Connect with us

Americas

Canada and Russia in the Arctic: Competition or Cooperation?

Published

on

Canadian-Russian relations in the twentieth century have been complicated at best and conflictual at worst. Though crisis has been avoided between the two Arctic states, the issue of Crimea as well as the war in the Donbass have nevertheless been calamitous. In what Canada perceives as Russian aggression towards Ukraine and the West and an encroachment on Ukrainian sovereign territory, Canada has been an adamant supporter of multilateral efforts to punish Russia for its actions. This has included, for the most part, Canadian sanctions towards Russia in concert with Canada’s allies, the United States, and the European Union. Canada, however, went a step further than most of its allies in taking action towards Russia. During the tenure of Stephen Harper in 2014, Ottawa implemented a unilateral policy of boycotting almost all bilateral and multilateral events and “tables” at which both Canada and Russia earlier sat together. Harper stated that Canada has refused to take part in any multilateral meetings in which Russia participates. Political commentators have termed this Canada’s “empty chair policy”.

Naturally, Ottawa was both unable and unwilling to abandon all “tables” at which both Canada and Russia sit. It would not have been in Canada’s interests to forsake its responsibilities at the United Nations, Arctic Council, or the OSCE, as Canada continues to understand its role in international affairs as a power with global interests and global influence. Canada’s continued engagement in these international organisations (IOs) demonstrates that despite attempts to punish Russia for its international transgressions, having a dialogue with Russia — albeit however minimal — is of advantage for both Canada and Russia. Whereas Canada takes a secondary role to that of Russia in the United Nations, Canada and Russia are considered institutional equals in the Arctic Council. Indeed, it is of significant relevance that the Arctic Council represents the most proliferate body within which Canada and Russia are able to cooperate. Despite different and sometimes conflicting approaches, Canada and Russia’s interaction within the Arctic Council and Arctic affairs remain a vital framework within which Canadian-Russian relations continue to develop outside of the current sphere of conflict and provide a unique space for the two states to increase dimensions of cooperation.

In late 2019, shortly before the Canadian election in October, Justin Trudeau’s liberal government released Canada’s new Arctic policy. Canada’s earlier policy, defined in the Harper years, followed an aggressive line coined by Harper that in Arctic affairs, “Canada has a choice when it comes to defending our sovereignty over the Arctic. We either use it or lose it. And make no mistake, this Government intends to use it.” [1] Throughout the Harper administration, Canada pushed for more strength in the Arctic. Trudeau’s new Arctic policy, conversely, has a shifted focus towards greater peace and cooperation, whilst also pushing for the development of northern communities and emphasizing the importance of the human aspect of the North as well as climate change. The new policy asserts the importance of a “rules-based international order in the Arctic” and a renewed leadership from Canada as well as “the representation and participation of Arctic and northern Canadians in relevant international forums and negotiations.” As per Canada’s new Arctic policy of 2019, Canada sees three main foci points in moving forward with its international Arctic policy: “1. Strengthen the rules-based international order in the Arctic,” “2. More clearly define Canada’s Arctic boundaries,” and “3. Broaden Canada’s international engagement to contribute to the priorities of Canada’s Arctic and North.” This new Arctic policy is ultimately twofold. On the one hand, to push for more international cooperation in the Arctic sphere, seeking to play a more constructive role internationally. On the other hand, the new policy still holds Canada’s sovereignty in the North and international responsibilities with NATO as vital components of policy.

In Canada’s new policy, international cooperation has once again returned to the forefront of Arctic matters. The policy sees that the “circumpolar Arctic is well known for its high level of international cooperation on a broad range of issues, a product of the robust rules-based international order that is the sum of international rules, norms and institutions that govern international affairs in the Arctic.” [2] Arctic cooperation is manifested in both bilateral and multilateral forms, such as in terms of direct Canada-Russia relations, or in the form of the Arctic Council. For Canada, multilateral cooperation within the auspices of the Arctic Council represents the pre-eminent form of Arctic cooperation. Canada’s interests in its Arctic foreign policy involve exercising its sovereignty, promoting economic and social development, protecting the environment, and improving Arctic governance. Ottawa views international cooperation as indispensable and actively looks to contribute to a general, international — albeit with limitations — unity on Arctic matters.

Certainly, this approach includes Russia as a necessary partner. In 2019, Canada signalized a willingness to work with Russia on Arctic matters. For example, the recent posting of Alison LeClaire, former Senior Arctic Official and Director General of Circumpolar Affairs, as Canadian Ambassador to Russia, suggests that Canada is getting serious on Arctic cooperation with Russia. Additionally, as per Canada’s new Arctic policy, Canada has directly engaged itself with the possibilities of cooperation with Russia, in that Canada “will take steps to restart a regular bilateral dialogue on Arctic issues with Russia in key areas…”[3]

Despite Canada’s willingness to cooperate internationally and with Russia on Arctic matters, Canada continues to honour its international responsibilities and alliances and has placed these at the forefront of its Arctic policy. This includes Canada’s membership in NATO and NORAD, not to mention Canada’s intensive relationship with the United States. This has resulted in a sobering policy towards Russia, in which Russia remains a theoretically potential threat to Canadian sovereignty and interests in the Arctic region. Both NATO and NORAD have made attempts to develop increased measures in case of a Russian threat. This has been followed by an increase in symbolic discourse of the potentially threatening nature of Russia’s existence in the Arctic and fears that Russia’s military and economic build up in the region could endanger Canada’s northern interests. Ultimately, an offensive act towards Canada on the part of Russia a priori does exist in order to secure Russia’s interest; this, however, is extremely unlikely, especially when considering Canada’s role in NATO. Canada continues to perceive the realistic possibility of a Russian threat in the Arctic, despite an openness towards cooperation with Russia. Canada’s membership in NATO and the perception of a possible Russian threat, however, do not necessarily imply that Canada will be unable to work with Russia on certain matters, albeit it does indicate a level of reservation on the part of Canadian policymakers. As an increase in Russia’s military presence in the Arctic is undeniable, fears among Canadian policymakers emerge as to the level of successful cooperation attainable. Nevertheless, Trudeau’s new policy plays down the narrative of Arctic conflict, signaling that cooperation and dialogue with Russia is of first-rate importance [4]. Though Canada has not overlooked the possibility of threats to its sovereignty and interests in the Arctic as well as the importance of its international alliances and obligations, Canada’s new Arctic policy focuses on the possibilities of open and mutually beneficial cooperation in the Northern region in order to achieve its goals and interests — including with Russia.

Russia, similar to Canada, has also released a new Arctic policy in 2020, which comprehensively details Russia’s Arctic plans up to 2035. Russia’s new Arctic policy, signed into force by President Vladimir Putin on March 5, 2020, also presents a multidimensional approach to its Arctic affairs. As the world’s largest Arctic power, Russia has long sought to develop the North for its own purposes, especially for the extraction of natural resources. To this extent, the Arctic region is primarily important for the Russian economy, especially in terms of natural resources and the development of Northern Sea Route. For Russia, the North Sea Route — a transport and transit route emerging as a result of melting polar ice that would more than half the travel distance from South East Asia to Europe and save billions of dollars in shipping costs — , as well as Arctic gas reserves, are the foundation of Russia’s economic and geopolitical plans in the North [5]. As a result, Russia considers the North to be of immense geopolitical and geoeconomic importance. It is therefore of little surprise that Russia has been actively working to obtain a stronger foothold in the region, such as claiming sovereignty over the disputed Lomonosov Ridge, which, if recognized internationally, would extend Russia’s sovereignty over the Arctic region hundreds of kilometres beyond Russia’s northern land borders. Russia is, without a doubt, the world leader in northern development. It holds the largest northern population, infrastructure, and Arctic military of all eight Arctic states. Russia’s move into the economic and geopolitical focus on the Arctic is not inherently threatening to Canada; on the contrary, Russia, like Canada, is looking for greater Arctic cooperation.

As a result of the economic importance of the Arctic sphere for Russia, Russia acts pragmatically vis-à-vis other Arctic (and non-Arctic) states. The immense value that the Arctic holds for Russia has caused Moscow to act and react benevolently in the international sphere. Examples of this can be seen in Russia’s signing and ratification of the Ilulissat Declaration of the five Arctic coastal states in 2008, which defines the governance of the Arctic, as well as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS].

It is ultimately telling of Russian foreign policy that Russia has included “cooperation and peaceful settlement of all disputes in the Arctic” in its new policy of 2020. This lends further credibility to the argument that Russia, despite the Ukraine Crisis and weakening of relations with the West since 2014, is actively looking for some level of rapprochement. Indeed, an examination of Russia’s Arctic policies are wholly void of the conflictual language found in other spheres of political relations. Certainly, Russia is very much open to economic and scientific cooperation in its northern territories. This includes, among others, investment, scientific, and technological cooperation, environmental and fishing cooperation, and further development of the Northern Sea route. Russia has been open to the peaceful and fair settling of disputes in the Arctic region as well. In 2010, for example, during the Medvedev presidency, Russia and Norway struck a sea border deal, dividing 175,000 km2 of undersea “land,” much of which has oil and gas-rich deposits. The end of the dispute, which concluded 40 years of talks between Russia (and the Soviet Union) and Norway, was announced by President Medvedev in 2010, attesting to Russia’s balanced position in international circumpolar affairs.

Although Canada is not concretely mentioned in the Arctic policy signed into force by Putin in 2020, Vladimir Putin has, such as on February 7, 2020, spoke of cooperation with Canada in positive terms: “We are open to cooperation with Canada … Our countries are neighbours in the Arctic and have a shared responsibility for the sustainable development of this vast region, for preserving the traditional way of life of indigenous peoples and for respecting its fragile ecosystem.” [6] Though Russia, unquestionably, is focused on attaining its interests and aims in the Arctic — possibility at the expense of others — it has on more than one occasion signalized a willingness to cooperate and aim for mutual benefit in crucial spheres in a rules-based international order and within the institutions, such as the Arctic Council, that govern the Arctic region.

The pertinent question here is if and how Canada and Russia are able to develop, maintain, and foster amicable relations and cooperation in the Arctic against the backdrop of worsening general Canadian-Russian relations as well as the increasing importance and competition in the Arctic region. Both Canada and Russia are open to Arctic cooperation. Indeed, Canadian and Russian interests in circumpolar affairs often correspond with one another, thereby fostering the possibility for improved and increased cooperation. On the part of Canada, Ottowa has on multiple occasions and directly within its policy stated that it will take steps to restart a regular bilateral dialogue on Arctic issues with Russia. Russia has voiced similar aims. Russian scholar Natalia Viakhireva explains that in the international sphere, Russia takes on two faces: the “aggressive revisionist,” such as in the post-Soviet space and “liberal internationalist” in the circumpolar sphere. Yet in her article on Canadian-Russian cooperation in the Arctic, she argues that relations between “close competitors” are a combination of cooperation and competition, but that the West must recognize that Russia’s cooperative behavior on Arctic issues can be mutually beneficial. The first step for Canada and Russia, therefore, is to acknowledge mutual interest in the Arctic sphere, to place significance on the current low level of conflict in the region, and to encourage the continuation of positive cooperation, both bilaterally and multilaterally.

A closer analysis of Canadian-Russian relations within the Arctic Council demonstrates a unique level of existing cooperation between the two states on a number of important matters. Most prevalent of those is the issue of extra-regional actors within the governance of the Arctic. Countries in Eastern Asia, such as China, Japan, and Korea, but also EU members such as Germany and France see it within their national interests to “internationalize” the Arctic. These countries, and foremost China, advocate greater involvement in the region and support the loosening of Russian and Canadian control over the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage. They are looking to reorganize the governing structure of the Arctic and circumvent what Russia and Canada perceive as their sovereign territory in order to benefit from the changing geopolitical and geoeconomic nature of the Arctic. China, especially, wants unfettered access to the North Sea Route and the Northwest passage. Though Canada and Russia could and to some extent currently are benefiting from cooperation with non-Arctic states (especially in technology and environmentalism), both are opposed to Asia’s and Europe’s encroachment on the Arctic. Russia, like Canada, also declared its opposition to “[a]ttempts by a number of foreign states to revise the basic provisions of international treaties regulating economic and other activities in the Arctic.” [7] Canada and Russia’s shared opposition to foreign encroachment demonstrates a distinctive opportunity for cooperation between the two Arctic countries, as has already been the case. As these extra-regional actors’ interests often do not coincide with those of Canada and Russia, the Arctic Council and the Arctic in general are in need of a fundamentally balanced and strong policy regarding this question. It would serve the common interests of Canada and Russia to spearhead this, either bilaterally or within the Arctic Council. Though this is probably not enough for rapprochement, it has the potential for further Canadian-Russian cooperation in the region. If both Russia and Canada take a proactive coordinated stance on the matter, the two “Arctic Giants” are in the position to affect and form future Arctic policy, especially in regard to the matter of non-Arctic states.

In addition to the institutional interaction between Canada and Russia in the Arctic Council, the nature of the Arctic and its vast territories means that no state can self-sufficiently operate without at least a minimal degree of bilateral or multilateral communication and cooperation with other Arctic states. Neither Russia, nor Canada, nor the United States have such developed infrastructure or fleets of icebreakers to accomplish such a task alone. In the scenario of an oil spill, search-and-rescue mission, or for the purpose of Arctic tourism, bilateral cooperation is a necessity. Here Canada and Russia are in a position to accelerate and expand cooperation on a series of matters. Cooperation could be expanded into other spheres of mutual importance, such as technological and scientific research, oil-spill prevention, conservation, or economic spheres such as shipping. Likewise, both Canada and Russia’s new Arctic policies place importance on the development of northern communities, improving the quality of life of northern peoples, and the protection of the environment. Many of these spheres, some of which are already covered by the Arctic Council or have other bilateral treaties in place, succeed in circumventing overtly political or controversial fields for Russia and Canada as well as military competition between the two states.

In considering Russia and Canada’s aims, interests, and points of contention in the Arctic upon the backdrop of deteriorating relations in other international contexts, the notion of Arctic cooperation presents concrete possibilities of communication, cooperation, and — albeit with much time and effort — an improvement in relations between the two states. Canadian-Russian relations have not come to a stark halt. Rather, certain international spheres have endured the weakening of relations due to the Ukraine Crisis. As it is unlikely that Canada and Russia will find common ground on the matter of Ukraine in the near future, especially considering the increasingly intense dialogue between the two and the war in Eastern Ukraine, Canada and Russia will be required to focus on other real and potential spheres of possible cooperation. Foremostly, this will include greater coordination within the Arctic and Arctic Council. As a result of global warming and melting ice, in the coming years and decades the Arctic territories will take on immense geopolitical and geoeconomic importance. As Canada and Russia have more mutual concerns than points of contention in the Arctic, Arctic affairs do and, in the future, will represent the most formidable backdrop for an easing of tensions. It would thus be advisable for both Russia and Canada to maintain a proactive approach to Arctic affairs. This does not denote ignoring military and defense matters in the Arctic, despite the small probability of a conflict, but rather focusing on aspects that are relevant to the national security and interests of both states. In this regard, in the case of a conflict, Canada will fall in line with its NATO partners. Russia, for its part, has already placed a focus on the security and military dimension of its Arctic territories. Therefore, in conclusion, the spheres of real and potential cooperation offer Canada and Russia a basic level of opportunity to improve weakened relations without having to concede on vital points of each states’ respective foreign policy. Russia and Canada would do better to shift the narrative of the conflict between them to more proactive spheres of mutual benefit, which would result in an increased level of positive cooperation.

1. Adam Tereszowski, “Securing Canada’s Sovereignty in the Arctic,” Potentia (2010): 80.

2. Government of Canada, “Arctic and Northern Policy Framework International Chapter.”

3. Ibid.

4. Andrew Chater, “Three Takeaways from Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy.”

5. Maria L. Lagutina and Natalia Yu. Markushina, “The Arctic Region and the New North: the Russian Approach” in Russia and the World: Understanding International Relations, ed., N. Tsvetkova (Langham: Lexington Books, 2017), 325-357.

6. The Arctic, “Путин отметил важность сотрудничества стран Арктического совета”; Официальный интернет-портал правовой информации, Указ Президента Российской Федерации от 05.03.2020 № 164 “Об Основах государственной политики Российской Федерации в Арктике на период до 2035 года”.“

7. Kommersant.ru, „Путин утвердил основы госполитики в Арктике до 2035 года,“; Официальный интернет-портал правовой информации, Указ Президента Российской Федерации от 05.03.2020 № 164 “Об Основах государственной политики Российской Федерации в Арктике на период до 2035 года”.“

From our partner RIAC

Doctoral candidate at Heidelberg University, International Relations MA Candidate, St. Petersburg State University

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Democracy Summit and the fall of American-backed Muslim Brotherhood

Published

on

Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz

The world was surprised by the American arrangements for the American administration, led by “Joe Biden” and the American Democratic Party, to organize the “World Democracy Conference”, which will bring together all the democratic countries in the world with a purely American choice, during the days of December 9 and 10, 2021, with the participation of nearly 110 countries around the world, while leaving the other half of it is marginalized, authoritarian, or neglected without similar calls being made to it, claiming that it is not democratic, according to the American perspective of understanding the process of democracy from a purely narrow perspective that does not fit the needs of other countries, according to their national, regional and religious circumstances and characteristics, among others. This in itself is a new provocative American attempt to break up the world and divide it, according to strict ideological bases, according to what “Biden” announced before in the alliance of democracies around the world in the face of authoritarianism and authoritarianism, and his intention of that is mainly China and Russia, then the rest of the uncivilized world will come behind them.  And who gave them multiple names, in this new global division, that they are: (undemocratic, tyrannical, dictatorial, authoritarian, autocratic, and tyrannical), and the other such names that competed the organizers of this conference referred to in describing all those who differ with them ideologically and politically in  The foundation, led by China and Russia in the first place, and as the Chinese State Councilor and Chinese Foreign Minister “Wang Yi” said:

“This American democracy summit aims mainly to strengthen the division in the world under the banner of democracy, and it only serves the strategic needs of the United States”

   But on the other hand, the US administration’s omission of invitations to the countries of the region to attend the conference mainly means (dividing the region in favor of its Chinese and Russian competitors, and even more dangerously, the failure of the Israeli-Gulf Arab peace plans under American auspices, as well as the reflection of what is happening on Israel’s security due to the difficulty of the future of security cooperation and coordination  between the countries of the region and Israel due to the sensitivity of their current position on the United States of America), and perhaps this is what many extremist terrorist groups may exploit to launch continuous attacks on American and Israeli targets, given the security vacuum left by the United States of America in the region in favor of both China and Russia, which has become an essential component of the Egyptian, Arab and Gulf foreign policy agenda, especially in light of the “escalation of American interference in the internal affairs of Egypt and the countries of the region in the field of democracy and human rights”, which reached its climax and escalated with the preparation of the United States of America for a conference that brings together all democratic countries in the world.  During which all the countries of the region were excluded with the exception of “Iraq and Israel”, which will inevitably affect (Israeli peace plans under American auspices with the Gulf states and the region, as well as the United States of America giving the green light to extremist terrorist movements and militias to target the security of the Hebrew state, and perhaps all the Gulf countries and countries in the region hesitate to sign and complete new peace agreements with Israel, given the American interference in  their internal affairs).

   Which, I believe, helped “divide the world and the countries of the Middle East at the present time between going to Washington or to the two emerging powers in the world, namely: China and Russia”. Hence, the economic power of China, through its “Belt and Road initiative”, is heavily dependent on its financing and expertise away from the idea of ​​“American political conditionality”. For example, we find that on the Egyptian side, it would have been unlikely that prominent projects on the ground, such as (the new administrative capital and the new industrial zone of the Suez Canal), would have been practically translated without the Chinese aid to the countries of the region and Egypt in the first place.

   Hence, the error of these current American policies will inevitably affect Israel’s security, as (it will inevitably weaken the desire and enthusiasm of many in the region, whom the United States of America used to pay more attention to signing and concluding more peace agreements and political normalization between its Israeli ally and other countries in the Arabian Gulf and the region mainly under US sponsorship). Accordingly, we will analyze a number of the following foundations and indicators to understand the repercussions of this American step to exclude the countries of the region on their interests in the region and on Israel’s security itself.

The importance of the “June 30 Revolution” in Egypt appears to reveal the double standards of America towards the will of the Arab peoples themselves against the American interest, which increased after President “El-Sisi’s nomination for the presidency”, at a time when the popularity of the United States of America declined in Egypt, following its position on the June 30 Revolution, and the subsequent wave of political events that followed June 30, a position that probably did not satisfy anyone, whether from the group of supporters who wanted clear support from Washington, or even from the group of opponents, who wanted a stronger position on the part of the United States of America, and this unless (Washington’s reluctance to stand in support of any party), in addition to proving the American failure to pass its democracy in the region with the failure of the Arab Spring revolutions, the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood’s rule in Egypt and later in Tunisia and Sudan, and the growing weakness of political Islam currents in the region.

    Here we can find a logical relationship between (the reasons for Washington’s refusal to invite Egypt to the conference of American democracies in December 2021, and the June 30 revolution in Egypt), the failure of the Arab Spring revolutions and the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood’s rule in Egypt, as follows:

   We can understand and analyze (the role and influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, its recent conferences and meetings with a number of American officials, and the successive statements of personalities belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood regarding their “agreement with the new approach of the American administration”, led by President “Joe Biden” not to invite the Egyptian state and the countries of the region), due to the failure of the Arab Spring revolutions, which produced Muslim Brotherhood governments backed by the United States of America.

 The activity of all the organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood began in the United States of America, after (the success of the “June 30 Revolution in Egypt” and the advent of President “El-Sisi” and the alliance of the Egyptian military institution with the masses in the streets was proven), with the failure of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Arab Spring revolutions in most Arab countries, supported by the USA.

  Therefore, the attempt of the United States of America for (developing a plan to antagonize the Arab peoples against their rulers or to shed light on unreal events to distract the Arab world and the region in subsidiary events with the help of the American-active Muslim Brotherhood), began in the same period and time in which it was witnessing the rebuilding of the Arab Spring countries again, especially the beginning of building the new Egyptian state in the first place.

   What is worth studying and analyzing here, is the submission of a memorandum by the US Congressman, “Frank Wolf”, to the US House of Representatives, calling for an investigation with former President “Barack Obama” and his Secretary of State, “Hillary Clinton”, after the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood candidate in Egypt, “Mohamed Morsi”. In 2012, on charges of “supporting the group with nearly $50 million in the presidential election during the run-off”.

  At the time, the US Congressman “Frank Wolf” announced after the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood and its candidate for government, that:

“American politicians have supported the activity of the Muslim Brotherhood and its political agenda in Egypt at the expense of other parties that do not like Washington”

   Representative “Frank Wolf” also made direct accusations against former US President “Obama” and the US administration itself, accusing the White House of (creating politically illegal practices to support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and aiming to create an atmosphere and a state of chaos in the region through supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, sacrificing American interests in order to support the project of political Islam), and although the issue was not escalated, it had a wide resonance within the American Congress, and it was reopened again after the June 30 revolution and the isolation of Morsi, but it was kept secret later.

  And here we can observe and explain what the US Congressman “Frank Wolf” said about his assertion about (deliberate questioning by organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood in Washington for all the plans and successive successes of starting the implementation and rebuilding of Egyptian institutions and its new administrative capital with different foundations and modern ideas), and these organizations deliberately shed light on the negatives without exposure to the positives of building new facilities, bridges, and roads, all of which took place during the era of President “El-Sisi”, and all Brotherhood organizations also deliberately, with American assistance, mainly work on (igniting and dividing the region, increasing and growing the intensity of regional competition and polarization between all parties and forces internally  and externally).

   American Representative “Frank Wolf” in the US Congress and all his supporters considered: “the attempts that have been made to spread chaos and disorder in Egypt and the countries of the Arab Spring revolutions with the help of the Muslim Brotherhood organizations are deliberate”, and this is during the same period, in which politicians must be wise to not luring them into side battles that waste their gains and the achievements of their people. Therefore, the correct behavior, according to the wise, was that everyone in Egypt and the Arab region should devote themselves to building the interior.

   Here we can follow (the map and activity of all branches of Brotherhood organizations in the United States of America after the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood rule in Egypt), similar to its strategy and its extended organizations in Britain and Europe, but it was more elitist in the United States of America, through the organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood, which are known by name in the United States of America, such as:

 (MSA Muslim Student Association, which began in 1963, the International Institute of Islamic Thought, which was established in American lands since 1983, the Islamic Society of North America ISNA, the Committee on American Islamic Affairs CAIR, which was founded in 1994)

   Additionally, there are some other organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood have global activity and influence within the United States of America and various European countries, all of which aimed to make continuous attempts to influence the position of their governments towards Egypt and the countries of the Arab Spring revolutions.

  Indications can be identified in (organizing the ranks and bases of the Muslim Brotherhood inside the United States of America after the advent of the administration of Democratic President “Joe Biden” has been begun), with the aim of influencing the image of democracy in Egypt and the region.  And that is through the activity of the system of families affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is spread almost throughout the United States, and the task of each family was to (establish its roots in the region in which it is, by influencing the largest number of those around it), and to take care of the newcomers of the Brotherhood  Muslims to the United States of America, as well as the establishment of new schools, mosques and clinics to expand their influence within American society and communicate with all American political decision-making circles to promote the failure of Egyptian democracy and the fall of political Islam currents loyal to Washington and its democracy

  And all those American organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood began to (promote the failure of democracy in Egypt and the countries of the region by holding conferences and calling for it, and claiming the current regimes reject democracy on the American way, and even laying out different plans for the American democratic administration to reveal different ways to embarrass Arab regimes that reject the political project  of the Muslim Brotherhood), led by the Egyptian state and its military establishment.

    The old international Brotherhood organizations have been active among them, by communicating and rapprochement with American decision-making circles, including: The Muslim Students Association “MSN”, which is the association founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, and it is one of the most important institutions that have been active in American universities, and about 600 student associations have emerged from within  USA so far. With (attempting to influence American officials to put pressure on the regimes in Egypt and the region, therefore, several large conferences were organized to gather, mobilize and expand the base of supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda within American society and its intellectual and research centers), especially the American circles of influence and influence.

  We find that the most dangerous American statements in this context are the analysis of the well-known American thinker “Noam Chomsky” and his revelation of deliberate American interference in the affairs of Egypt and the region after the failure of the Arab Spring revolutions backed by the United States, by saying that:

 “The percentage of popular opposition to the United States of America in Egypt – which is the most important state in the  region – has reached  out  to  80%, and therefore America and its allies do not want governments that express the will of the people. If this happens, America will not only lose its control over the region, but will also be expelled from it. It has a plan that is typically implemented by Washington and it doesn’t take a genius to understand it”

  We find that this type of American support for the alleged democracy in several countries around the world, in the form that the internationally known American thinker “Noam Chomsky” spoke about, we have witnessed many precedents and evidence around the world over and over again, it happened with (Simosa in Nicaragua, the Shah  In Iran, Marcos in the Philippines, Devilliers in Haiti, the leader of South Korea, Maputo in the Congo, Ceausescu, the favorite of the West in Romania, Suharto in Indonesia). As it is a completely typical and permanent matter, it applies to many cases, especially the countries of the Arab Spring revolutions.

   In the same context, the American academic “Robert Spencer”, as a specialist in the affairs of extremist Islamic movements, indicated that: “The Muslim Brotherhood had worked actively for several decades before within the corridors of American political decision-making”, through several fronts, such as: (Council on American Islamic Relations, Muslim Student Associations, Islamic Society of North America), as well as 29 other organizations operating in the United States of America under various umbrellas and names, and the US Federal Investigation Agency, called them as they are (organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood with the international extensions).

   And the American researcher “Robert Spencer” explained the reasons for the success and growth of the Muslim Brotherhood’s power in the face of the regimes and countries of the Arab Spring revolutions and the Middle East, emphasizing that it is (US-backed), by pointing out that (most of those international organizations of the Muslim Brotherhood were established in the eighties. Those fronts continued to act as a “pressure lobbyists” on the White House’s decisions towards Egypt and the countries of the region), even after the failure of American policies towards their support after the failure of the Muslim Brotherhood, even though it was proven that Washington was unable to support them after the failure of the American-backed Arab Spring revolutions basically.

  The most amazing thing here is the American side’s demand for Egypt to achieve stability at the same time as they support the Muslim Brotherhood within the corridors of political decision-making in Washington itself to spread chaos in Egypt and our Arab countries.  This is what we find in published public statements, that the “National Security Council of the United States” has approved in most of its policies and orientations towards Egypt and President “El-Sisi” in the post-Muslim Brotherhood era, that “the first American demand from Cairo is to maintain security and local and regional stability by any means”, considering that:

   “The mission of the Egyptian side and President El-Sisi entails, at that stage, the necessity of preserving the security and stability of Israel and the neighboring countries of Israel, as a fundamental pillar in the geo-strategic composition of the Middle East, which successive US administrations and governments attach great importance for this matter”

  Through our previous analysis of the scene, we can find a logical relationship between the American support for the Muslim Brotherhood, its exertion of internal pressure on the American administration led by “Joe Biden”, and the exclusion of Egypt and all countries in the region from participating in the “World Democracy Conference”, which is called by Washington itself, according to its own criteria. Which is the first and most important thing that is taught to students of political science, which is that politics is based on interest, and that there is no friendship in relations between states, and as “Winston Churchill” said previously: “There is no such thing as permanent friendship, but there is such a permanent interest”. Therefore, the achievement of each party’s interest is the basis in relations between states, and therefore the urgent priority of politicians in the (post-revolutionary era), is achieving the interest of their peoples and their countries, by preserving the revolutionary gains achieved by all, away from any external pressures or provocations.  As is the case in the current American scene towards Egypt and the countries of the region, and the role of the Muslim Brotherhood in the American interior itself.

Continue Reading

Americas

New American extremist armed movements calling for democracy

Published

on

The American interior has witnessed in recent years (the growth, spread and revival of a number of new armed extremist ideological movements in the American interior), which have come to challenge the authority and orders of the American government similar to its American communist counterpart in previous periods, and aims for a “new revolution” in the face of the American authorities.

   The outbreak of Coronavirus pandemic in the American interior has also caused the strengthening of the strength of these American armed movements, as well as the growth of “new armed extremist movements” that challenge the authority and orders of the American government similar to its former American communist counterpart, and the map of these movements and their goals can be traced, as follows:

   The emergence of the most dangerous and most important armed movement called the “Boogaloo Movement” against the American government: due to the restrictions imposed due to the outbreak of the virus, it fueled the “Boogaloo Movement” against the American government.  And what is new in the “American Boogaloo movement” is its armed tactic, and its “publicly” carrying of rifles and wearing tactical military clothing, and it was the beginning of their mobilization in the US state of “Hawaii” and in the state capital’s buildings to protest against the closure orders, due to the outbreak of (Covid-19).  It is the distinctive of the “military appearance” of the “Boogaloo Movement” against the US government, which attracts the most attention. It threatens to wage “civil war”, as an extremist movement that uses “violent, not peaceful armed protests” against the orders of the American state, and has arisen due to the social problems caused by the pandemic to spread violent messages against Washington. The start of its launch was in April 2020, when armed demonstrators went out in separate organized protests in front of government buildings in (Concord and New Hampshire). The point worth noting and analyzing here is that the extremist “Boogaloo” movement is attracting many American youth daily. One of its affiliates said in a post on Facebook that the term “Boogaloo” began as a funny thing, but it evolved into a deeper symbol of “Boogaloo Movement”, by calling for the freedom  against the decisions of the American authorities.

   On the other hand, the (Three Percenters Militia Movement) appeared in the month of April 2020: those who organized a march at “Olympia headquarters” in the capital, Washington, and the participants in the gathering were keen to wear “Hawaiian shirts” to support the demands of the “Boogaloo extremist armed movement”.

  In May 2020, a third extremist movement appeared in the United States, called the “Blue Igloo movement”: which began with a demonstration in Raleigh, North Carolina, and promoted itself on Facebook, and the movement entered into some “armed confrontations” with the state police.

   A fourth movement appeared, consisting of armed members called the extremist “Liberty Militia movement”: they are mainly deployed in the state of “Michigan”.

   A new fifth movement appeared called “The Rhett E. Boogie Group”: by advocating on Facebook forums, this led to the launch of a movement which invited “Gretchen Whitmer” as a representative of the “Democratic Party”, to address these violent threats.

   In March 2020, there were also demonstrations related to the “Neo-Nazis movement” in the US state of “Missouri”: one of those belonging to this extremist movement was killed when the “Federal Bureau Investigations agents” FBI  tried to arrest him, for trying to bomb a hospital in the “Kansas City”  area.  After the outbreak of the Corona virus, the “Neo-Nazis movement” announced that its new goal was to “start a revolution” in the country.

  During the month of May 2020, a white supremacist group, known as: the “Associates of Bradley Bunn” appeared in the state of “Colorado”: which prompted the “US Department of Homeland Security” to issue an alert to it.  And “Bradley Benn” is a former US Army soldier, who was arrested on May 1, 2020, after the “Federal Bureau Investigations agents” FBI found that there were “four pipe bombs” in his home in Loveland, Colorado, which led some to sympathize with him for his courage, and they formed a movement in his name.

   The other armed prominent group in the USA, which has been revived and unified under a given new name of the  “White Supremacist Groups”, which has been active since 2019, has been revived, and has declared itself as (an extreme right-wing movement), and includes a group of armed militias.

   In general, it is possible to observe and track the goals of these American armed movements and increase their activities, especially after the outbreak of the Corona epidemic and the poor economic conditions in the American interior, and made the beginning through social media, where one of them wrote: “Many individuals are very upset with the way that the USA is managed and the other passed laws that are criminalised to the law-abiding citizens”. Perhaps what is new in the thinking of these American extremist armed movements, according to the study of the “Extremism Program at George Washington University”, is that their discourse goes beyond discussions about combating restrictions, which many protesters describe as “tyranny” to talk and violent radical discourse about “Killing FBI agents” or police officers “to start a war”.

   From here, we understand the existence of (a real state of conflict and undeclared polarization within the American interior itself, whose features appeared between the movements of the left and the right and resulted in the carrying of arms and resistance to the American authorities themselves), and this internal American conflict became clear between (the forces of the left and the American right) after the failure of the former President “Trump” in the period of the previous US presidential elections in November 2020, and perhaps this period will be the one (which will establish the next American period and will determine the extent of its democracy globally and even how to deal with rebellious groups and sectors and the opposition of the American people themselves who reject the internal American policies and their undemocratic approach), and it will expose the global American democracy itself to (face difficult tests in front of the minorities who are expected to dominate the American political scene by 2040 according to the expectations of American sociologists, anthropologists and humanists), hence the important question will come, regarding:

  (How will the United States of America present itself to the world less than 20 years from now? Especially, in the presence of a real undeclared internal conflict over the American power and governance circles, which threatens the American concept that promotes the idea of ​​democracy and human rights from the narrow American perspective)?!

Continue Reading

Americas

The Turkey and the U.S. Holiday Season

Published

on

Guess!  Forty-six million turkeys are eaten in the US over the course of a year, a month or a certain day?  The surprising answer (or maybe not) is the latter … on the Thanksgiving holiday.  It is celebrated in the US on the fourth Thursday in November.  Another 22 million are devoured over Christmas and 19 million perish at Easter.

We are a carnivorous culture.  If 46 million turkeys stand side-by-side, they make a line some 7,000 miles long or about twice the distance between the East and West coasts.  Despite all this, turkey is only the fourth source of protein in the U.S. coming in as it does after chicken, beef and pork.

Nevertheless, almost 1.4 billion pounds of turkey were consumed at Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter — to the 46 million Thanksgiving turkeys one can add 22 million for Christmas and 19 million for Easter (2011 figures).  About a third of the turkeys are eaten during the holidays and two-thirds over the rest of the year.  It adds up to about 230,000 birds in total.

That is the front end for turkeys.  But not all the turkey is eaten.  The carcass and some of the meat ends up in trash cans.  The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates a third of global food is wasted.  That figure coincides with what the US Department of Agriculture projects for turkeys  — 35 percent goes into garbage cans and ends up in landfills.

The average weight of a turkey is 15 lbs. giving us approximately 690 million pounds for the 46 million consumed during Thanksgiving.  It also means 240 million pounds goes to the waste dumps. 

Turkey is not the only waste — Americans throw away 25 percent more waste during the approximately month-long holiday season from Thanksgiving to New Year (think of all the gift wraps, Christmas trees, cardboard boxes, ribbons, sticky tape, etc.).  On ribbons also, if people in the U.S. reused just 2 feet of holiday ribbon, it would save 38,000 miles of ribbon.  And if each family wrapped only 3 gifts in re-used Christmas wrapping paper, the saved paper would be enough to cover 4,500 football fields.  All of which might seem to be in the spirit of the grinch that stole Christmas, but the general idea is to think about minimizing waste.

Perhaps all of this is irrelevant in a world in the grip of the covid virus.  The essence of holidays lies in the gatherings of friends and relatives, something frowned upon in the age of covid.  So, a quiet march to the New Year and a muted “Happy New Year” with a ‘beware of the omicron strain’ under one’s breath.

Such is the world of covid with its frustratingly temporary immunity.  Is there a possibility it will eventually become like the common cold, a nuisance with which we learn to live?  As it is the latest version i.e. the omicron variant shares its genetic code with the cold virus and is more easily transmissible. 

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Africa2 hours ago

The UK’s travel ban: Why Nigerians must look towards their leaders

Once again Nigeria’s image problem rears its ugly head, only this time, it has to do with how little care...

Development4 hours ago

Philippines: Boosting Private Sector Growth Can Strengthen Recovery, Create More Jobs

Rebounding from a deep contraction in 2020, the Philippine economy is forecast to grow 5.3 percent this year before accelerating...

International Law6 hours ago

The crisis of international law

The idea of promoting the human rights agenda in the image and likeness of the Western countries’ principles – as...

Eastern Europe8 hours ago

Lithuania: pensioners get ready for death

Main attention of the Lithuanian media has been focused on migrant crises and security issues for several weeks. This problem...

Africa Today10 hours ago

United States COVID-19 vaccine delivery to Mozambique

In an effective effort to make tremendous and recognizable contributions to help fight the spread of coronavirus, the United States...

Russia12 hours ago

Putin: Ukraine Is to Russia What Cuba Was to America in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis

In an almost universally ignored speech by Putin, on December 1st (titled “Ceremony for presenting foreign ambassadors’ letters of credence”),...

Reports14 hours ago

AI for Human Resources Toolkit Helps Organizations Overcome Implementation Challenges

The World Economic Forum published the “Human-Centred AI for Human Resources: A Toolkit for Human Resources Professionals” to scale the...

Trending