On 16 March 2012, Hizb ut Tahrir Wilayah Pakistan launched a campaign of protests at the raid and arresting of the shebaab of Hizb ut Tahrir from an Islamic dars in Islamabad on 15 March 2012, after maghrib prayers. The protestors held banners saying, "Traitors arrest members of Hizb ut Tahrir under US dictation." The crime of the shebaab of Hizb ut Tahrir is that they call the people of power and the masses towards the establishment of the Khilafah "Caliphate", a Khilafah "Caliphate" that will return in accordance to the glad tidings of RasulAllah SAW. The protestors demanded the immediate release of the arrested members and supporters of Hizb ut Tahrir. The protestors called for the sincere in the armed forces to uphold their pledge as the shebaab of Hizb ut Tahrir do, by granting the Nussrah to Hizb ut Tahrir for the establishment of the Khilafah "Caliphate" state.

For more photo

Headlines:

• UK must plan for euro collapse
• Gulf States continue to bank roll America's military industry
• Pentagon very worried about Iran war
• Pakistan eager to continue its subservience to America
• Xinjiang militants linked to Pakistan groups: China

Details:

UK must plan for euro collapse:

Ministers should draw up plans to deal with a break-up of the eurozone "as a matter of urgency", a committee of MPs and peers has warned. The joint committee on the government's National Security Strategy (NSS) said the full or partial collapse of the single currency was "plausible". It said political unrest and a rise in economic migrant numbers could result. "Long-term security" is at the heart of foreign policy thinking, the government said in response. The committee, whose members include ex-MI5 director general Baroness Manningham-Buller, said economic instability could leave the UK "unable to defend itself". It added that governments across the EU could be forced to cut defence spending if the instability were to continue. "International economic problems could lead to our allies having to make considerable cuts to their defence spending, and to an increase in economic migrants between EU member states, and to domestic social or political unrest," it said. And, while the committee welcomed the government's decision to publish the NSS alongside the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, it said that "a clear over-arching strategy" had not yet emerged. Committee chairman and former Labour foreign secretary Margaret Beckett said: "A good strategy is realistic, is clear on the big questions, and guides choices. This one does not. "We need a public debate on the sort of country we want the UK to be in future and whether our ambitions are realistic, given how much we are prepared to spend."

Gulf States continue to bank roll America's military industry:

The Persian Gulf arms race is accelerating amid the smouldering confrontation between Iran and the United States, with gulf monarchies re-examining their defence programs even though they've spent far in excess of $100 billion on arms since 2006. Rising tensions with Iran is likely to drive rival Sunni Muslim states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey to acquire nuclear weapons as well. But that's some way in the future. In the meantime, the Gulf Cooperation Council states -- Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain -- are bolstering budgets to counter Iran and are being encouraged to do by the United States. "Military spending is increasing across the gulf," the Middle East Economic Digest reported. "With the exception of Oman, the GCC states have all accelerated defence expenditure since 2006." In 2010, the last year for which data are available, the Saudis spent $45 billion on defence, a 79% increase over 2005. The emirates spent more than $16 billion, a 113 % jump from 2006. But this isn't just to strengthen defences against Iran and its swelling force of ballistic missiles that even without nuclear warheads are powerful weapons to be used against sprawling oil installations and even cities. It's widely seen as a systematic long-term effort by the United States to keep its defence industry functioning at a time when the U.S. Department of Defence is drastically cutting its defence spending and reducing the size of the U.S. military to rescue the economy. The Persian Gulf monarchies, all but Bahrain rich in oil or gas or both, have become vital partners in the Obama White House's drive to ramp up military sales to its Middle Eastern allies as it cuts back U.S. defence spending and shrinks the United States' costly military forces. Historian and anti-war activist Nick Turse observed recently: "The agreement to broker the sale of tens of billions of dollars' worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia sheds light on the Pentagon's efforts to shield itself -- and its favoured arms dealers -- from the shakiness of the American economy, as well as President Barack Obama's stated goal of trimming $400 billion from projected national security spending of $10 trillion over the next 12 years."

Pentagon very worried about Iran war:

A top US official has revealed that the Pentagon is very worried about the prospects of a military confrontation with Iran, despite the escalating war threats emanating from Washington and Tel Aviv. "[The] military is very worried about what they're confronting with budget cuts and are just not anxious to take on another war," Lee Hamilton, a member of the US Homeland Security Advisory Council, said in an interview with Politico on Tuesday. "They see the difficulty of this situation from a military standpoint, not only the attack itself but sustaining the attack over a period of days, if not weeks. ... A very powerful factor here is what the Pentagon now calls persistent conflict or endless war. We have, in effect, been at war for 10 years, at least since 9/11," the former US congressman added. Last month, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey also said a potential Israeli military attack on Iran would be "destabilizing." "It's not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran," Dempsey said, adding that the US government is confident the Israelis "understand our concerns." The United States, Israel, and some of their allies accuse Iran of pursuing military objectives in its nuclear energy program. In an interview with the Atlantic magazine last Friday, US President Barack Obama said the US is "not taking any option off the table" in its purported bid to stop Iran's nuclear energy program. "It includes a military component. And I think people understand that," Obama added.

Pakistan eager to continue its subservience to America:

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani Thursday said Pakistan wanted to improve relations with the United States based on mutual respect and interest. In an interview with ABC News, Gilani said the US is an important country and Pakistan does not want to spoil its relations with it. On US drone attacks, he said: "We consider these attacks as against the sovereignty of Pakistan and this matter has been raised with the US authorities." To a question, Gilani said the parliamentary committee on national security has prepared recommendations for new terms of engagement with the US and the Nato. On relations with Afghanistan, he said the two neighbouring countries have suffered a lot in the war against terrorism and they should work together to fight the common enemy. "Afghanistan's stability is vital for Pakistan's stability. We are part of solution and not part of problem," he observed.

Xinjiang militants linked to Pakistan groups: China:

A senior Chinese official has alleged that militants in north-western China have ‘deep-seated ties' to Pakistan-based terror groups, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal Wednesday. The newspaper called the accusation ‘unusually explicit' that could put strains on the relationship between China and Pakistan. But Nur Bekri, the top government official in China's north-western Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, was quoted as saying that the Chinese officials believed the Pakistani government opposed recent attacks directed at China. Some ethnic Uighurs have waged a long and bloody campaign for independence from China, WSJ noted. Beijing has long accused Uighur separatists of being part of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, known as ETIM, which it says has ties to Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations. "We have discovered some East Turkestan activists and terrorists from our neighbouring country have countless links," Bekri said during a meeting in Beijing of the National People's Congress, China's once-a-year legislative body. He added that Pakistan itself was an ‘all-weather friend' of China, echoing previous remarks from Chinese officials. Pakistan's Foreign Ministry and military officials couldn't be reached for comment, according to the journal. The Foreign Ministry said in a previous statement that it would continue to support China in fighting the ETIM.

On 14 March the Deputy Attorney General read out a letter from ISI in front of the Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court, Mr. Iqbal Hameed ur Rehman, and denied its involvement in the abduction of members of Hizb ut-Tahrir. As a matter of fact the ISI accused Hizb ut-Tahrir members of going underground to undertake militant and subversive activities. Hizb ut-Tahrir completely rejects the answer

Question:

This question is from two parts:

First: The sign of the presidency electoral campaigns of the Kenyan election began in Kenya in spite of the decision of the high Kenya court which extended the election from Aug 2012 until Mar 2013! In these campaigns it is seen that Ruto is arranging his campaigns together with Kenyata against Odinga while Rotu was with Odinga in 2007 election against Kenyata who was helping Kibaki in his campaign, so how Ruto changed?

Second: Also The ICC accused Kenyata and Ruto with violence after 2007 election, which means as if it helps the successful opportunity of Odinga against Kenyata and Ruto, the British ones. So how the ICC which is beside Europe gives Odinga such chance?

Answer:

For the answer to the first part of the question to be clear, one must review the related events prior to this:

1 - Kibaki was the candidate of the ruling coalition in the presidential elections that took place on 27/12/2007. He is from the Kikuyu tribe, Kenya's largest tribe, which acts as the dominant force, politically and economically, in the country, since independence. He had entered the presidential election race twice, but he failed in 1992 and 1997, before the former President Daniel arap Moi, who remained at the head of the country, from 1978 to 2002. He is a wealthy agricultural investor. He served as Vice President of the African National Union of Kenya, the ruling party since independence in 1963. He won the presidential election of 2002.

2 - Raila Odinga, from the Luo tribe (the third most important tribe in Kenya). He was a parliament member representing Angata area (Nairobi) 1992, which includes one of the largest slums in Africa. During his long career he intensified his political activities and gained many alliances. He is a university professor and industrial investor, known for his skills and wisdom in electoral alliances.
Odinga fought for the presidential race for the first time in 1997, but he failed. He ran for the elections in 2007 on behalf of the opposition Party, the "Orange Democratic Movement," facing Mwai Kibaki.

3- Kenyatta: He is born in 1961, and he was deputy prime minister since 2008. He is the son of the politician well known of his loyalty to Britain, Jomo Kenyatta, the first president of Kenya, from 1964 to 1978. He was the greatest supporter to Kibaki in the 2007 elections. After the elections, he had a great role in the violent events that followed the elections against the group of Odinga and Ruto. He is accused of amassing the Mungiki gang-which is a criminal gang coming from the tribe of Kikuyu, which is the greatest Kenyan tribe that is led by Kenyatta- to carry revenge actions against the tribes of Kalenjin and Luo which support Odinga and Ruto.

4- Ruto: He was born in 1966, in village of Aambu, district of Uasin Gishu. He was known of his ambition to become a president one day. This obsession made him fluctuate in his stances following the change of power centers. He was of the supporters of Odinga in 2007 elections; and he led part of his tribe, Kalenjin, in attacks against the tribe of Kikuyu and the party of National Unity that follows it, which is the tribe of Kibaki and Kenyatta....He hoped Odinga would share with him the authority, such as Odinga becomes the president and he becomes the prime minister. However, the compromise solution was finalized between Odinga and Kibaki (Kibaki became the president, and Odinga is the prime minister), which made Ruto accept to become agricultural minister, but not what he was hoping to be.

5- Putting these specifications of Ruto in the mind of Kibaki who is known to most politicians like the pitcher plant that traps those who get close to it, Kibaki planned to take Ruto to his side... and it seems that a deal has been already concluded between them:
Kibaki would support Ruto to nominate for presidency of Kenya together with Kenyatta against Odinga to bring him down. Then Ruto and Kenyatta would share the authority. Whoever of them wins presidency he would take the other as prime minister; a matter which is suitable for the ambition of Ruto in presidency?
As regarding Kibaki, he is aiming to take Kalenjin in his side, which is the tribe of Ruto, because it is an important tribe; and building cooperation between this tribe and Kikuyu tribe after the previous bitter enmity between them. This would guarantee victory for Kenyatta and Ruto as expected by Kibaki.

6- Ruto was convinced by this because it agrees with his ambition to be president or prime minister! This was the first step of the friendship between Kibaki and Ruto, so in the middle of March 2010 it was an amazing show of craven obedience as Agriculture Minister William Ruto shook President Kibaki's hand at the Eldoret ASK showground.
That handshake, the genuine camaraderie punctuated by the ride in the Commander-in-Chief's ceremonial Land Rover during the opening of the North Rift region's premier event!

7- Matters have been complicated between Odinga and Ruto, particularly after that; so he transferred him on April 2010 from ministry of agriculture to Higher Education ministry; and he then pressurized him to resign. Ruto returned to practise his normal role as Member of Parliament in August 2010. It can be said that since that date at least, he started to coordinate with Kenyatta against Odinga.
Ruto is now the one who coordinates his presidency campaign with the presidential campaign of Ruto against Odinga to share the authority (between them) after the elections as it appears from their activities. But It is clear from Britain's activities that Britain wants Kenyatta to be president of Kenya after Kibaki. It is expected that coordination with Ruto is not other than a political bluff to win his tribe (Kalenjin), following the English way of deception.

• From what mentioned above it is clear the answer of the first part of the question about the change in Rutos stance.
B) Re the answer of the second part of the question it is necessary to revise what happened from the 2007 election:

1- Kenya has witnessed significant violence, since the last presidential election that took place in late 2007, that killed about 1500 and displaced nearly 250,000, before Kibaki and Odinga reached an accord to keep Kibaki in the Presidential position, despite accusations against him regarding election fraud and to appoint Odinga as prime minister.

With all of these crimes, the International Criminal Court only moved effectively after the press conference held by Kofi Annan in Nairobi in March 2010. Kofi Annan indicated that the International Criminal Court is expected to begin the investigation about the crimes which took place after the elections. Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations had an effective contribution in the power-sharing agreement which was reached between Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga, ending weeks of bloody clashes between the supporters of both parties, after the previous general election.

After that, the government of Kenya and the International Criminal Court 6/9/2010 signed an agreement allowing the Tribunal to open an office in Kenya, as a prelude to the investigations in the acts of violence that occurred in Kenya in 2008, nearly three years after the occurrence of such crimes. This agreement came after the visit of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to Nairobi at the invitation of Kibaki to attend the ceremony of the ratification of the new Constitution of Kenya, which was adopted in August 2010, after a referendum. The International Tribunal considered that visit as a challenge to it and provocation from Kibaki, who hosted al-Bashir even though he is accused by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in the Darfur region.

2- On 15/12/2010, the prosecutors at the International Criminal Court charged six people: the former Education Minister William Ruto, the Minister of Industry Henry Kyprono Kosgei, the former police chief Mohammed Hussein Ali, Information Officer Joshua Arap Sang, the Secretary-General of the Council of Ministers Francis Muthaura, and Kenyatta Deputy Prime Minister, on counts of murder, deportation and persecution, that occurred after the previous election.

Then on 23/1/2002, the Court ordered four senior Kenyan figures, to appear before it to face charges of crimes against humanity, in violence that broke out after the previous elections, where the court said that there is sufficient evidence for their trial. The four were: two possible candidates for the presidency Kenyatta, the Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister of Finance and the son of the first President of Kenya, William Ruto, a former education minister who is backed by millions of voters of the Kalingen tribe, thirdly, the broadcaster of Radio Kenya, Joshua Arap Sang, and fourthly, the President of the Union of the government employees, Francis Muthaura. But there was not sufficient evidence to go to trial against Henry Kosgei, who was the minister for industrialization and a senior member of the opposition party lead by Raila Odinga, and the former police chief, Major General Hussein Ali, as declared by the head of the International Criminal Court, Ekaterina Trendavelova.

3 - As for the impact of these charges; the stances were as follows:

A - President Mwai Kibaki said in a statement that he "cannot be accused as long as the trial court did not recognize the charges against them." He added that "the government will remain cautious and will respect the rights and the dignity of its citizens," calling the Kenyans to "stay calm."

B - Obama urged Kenya to cooperate with the court by saying: "all Kenyan leaders and the people that they serve must cooperate fully with the ICC investigation, and focus on the application of the reform agenda and the future of the nation."

C - The head of the judges stated that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

D - The two main defendants said that they will enter the election regardless of the court's decision, and that its not permissible for current President Kibaki to run for a third term, but the Prime Minister Odinga may run for election. Note also that the Supreme Court in Kenya has announced on 13.1.2012 that the time for the next presidential election is postponed "in principle" from Aug 2012 until Mar 2013.

It is worth mentioning that the Kenyatta, the political leader of the largest tribes, the Kikuyu of Kenya, is accused of mobilizing the Mungiki gang - a criminal gang of the tribe - to carry out reprisal crimes against the tribes of Kalingen and Luo, the backers of Odinga.
Ruto who was previously one of the Odinga's allies, accused in the violence, he ordered attacks on Kikuyu supporters in the Party of National Unity of the Kikuyu tribe.

4 -In the light of the above the answer of the second part of the question is as follows:

A - The international tribunal is of European origin and motivation. It was procrastinating to intervene because the Kibaki group had a significant role in the violence. Kenyatta is accused of mobilizing the Mungiki gang - a criminal gang from the Kikuyu tribe, the largest tribe of Kenya, led by Kenyatta - to carry out reprisals against Kalingen and Luo tribes, who are backers of Odinga, whilst the Roto, who was previously Odinga's ally, had arranged the other attacks against the supporters of the Kikuyu and its National Unity Party (PRM). However, the biggest role in the violence was from Kenyatta and the supporters of Kibaki. So the Court was dragging its feet so as not to condemn Kibaki and Kenyatta, who are pro-European and pro-British.

B - The United States wants the tribunal, but only after ensuring that it will not come to crucial decisions against Odinga and his faction. She has achieved what she wanted after two events, that were organized by two of her men:

Firstly, Kofi Annan, who is a pro-American, held a press conference in March 2010 and said that the Court will begin its work soon, embarrassing the prosecutor and the court. Then the court made a decision to direct its work after the 6/9/2010 agreement with Kenya.

Secondly, America's agent Bashir visited Kenya and was hosted by Kibaki, the President of the Republic, at a time when Bashir is wanted by the International Tribunal, which made the visit seem like a challenge to the court.

America has been successful in both cases, Annan's statement expedite the start of the court, and Bashir's visit has "somewhat" raised the court against Kibaki and his faction. But the result of the court decisions canceled the fear of America that the court will strongly stand next to Kibaki and Kenyatta. The decisions were semi-balanced and almost prevail in favoring Odinga. Two of the four that the court ordered to appear before the court are from the heavy weights: Kenyatta from the group of Kibaki, and Ruto who was previously from the group of Raila Odinga until the year 2010 when Kibaki succeeded in taking him to his side in order that he can get Rotu tribe "Kalingin" to his side as we detailed in the answer of the first part of the question. Because Kibaki cannot be nominated for a third term, the British are working to appoint Kenyatta in the Presidency, for he is the son of their former agent Kenyatta Senior. If the indictments affected the nomination of Kenyatta and Ruto then this would be in favor of Odinga ... The central issue is to halt the nomination of Kenyatta, because even if Ruto was nominated, his position fluctuates, for his main ambition is to get a post. Therefore, if he was promised of a post, then the problem between him and Odinga would not be difficult.

Therefore, the court's decisions have created a nuisance for Kibaki, and created joy for Obama and Odinga, and it was in this context, that the statements of Kibaki and Obama appeared which referred to previously.

However, it is expected that the court would continue with its accusation and investigation, then procrastinate and delay in the provisions... Therefore, most likely the candidates will continue in their nomination, and that is clear from their statements and the statement of the President of the Court as well as Kibaki's statement, and this is only if nothing new appears on the political scene, for new developments impose new realities...

But in any case, America has succeeded in making the Court's decisions affect the Kibaki group more than Raila Odinga group, or at least affecting them equally, even though the pro-European Court's decisions would have been expected to be in favor of Kibaki's group against Odinga group explicitly.