For watch the video click here

Question:

Recently some situations, events, circumstances, struggles... attracted attention in Kenya and Nigeria... Does this mean that the US or UK or other powers have adopted a new policy of encouraging ongoing civil wars/strife taking place across Africa in Nigeria currently and in Kenya after the 2007 general elections etc or are these situations arising on their own?

Answer:

First:

The apparent conflict in Kenya and the ongoing tensions between the different tribes is a consequence of rivalry between America and the UK over the upcoming presidential election due to be held in March 2013. The Anglo-American struggle is focused on the struggle between the incumbent President Kibaki, his successor Uhuru Kenyatta on one side, both of whom are loyal to the British and on the other side, Prime Minister Raila Odinga the pro-American candidate for the presidency. This struggle ensues from the outcome of the presidential elections in 2007, which was widely disputed by Odinga and his American backers with Kibaki and his supporters, the British..

Both Kibabki and Kenyatta hail from the Kikuyu people, which is the largest ethnic group in Kenya. Raila Odinga is from the Luo people, which is the third largest ethnic group. The power struggle between the US and UK often gets translated into struggle between Kibabki and Odinga, and their respective tribes and those tribes allied with them.

As the presidential elections are fast approaching, tensions are also increasing between the different factions to consolidate their gains ahead of the elections. As such there is no intentional policy between US/Uk of having civil strife for the sake of producing cheap struggles and keeping the situation tense and unstable. On the contrary, the civil strife witnessed is geared towards either gaining political advantage ahead of the presidential election, or to keep the possibility of postponing the presidential election, should America and Britain see that the circumstances do not favor the success of their respective candidate... Because of this reason America is stressing the need for Kibabki to hold fair and free transparent elections, so as to give Odinga a greater chance of success over Kenyatta. The US has even extended its assistance to the point of getting directly involved. US Secretary of State Clinton while visiting Kenya earlier this month said, "The United States has pledged to assist the government of Kenya in ensuring that the upcoming elections are free, fair and transparent. We urge that the nation come together and prepare for elections which will be a real model for the entire world." But she also admitted that this was no easy task as a lot preparatory work had to be done. She said," However I am well aware that there are many issues yet to be decided and many laws to be passed." ("Clinton pledges US support to avoid bloodshed at Kenyan polls" The Guardian Online. August 4 2012).

It is clear that America is still concerned about the prospects of Odinga winning the elections and wants to interfere in the election process. This will only increase tensions as the British will try and obstruct any American interference, through Kibabki and the Kikuyu and selected individuals from amongst their followers and the tribal structure.

However, there is one matter that has added extra "spice" to the existing tensions and that was the announcement by Kibabki in March 2012 about the discovery of oil in Kenya("Kenya joins the great African oil boom with latest discoveries" The Christian Science Monitor Online, May 9 2012). Naturally, this has increased tensions between the UK and the US as they compete to secure the Kenyan oil for their respective multinational companies, which comes at a time of severe economic crisis for both countries.

Secondly:  With regards to Nigeria:

The protracted illness of Nigeria's President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua ushered in Goodluck Jonathan as the President of Nigeria on February 5th 2010. Prior to the appointment to the presidency, Goodluck Jonathan served as Umaru‘s Vice President and both men hailed form People's Democratic Party (PDP). In fact it can be said that both Umaru and Jonathan owe their rise to political fame to Obasanjo, the stalwart leader of the PDP.

Obasanjo is America's principal agent in the country and is charged with the responsibility of ensuring the continuation of America's hegemony in Nigeria and marginalizing Britain's influence. It was Obasanjo who handpicked Jonathan to run as Umaru running mate in the 2007 Presidential election. In their profile of Goodluck Jonathan the BBC stated: ‘Mr Jonathan took over as governor and two years later was hand-picked by former President Olusegun Obasanjo to run on the Profile: Nigeria's Goodluck Jonathan PDP's ticket as vice-presidential candidate in 2007'. ("Profile: Nigeria's Goodluck Jonathan", BBC News Online, April 18 2011). Later, Obasanjo orchestrated Jonathan's rise to the presidency. According to Vanguard Newspaper Obasanjo was instrumental in Jonathan's presidency. The paper stated:' ...with his emergence as chairman of the board, Obasanjo brought his influence to bear on the affairs of the party. When Yar'Adua became terminally ill about two years into his four year tenure, Obasanjo, who first visited the ailing president in a Saudi hospital returned to champion the crusade for Vice President Goodluck Jonathan to be sworn-in as acting president as Yar'Adua did not hand-over to him before traveling out'(Clifford Ndujihe, "Obasanjo's resignation: What next for PDP, Jonathan?" Vanguard Newspaper Online, April 4 2012).

Thus America succeeded in getting a large mandate for Goodluck Jonathan in his bid for re-election to the Presidency in 2011. Jonathan used social media tools to reach out to the Nigerian masses and secured 77.7 % of the vote. This was a vast improvement from Umaru's mandate, which was widely disputed at home.

However, more political weakness has appeared after the appointment of Jonathan as president than during the period of Umaru Yar'Adua. This is despite the fact that Obasanjo has been Jonathan's key advisor through the Chairmanship of the Board of Trustees of the PDP. Jonathan's rule has been plagued by several issues which have undermined his ability to remould Nigeria's civil institutions and political life. These issues can be summarized as:

1. Political corruption:

Political corruption in Nigeria is of endemic proportions and under Jonathan's tenure in power, efforts to curb government corruption have been half hearted to say the least. Even America, the backer of Goodluck Jonathan has grown tired of the anti corruption drive and has publicly chastised Nigeria's government. "Massive, widespread, and pervasive corruption affected all levels of government and the security forces," it said of Nigeria in its 2011 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, which was submitted to Congress by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Furthermore, Jonathan's government has ignored development is some of Nigeria's state in preference for other states. Subsequently, this has alienated segments of the population towards Jonathan's government and spawned violence, especially in the North of the country.

2. Removal of fuel subsidies:

It seems that Goodluck Jonathan failed to understand the impact on the removal on fuel subsidies and he mishandled the entire episode. After several days of rioting in January 2012, Jonathan's government finally relented and restored some of the subsidy. But it was too little too late, as the reputation of his government was severely damaged, and the middle class Nigeria's that backed Jonathan turned against him. The situation worsened for Jonathan's government when a report revealed that the true cost of fuel subsidies was not $8 billion but $17 billion.

3. Discrimination against the Muslim populace:

Under Goodluck Jonathan tenure relations between the government and the Muslim population has worsened. Goodluck Jonathan has reversed the policy of appeasing Muslims started by Obasanjo and has increased heavy handed tactics to suppress the demands of the Muslim community. Rather than offering better political rights, job prospects and improvement in social conditions the security forces have intensified their oppression of Muslims, especially in the Northern parts of the country. This has created an enormous Muslim backlash against Jonathan's rule and has led some Islamic groups like Boko Haram to become violent both against the government as a reaction to the brutal repression of Muslims by Jonathan's Government.

A closer examination of the issues that have dogged Jonathan's tenure and have increased the violence in the country reveal that they all have been manufactured by America in collaboration with Goodluck Jonathan to allow America to increase her interference deep within Nigeria with the sole aim of securing the country's oil wealth.

As a clarification of the American efforts, we can say the following:

As for the political corruption, despite public disapproval of Nigeria's political corruption, America secretly encourages it, as it allows the country to be ever dependent on American aid and assistance, it enables America's agents to become richer as a reward for serving their master, and it also permits America to go after those politicians that stand in her way and are loyal to other foreign powers most notably to Britain. Moreover, corruption is a double edge sword for American agents, on the one hand it is the carrot for American agents to keep them bound to it, on the other hand is intimidation and threats to American agents. For they know full well that if they were to disobey her then America could easily use corruption as means to punish them and remove them from power.

As for the removal of subsidies on the fuel, Again the removal of the fuel subsidy was done at the behest of the IMF, which America controls. The BBC reported: ‘The IMF has long urged Nigeria's government to remove the subsidy, which costs a reported $8bn (£5.2bn) a year' ("Nigeria fury as fuel prices double after subsidy ends", BBC News online, January 2 2012). Her aim behind this sinister move is to increase her economic oppression of the people and deflect their attention towards the corruption of fuel subsidies and away from the efforts of American oil companies to siphon off the country's oil wealth.

As for Jonathan's heavy handedness towards Muslims and particularly Boko Haram, this has been instigated with the aim of expanding American oversight of Nigeria's security apparatus to safeguard the country's oil under the pretext of helping Nigerian security officials fight Islamic militants. On Clinton's visit to Nigeria on August 9 2012, a senior security aide said, ‘Washington will offer Nigeria help with forensics, tracking of suspects and "fusing" disparate strands of police and military intelligence..."We know all too well from our own experiences in both Iraq and Afghanistan what can happen if soldiers and police are not operating under appropriate authorities. We will encourage them not to use excessive force and to look at this as a ... law enforcement operation". Washington would also be willing to help Nigeria develop an intelligence coordination centre that would assist in integrating information, the official added' ("Clinton urges Nigerian reforms as Islamist attacks worsen", AFP online, August 9 2012).

However, the U.S. efforts in these tense issues are so far as reaching a stage wherein America can find a justification for her intervention in order to secure wealth, but without reaching a civil war which would suspend efforts to secure oil wealth, for at least in the foreseeable future.
As for the political conflict in Nigeria, it differs from that in Kenya. In Kenya, both America and Britain have equals share in the political medium that serve their interests in Kenya. However, in Nigeria, since the election of Obasanjo in 29/05/1999, the effective political medium become loyal to America and gradually those loyal to the English weakened. Their effectiveness remains little, rather their effectiveness is in sidelines, compared to American's faction. Nonetheless, Britain is still trying to exploit tensions to return to its former influence...
In conclusion, it is painful to see the states clash in a country where Islam had a great significance ... Today, its issues became in the hands of the enemies, the kuffar colonialists. However, the Islamic Ummah will not remain silent, rather, Allah willing, her movement is escalating in anticipation of the dawn of a new day that will restore her honor as described by Allah swt,

{...كُنْتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ }

"You are the best of peoples, brought forwards for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing In Allah. ..." and that is not too much for Allah.

Headlines:

• Three tons of food stolen from grocery stores in Spain as millions struggle
• US Promises $1B in debt relief for Egypt, even more for military aid
• Iran supplying Syria with weapons
• Saudi Arabia to become an oil importer?
• Pakistan, Afghanistan, US discuss safe passage for Taliban leaders to join peace talks

Details:

Three tons of food stolen from grocery stores in Spain as millions struggle

As the economic and financial systems of the world rapidly approach the real possibility of total collapse, signs of what we can expect on a mass scale in the near future are beginning to appear throughout Europe. In Spain, a country that just a few years ago was heralded as a shining example of real estate entrepreneurship, international tourism and a rising middle class, the situation is so bad that many are unable to meet the most basic necessities for life. Social safety nets across the continent are visibly under stress and breaking down, so much so that unemployed Spaniards have begun raiding supermarkets in order to put food on the table. As recently as last month the people of Cadiz and Sevilla, which have a reported unemployment rate of 32%, joined together to loot local grocery stores of three tons of food - some of which was distributed to local food banks.

US Promises $1B in debt relief for Egypt, even more for military aid

The United States is getting ready to finalize a deal for $1 billion in debt relief for Egypt, a move that could set a new tone for Egyptian-U.S. relations. The countries' partnership has long been based more on defence and strategic interests than on economic alliances. But as Egypt charts its own way forward in the aftermath of a historic revolution, the old ways of doing things may be falling out of favour.

Negotiations over debt relief and other U.S. funding initiatives in Egypt have been dragging for months. The United States has been hesitant to fund a new Islamist-dominated government, and Egypt has been wary of the conditions that are often attached to development funding. President Barack Obama first promised assistance to Egypt in May 2011, shortly after a popular resistance movement overthrew Mubarak. Still, despite auspicious news that negotiations are near completion, nothing has yet been finalized. The U.S. deal will probably be completed in tandem with another agreement between Egypt and the International Monetary Fund. IMF director Christine Lagarde visited Cairo in August to discuss a $4.8 billion loan, and her presence there underscored the diplomatic importance of strengthening Egypt's faltering economy. Things have not improved much since Mubarak was ousted; the country still suffers from high unemployment rates and stagnant growth. Egypt owes $3.2 billion to the United States, so the debt deal will relieve about a third of that obligation, partly through forgiveness and partly through debt swaps that help channel money into important areas like infrastructure and job creation.

Though the current debt relief negotiations are plagued by complications, U.S. aid for Egypt is nothing new. In 2010, the last full year of Mubarak's presidency and the most recent year that statistics on overseas loans and grants from USAID are available, Egypt was one of the top five recipients of American economic and military assistance worldwide. If you disregard Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, all of which took clear priority because they were integral to major U.S. military operations at the time, Egypt was the second most heavily U.S.-funded country on earth after Israel. In 2010, U.S. financial assistance for Egypt totalled $1.6 billion. The vast majority of those funds went for military purposes.

Iran supplying Syria with weapons

Iran is sending weapons to Syria in order to cement its fight against the Syrian uprising, the New York Times reported on Tuesday. Despite the Syrian rebels' attempts to control border-crossings, which Iran uses to send aid to the regime, the weapons are sent using an Iraqi air corridor, which United States president Barak Obama urged Iraq to shut down earlier in August. The New York Times reported statements by unnamed military officials claiming that Iran supplies the Syrian regime with both arms and training by the Iranian Quds force. US defence secretary Leon E. Panetta had touched upon that matter earlier in August, when he spoke about "an indication that they're trying to develop, or trying to train, a militia within Syria to fight on behalf of the regime." The Syrian regime is also believed to be receiving arms from Russia. The eastern ally has always been Syria's top arms supplier and has repeatedly managed, alongside China, to veto any Security Council regime implicating Al-Assad, imposing sanctions on him, or asking him to leave.

Saudi Arabia to become an oil importer?

The idea that Saudi Arabia could become an oil importer by 2030 is laughable. But that's the scenario outlined in a report this week by Citigroup analyst Heidy Rehman. Looking at the Kingdom's growth in power demand (much of which is generated by burning oil), Saudi Arabia's domestic demand is on track to suck up ever more of its oil production to the point that there's nothing left for export. That sounds hard to believe given that the Kingdom produced 9.9 million bpd last month, the most in the world, and more than 10% of global demand. But developing countries usually grow electricity demand faster than population growth, and in Saudi Arabia air conditioning is not an option. Compounding the problem, writes Rehman is that Saudi power generators only pay $5 to $15 per barrel for the oil they burn.To assuage civic unrest in the wake of the Arab Spring, Saudi King Abdullah has granted his 30 million subjects a host of new social handouts. He's not about to yank subsidized electricity or gasoline now - but eventually it will probably have to happen. It's unlikely that by the time the Saudis need to import oil that there would be enough available on global markets to meet their needs. What's more, considering that the $600 billion Saudi economy is based almost entirely on energy exports, if the Kingdom were to be able to afford to buy oil from the rest of the world it would have to sufficiently diversify to the point that it made enough other products for export that it could offset its oil import bill. This is highly unlikely for a country with no tradition of entrepreneurship, few rights for women and a reliance on indentured laborers brought in from the likes of Sri Lanka and Malaysia to do any kind of manual labor.

Pakistan, Afghanistan, US discuss safe passage for Taliban leaders to join peace talks

Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States on Wednesday discussed how to provide Taliban leaders safe passage to join peace negotiations, a key issue to allow the talks to succeed, officials said. The U.S. and Afghan governments have urged Islamabad to push the Taliban to participate in a peace process that has had trouble getting off the ground. All three countries believe a peace deal is necessary to prevent Afghanistan from descending into civil war after most foreign forces withdraw by the end of 2014. But the process has been plagued by mistrust between the three governments and the Taliban. The discussions that took place Wednesday in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, marked the inaugural meeting of the Safe Passage Working Group, said the Pakistani Foreign Ministry in a written statement. The three governments agreed to form the group in April, the ministry said. The group is focused on choosing which Taliban leaders should be provided safe passage, guaranteeing their security and dealing with logistics like visas, said a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to talk to reporters about the meeting. The official described the meeting as "positive." The U.S. began clandestine talks with the Taliban last year, aided by Germany and secretly held in Qatar. It is widely believed that Pakistan provided safe passage to some Taliban militants to attend those discussions.

The American State Department spokesman, Rayan Killeha said on 23 / 8 / 2012 that the continued violence in Syria strengthens the jihadi groups, raising the concern of the international community. He pointed out that Syria's future is decided by its people and not by any external party, such as these groups. "Klleha" denied - in an interview with United Press International - that Obama began leaning to the military option in Syria after warning its regime regarding the chemical weapons, and added: "We started the process of considering plans for the current stage, but we did not take any decision." The Los Angeles Times reported from some U.S. officials that the Ministry of Defence (Pentagon) has prepared contingency plans to send specialized forces to Syria if the White House decided to secure the chemical weapons depots. The newspaper revealed that the satellites and reconnaissance planes currently monitor the depots partially. Barack Obama has previously confirmed that the use of the Syrian regime of chemical weapons is a red line that America will not tolerate.

Such official statement exposes America's dirty stance about what is happening in Syria. It realized the Islamic nature of Al-Sham revolution, and expressed its concern together with the worry of the international community from this matter. Muslims must understand the reality of this hostile stance of America from Islam; and they have to take it as an enemy, confront it with that which scares it rather than abandon it. They have to prevent any political side from requesting America's help in the solution, or taking it as an intermediary. Otherwise, such side would have shared America in hostility to Muslims. Such side has to expose also America's stance by declaring that US has no intention of undertaking any military action until now against Bashar because he is its agent. Rather, all what US seeks is a peaceful political transference of authority, where its agent ruler is replaced by another agent ruler. It seeks also securing a safe exit for the criminal Bashar as it promised him. This is because all the crimes he committed against the defenseless Muslims are part of its plan to get in authority its new alternative agent. Such side has to expose as well America's stance towards the pure blood of Muslims shed in Syria, and the destruction going in it. What the criminal Bashar carries out in terms of using warplanes in raids on civilians, and shelling them with heavy artillery and rockets, and the loss of lives of women, children and the elderly; all of this does not concern America any, and nor constitutes a red line in its view. On contrary it carries its green light to its agent, the criminal Bashar, considering the crimes he commits as a part of its plan for bringing in the alternative agent ruler. What constitutes a red line in America's view is just what threatens the existence of (Israel) or prejudice its own interests and influence in this region.

What is considered a threat to its influence and interests is the arrival of political Islam to power. Allah, The Almighty said the Truth:

{قَدْ بَدَتِ الْبَغْضَاءُ مِنْ أَفْوَاهِهِمْ وَمَا تُخْفِي صُدُورُهُمْ أَكْبَر}

"Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is greater."

Moreover, the statement of U.S. spokesman: "The future of Syria is decided by its people," is telling the truth, but he and his masters mean false. We tell him and his masters: Yes, they have already decided it; and there is no place for America and nor for other disbelieving capitalist Western countries in it, Allah Willing. The command in this decision will be to Allah alone, Allah Willing. It will be Khilafah "Caliphate" on the model of prophethood. America and its likes, of the enemies of Muslims, know truly what this means of cutting off their remnants and eliminating their false misguiding civilization.

O sincere rebel Muslims in Al-Sham of goodness:

Do not be alarmed of such fanfare statements, for they do not scare anyone. Rather, what you have is the one that frightens your enemy. Allah, The Almighty has helped you with the terror (He put in the hearts of your enemy); and has supported you with soldiers that you do not see. You are the victorious, Allah Willing, as long as you are with Allah. Your steadfastness is just the first rain drops that descend on the people of Al-Sham and its blessed land, so that the good tree of Islam grows. Remember the words of Allah, The Almighty:

{الَّذِينَ قَالَ لَهُمُ النَّاسُ إِنَّ النَّاسَ قَدْ جَمَعُوا لَكُمْ فَاخْشَوْهُمْ فَزَادَهُمْ إِيمَانًا وَقَالُوا حَسْبُنَا اللَّهُ وَنِعْمَ الْوَكِيلُ}

"Those to whom Men said: "A great army is gathering against you", so be wary of them: But it (only) increased their Faith: And they said: "Allah is sufficient for us, and He is the best disposer of affairs."

And remember His (SWT) saying:

{ فَلَا تَخَافُوهُمْ وَخَافُونِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ مُؤْمِنِينَ }

"So do not be scared of them; rather be scared of Me if you are (true) believers."

Head of the Media Office of Hizb-ut Tahrir / Wilayah of Syria
Engineer: Hisham Al-Baba