The spreading influence of the political Islamist movements imposes a nagging question. Who has supported and helped these movements for around eight decades, allowing them to achieve what they have? As a result of this support, they have assumed powerful positions and have even taken over the rule of many Arab countries, in the phenomenon known as the "Arab Spring". Another question that goes hand in hand with the first is, what kind of benefits have accrued and are still accruing, to the real perpetrators of this dogmatic trend? It is probable that Mark Curtis's recently published book, "Secret Affairs", has exposed Britain's close collaboration with Fundamental Islamists. The writer is a British journalist, author, and researcher at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. The book sheds light on an extremely important phase in this relationship. This devious connection has brought about devastation and destruction that is unprecedented in the modern history of the Middle East. This book, which is made up of 500 large-sized pages, did not base its views on endless theorizing, or ideological posturing, but rather on official British documents, recently unclassified. The documents were released by the Foreign Affairs, and Intelligence authorities. The book exposes the British government's conspiratorial activities with countries, groups or individuals known to shelter fundamentalists or terrorists, in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, the Balkans, Syria, Indonesia and Egypt and the association of newly independent states. Britain also conspired with Islamic fundamentalists to bring the "Sokoto" Caliphate to power, at the beginning of the 20th Century. This action was taken to serve Britain's strategic economic and political interests, leaving no room for values and principles. Who has Britain played with, and what pragmatic methods of manipulation has it adopted in the Arab world, the Middle East and Muslim countries in general? The people whom Britain exploited most and discarded once they were no longer useful, were the Islamists, starting with the Muslim Brotherhood and moving on to Bin Laden, the Afghan sects and the Indonesian groups. As for how Britain managed to manipulate the Islamists, the answer is that it used the "Divide and Rule" technique and it varied the way it handled the conflicting parties. After financing and arming the Taliban, it turned against them and supported Hyder Alief, the ex-communist and member of the political bureau of the Soviet Communist Party. It is interesting and surprising too that in this very important book, Curtis exposes the relationship between Britain and the U.S.A. This relationship became apparent after Britain had planted the seeds of conflict and schism in the Middle East, as exemplified by the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood group in Egypt, under Hassan El Banna, in 1928. Then there was a change of status for British policy and Intelligence, making them subservient to the U.S., according to Curtis. The British handled all the dirty work for the Americans, work that nobody else would touch. What examples do we have of Britain and the U.S.'s manipulation of the fate of Arabs and Muslims? In a general sense, Britain is known to have been the main motivator and mentor of the so-called Islamic forces in their drive to repulse nationalism and secularism. It plotted to assassinate nationalist and secularist leaders in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Indonesia, especially Abdel Nasser and Sukarno. What is even more surprising is that some of the documents contained in the book reveal that Britain has played a major role in all the wars described as Jihadi (religious wars). This was the case in the war in Afghanistan and in Bosnia, and even the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia. So what part does the Muslim Brotherhood play in the British scheme that was later taken over by the U.S.? Curtis' documentary work mentioned that Britain had recommended to Washington, the recruitment of many of the so-called Islamic leaders including Said Ramadan, brother-in-law of Hassan Al Banna and founder of the International Organization. Rumor also has it that they gave Ramadan USD 10 million in funds and forced Jordan to give him a passport. Have the Americans inherited the habit of imposing deadly double standards from the British, or do all those who have imperialistic ambitions of controlling the world share this habit? Both statements may be true. However, the British view of the Arabs as inferior beings, which the Americans have inherited, remains unchanged. People like Bernard Lewis, a protégé of U.S. intelligence, have passed on this view. Lewis takes the credit for having had the greatest influence in stirring up American sentiment against the Arabs. He is a pioneer of the scheme to divide the Arab world. The view of Arabs as inferiors is a persistent one. According to Congreve, the Arabs, whether Muslim, Christian, or Jewish, are like cattle and the fate of the entire lot is not equal to the life of one British citizen. Have the British handed over the task of supporting the Islamic fundamentalists to the U.S.A.? A look at the overall scene proves that they have done so and that the Americans have outdone the British in supporting the so-called Islamic factions. Several U.S. officials have claimed that Abdel Nasser compelled them to support reactionary forces. Any link with these forces stained the reputation of their supporters, since they were hostile to nationalism, making it their prime enemy. Is the conspiracy continuing? On August 10, 2010, Barak Obama ordered all his civilian and military agencies to be on the alert for an incident that was likely to occur in the Arab world, and we all saw what happened. So what is behind the new deal between the West's hidden forces and international Islamic radicalism? Nothing is clear so far. However, as Curtis has demonstrated in his book, today's secret could be common knowledge tomorrow.
