I was listening to a debate on the radio discussing the topic of high quality childcare for children in society.  The debate was centred around how childcare must become more affordable, perhaps subsidised like other European countries, and of better quality across the UK, to help women. Or more specifically, to help women go back to work.  Whilst listening, lots of things were going through my mind. And I thought I would share a few of them:

1)    The stay-at-home mother is rarely if ever, glorified or valued in society or in the media. She is not aided through Government support of any kind.  And the fact that the Government and media dominant discussion is always about how to make childcare better and more easily accessible, takes the option of staying at home to bring up your children, away from the table before women have even had a chance to decide.

2)    The idea was discussed that sending young children to nurseries/ day care centres is good for their stimulation, learning and overall outcomes. There is an assumption that if a professional can get a child to learn their abc's especially early, this is the marker of development of a child. I'm not saying reading is not important, but this cannot compensate for the fact that the child is still detached from their main carers, their parents, and the effect this has on the child's overall outcomes.  Because in the real world, children do not just develop in the areas of reading and writing - Their emotional, social development as well as development of character and values, all form the ‘education' of a child.  And to deny that is to deny children their real education. This is just not considered or discussed enough at all, in the public domain.

3)    Another comment made was how women only really need to commit to being at home with children for a very ‘short time' of their lives, up to three years, and so should not take their foot out of their career door.  Such a comment reflects a mindset that has not appreciated the role a mother can and should have in a child's life, at all.  The fact that the mother forms the backbone of the child's moral and emotional support, and her dominant presence in the child's life can shape that child through to adulthood, is totally undermined.  The eruption of after-school clubs across the country, reflect this mentality where after school children must be bussed on mass to another ‘school' where they are supposed to play and do activities for another few hours till their parents can pick them up (after work of course).  I particularly remember a girl in my school who attended one such club, who actually told me that despite how fun the club was she was just jealous her mum was not at the school gate and everyone else's mums were.

A society which is driven by its economic output and GDP will naturally lean towards whatever will get its' maximum workforce back to work and therefore discussions in a Capitalist society will always be around getting women back into work. However such a lack of importance on motherhood has effectively wiped out the integral and important societal role that a mother plays. Being a mother is not just about changing nappies and biding time until you can get them into a school to be really ‘educated'; but is about nurturing and shaping the next generation in the palm of your hand through a deep, loving and secure relationship. Such a massive task requires focus, dedication, attention and time.  Islam places the role of the mother with such value and weight, that women embrace it with honour and pursue it with dedication.  The beautiful duaa of the Quran:

((وَقُل رَّبِّ ارْحَمْهُمَا كَمَا رَبَّيَانِي صَغِيرًا))

"My Lord! Bestow on them [parents] your mercy as they cherished me in childhood" [TMQ 17:24]

Illustrates how Muslim parents view their responsibility  - They not only fulfil their obligation, but cherish it.  Mothers of the great scholars in Islam are examples of such cherishing such as the mother of Imam Shafi'i who as a single mother shaped his education, even migrating to another place in order to do this - And look at who Imam Shafii'i became, SubhanAllah!  But if the Capitalist societies continue to have their way, most women won't have the pleasure of experiencing the breadth and depth of the role of motherhood.  Simply because it is being taken away by ‘high-quality childcare.'

Umm Abdullah Khan

Women's Media Representative Hizb ut Tahrir / Britain

Speakers at public meetings organized by Hizb ut Tahrir today outside mosques in Dhaka, Chittagong and Sylhet said the Hasina government's decision to sign the Trade and Investment Co-operation Framework Agreement (TICFA) with the United States is against the interests of the country and contradicts Islam. Sheikh Hasina approved the signing of the agreement at a cabinet meeting on 17^th June (2013). After the decision, the Cabinet Secretary commented that trade and investment related issues will be settled through discussions in the Council to be set up under the agreement. Speakers said essentially this means that after it's signing TICFA will be a US policy tool whereby they will formally dictate all business, industry and investment related policies of Bangladesh. US business and investment proposals will get priority in Bangladesh. Bangladesh will be forced to source major products and services from USA and pay huge sums in royalties to US corporations. In cases of crimes like Occidental's burning the country's gas worth millions of dollars, the Council will safeguard the interests of US corporations denying the rights of the Ummah.

Speakers said Hasina has pursued policies against Islam and disregarding Islam ever since she has come to power and therefore she did not hesitate in approving this agreement which contradicts Islam. Islam has provided detailed rules and conditions for international treaties. The Qur'an and the Sunnah do not permit any agreement which subordinates the Muslims to the disbelieving states and establishes their authority in Muslims lands. Allah (swt) says,

((وَلَنْ يَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ لِلْكَافِرِينَ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ سَبِيلاً))

"...And never will Allah allow the disbelievers a way (to dominate) over the believers." [Surah An-Nisa: 141]

According to Islam, international agreements must enhance the cause of Islam and the interests of the Ummah. Treaties that increase the strengths of the disbelievers are prohibited. Moreover treaties cannot be signed with an actual belligerent disbelieving state such as the crusader America which is engaged in war against Islam and the Muslims. Therefore, TICFA is a prohibited treaty from the point of view of Islam and Muslims have a duty to reject it.

Finally the speakers said both the Awami League and BNP are ready to do anything for power including shaking hands with criminal US governments whose hands are soaked with the blood of innocent Muslims. They urged all sincere Muslims to reject TICFA, reject the current corrupt ruling regime and work for establishing the Khilafah "Caliphate". Only the sincere leadership of the Khilafah "Caliphate" state guided by the Qur'an and the Sunnah will secure the interests of the Ummah.

The Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir

Wilayah Bangladesh

Like a thief in the night British Prime Minister Cameron entered Afghanistan unannounced, hurriedly inspected his crusader troops in fear of his life, met the American puppet, Karzai, to urge negotiations and then shiftily moved on to Pakistan for further mischief. Instead of turning him back on his heels in disgrace, the Kayani-Sharif regime extended this criminal crusader the most powerful Muslim state's protocol. Hizb ut Tahrir asks for what "thanks" and "respect" is this protocol extended?!

Question:

It is known that Janukowytsch is Russia's man and he is currently the Ukrainian president. So naturally he is directed towards Russia, but it is noticeable that his standpoints towards Europe and the U.S. are soft. Does that mean he is turning away from Russia towards the West or is this in agreement with Russia to maintain his power against the interference and pressure Janukowytsch is exposed to?

Answer:

To understand the answer, one has to be aware of the international reality concerning Ukraine...Ukraine is an old center of conflict between Russia and Europe. Then America entered into the conflict in modern times. This conflict, especially between Russia and Europe, has had a profound impact on the Ukrainian people and their view towards the west and Russia. So the people living in the east of the country are loyal to Russia whereas the people living in the west of the country are affected by Europe and America, therefore the country is actually divided into two parts. On top of that the political elite in Ukraine has for years been working to balance the relations between the European power and Russia or the bias of the dominant power, be it Europe or Russia.

Thereby, Ukraine is important to these states:

1. Ukraine is one of the most important countries for Russia, in case Russia loses it, the West will be directly on its borders, so it is like a protective shield from Europe, besides its economic importance, since the Russian gas pipelines run through it towards the west.

It is well known that Russia is striving to regain its dominance in the region of the Soviet Union, which had included Ukraine. But at the out-break of the so-called Orange Revolution and Juschtschenko's success to climb into power in the 2005 elections, Russia's influence in Ukraine weakened, because Juschtschenko is America's agent, therefore America took advantage of his ruling period, accelerating the integration of Ukraine with the West. Throughout his time in office, Juschtschenko was threatening to expel the Russian Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol, when the lease of the Russian military expires in 2017. Also Juschtschenko did not hide his wish to completely integrate Ukraine in western institutions such as the European Union and the NATO. Kiev entered into negotiations on a partnership agreement with the European Union and called for an action plan for membership in the NATO...Thereby Russia's influence was troubled, but in February 2010 it managed to bring its man in Ukraine, Wiktor Janukowytsch, to power. He is the fourth president of the country and a strong supporter of Russia. From this time America's influence started declining, at the same time the Ukraine went back to normalize its relations with Russia.

On 4/21/2010, less than two months after ascending into power, President Janukowytsch met with Russian President Medvedev in Kharkov. In the meeting he agreed to extend the lease of the Black Sea Fleet for an additional 25 years, which expires in 2042, and in return, Russian Gazprom agreed to reduce the price of natural gas to $100 per 1,000 m3 for the remainder of the gas contract, which was signed in 2009. Former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko objected to the agreements and stated they were contradicting the constitution, and for her strong objection she was put in prison.

Although the Ukraine during the reign of Janukowytsch expressed its desire to maintain cooperative relations with the NATO, Janukowytsch's government neither demanded membership in the NATO nor a plan of action to reach membership. Through these policies, the agenda of bilateral relations between Kiev and Moscow became one in favor of Russia.

On the domestic front, Janukowytsch's policies became increasingly authoritarian, such that on the 30^th of September 2010 the Constitutional Court in Ukraine annulled amendments to the constitution previously approved by the Ukrainian parliament in December 2004. This happened after the judges opposing this decision were relieved and four judges in favor of the decision were appointed in their place, allowing Janukowytsch to return back to the days before the Orange Revolution, giving the President the power of influence and weakening the authority of Parliament.

2. Europe is aware that Russia is exploiting its gas leaf and its supply of the West via the Ukraine, utilizing it to apply pressure and create temptation to keep the Ukraine under Russian influence, or at least not to show loyalty to Europe at Russian expense. So Europe is trying to lure the Ukraine with money and alternative solutions, away from its complete dependence on Russian gas. Therefore the European Union offered the Ukraine money to upgrade the gas infrastructure and technology, and to participate in the exploitation of shale gas, and there has been talk of making gas the hub of energy. Based on this background, Ukraine signed the European Union Protocol of Accession to the treaty power in September 2010, which entered into force in February 2011. Earlier this year, Ukraine also signed the $ 10 billion contract with Shell to exploit shale gas reserves in Ukraine, this is to be one of the largest partnerships in Europe. It is believed that it will be one of the largest contracts to extract natural gas from underground shale for the next fifty years in Europe.

Ukraine is currently negotiating with the European Union with regards to its integration in it, but the Regions Party (Janukowytsch's Party) impedes these efforts. The European Union Heads of Mission to Ukraine (John Tempinski) has urged members of the Party of Regions to stop obstructing the work of the parliamentary committee for European integration; such developments disturb Russia, and to confront the economic incentives of the European Union as part of the integrative talks, Russia offered Ukraine to become a member of the Customs Union. The result of Russian pressure and Janukowytsch's pro-Russian attitude is the ratification of the (Russian) Free Trade Area Agreement by the Ukrainian Parliament on 7/30/2012. Ukraine is the third state after Russia and Belarus to ratify the convention, which had been established on 10/18/2011 and signed initially by eight countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States under the chairmanship of Russia, which are Belarus and Ukraine, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova and Tajikistan. The agreement has been ratified by Russia and Belarus, then Ukraine, and the ratification of the other countries is awaited.

Janukowytsch, however, just as being exposed to Russian pressure, is also under pressure from the European Union, which objects to Ukraine joining the Customs Union with Russia and further integration with Russia. Therefore, the European Union told Ukraine in the summit that brought them together recently on 03/25/2013 in Brussels that they could not combine membership of the European Union and the Customs Union. The EU has facilitated for Ukraine to join the World Trade Organization and EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson said on 01/14/2013: "The European Union is a strong supporter of Ukraine's membership in the WTO and this is the first step towards greater integration of Ukraine with the global and European economy."

Thus it seems clear that Janukowytsch, while trying to maintain close ties with Russia, is also trying to further approach the European Union, so he aims to balance between European and Russian interests in Ukraine.

3. America has found the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 to be a new opportunity for the forces of the old Europe, hence for America as a superpower in the world, to exercise greater influence on the political scene in Ukraine, and to preoccupy Europe with the reunification of Germany and the currency union in Europe, and to preoccupy it with the differences between European countries, America was given opportunity to exploit the situation to the fullest, and Russia was unable to stop America in any way. Rather it was collapsed completely with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the transition to capitalism. So America made use of Russia's weakness, and former President George H. W. Bush on the 24^th of October 1992 signed the Freedom Act of Russia and the Eurasian emerging democracies, he supported the open markets - which is also known as the Freedom Support Act (FSA) - so as to enable a unified U.S. approach in providing aid to Eurasian countries in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

He entrusted the Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Aid for Europe and Eurasian Countries in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (EUR / ACE) with the task of coordinating and managing foreign aid programs conferred by the Freedom Support Act.

Within the framework of the law to support freedom, successive U.S. governments sought to increase their influence in Ukraine, for example, after Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, America was able to use the first president of Ukraine (Leonid Kravchuk) in the establishment of the tripartite process in 1994, to eliminate nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory. Also America was able to establish a strategic partnership with Ukraine through its second president Leonid Kuchma in 1994 who concluded a partnership and cooperation agreement with the European Union, and agreed to a privileged partnership with the NATO. America has even been able to influence the bilateral treaty between Russia and Ukraine in May / June 1997, on the question of the rights of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Crimea. America had an even greater influence, when president Wiktor Juschtschenko managed to climb into to power in the elections in 2005 during the wake of the Orange Revolution, and Juschtschenko was a U.S. agent, so America exploited his reign to accelerate the integration of Ukraine with the West, and throughout his time in office, Juschtschenko was threatening to expel the Russian Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol after the Russian military lease expires in 2017.

Juschtschenko made no secret of his desire to fully integrate Ukraine into institutions such as the European Union and the NATO. Kiev entered into negotiations on a partnership agreement with the European Union, and called for an action plan for membership in the NATO, but these efforts failed when Russia's man Janukowytsch came to power.

However, America continued to pressure the Ukraine, lest to join the Russian Customs Union and to join the European Union, because this would enter Ukraine into the western camp and pave the way for Ukraine's prospective entrance into the NATO, thereby paving the way for American hegemony and limiting Russian influence in the Ukraine, but there is a rope placed on Russia from the side of Eastern Europe.

American focus lay on winning over Ukraine on the military side by engaging it in military exercises, the ultimate goal being its inclusion in the NATO. Therefore NATO maneuvers were conducted in the Black Sea on 7/14/2010 and continued to 7/26/2010 engaging Ukraine and that was only few months after the election of Janukowytsch and at the height of his good relations with Russia. Although the latter, meaning Russia, protested against it through the mouth of her ministry of Foreign Affairs in a statement, saying: "The nature of those maneuvers and trying to present them as anti-Russian and the participation of countries which are not from the area raises questions and some concern. As well as Ukraine's policy of efforts to expedite its accession to the NATO does not contribute to the strengthening of good-neighborly relations." (Iranian broadcasting, 7/19/2010) Also America and the Ukraine held joint naval exercises on 6/13/2011 for the Ukrainian naval forces in the Black Sea, so "Russia expressed its displeasure in a statement issued by the Russian Foreign Ministry. This step was considered a direct threat to its national security." (Al-Arabiya 6/12/2011).

4. From all of this we understand that Janukowytsch did not cut his relations to Russia and his financing by her, but could not meet all her requests due to internal and external pressures and his commitment to success in the elections of 2015. Russia knows this, and is better for her that Janukowytsch stays, than loyalists to the West coming, who will work to depart from Russia towards the West, putting Russian interests at stake. But Janukowytsch will not go as far away in his relations with the West to end his allegiance to Russia, in particular because Janukowytsch's popular base supports to move towards Russia, which cannot be ignored. But he will keep working to satisfy the West and open up to it and achieve his interests with it. Russia understands this, therefore not stressing too much on Janukowytsch, at the same time not loosening the rope for him to the extent that he will escape from their hands.