising their voice against all this duplicity, the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) is in deep slumber. Some of the Muslim and Arab rulers did express their mind but in low tone, rather sheepishly, while others just bowed out.

Protest and accountability may be the foremost needs but these are not enough to meet the challenge. What is now most required is the awakening among the masses, Jihad and Intefada for the sake of righteousness.