LONDON – The trillion dollar lawsuit filed in America against Saudi citizens by relatives of the September 11th attack is but the latest manifestation of a sharply deteriorating relationship with America’s 35 year old Middle East ally, a downward path that at best will end in tears for an already weakening dollar and, at worst, a re-alignment of the major Arab regimes, once friendly to Washington, to something more akin to an adversary position.
The timing of the lawsuit could not have been worse coming as it does only days after a high-level Pentagon discussion paper was leaked that accused Saudi Arabia of being “the kernel of evil” and counselled the Administration to countenance the seizing of Saudi financial assets. Although the White House later sought to distance itself from the paper it was not until after Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld, questioned by the press, refused to take the opportunity to pour immediate cold water over it. If the Saudi authorities don’t follow the moves made this week by private Saudi individuals and institutions and rather quickly move their U.S. investments and savings into the Euro zone they may find that, if tensions rise to boiling point over the planned invasion of Iraq and the deteriorating situation in Palestine, they may wake up one morning and find their money gone.
Ever since September 11th the pressures from the U.S. have been mounting. Former CIA director James Woolsey said publically that Saudi Arabia “deserves a very large part of the blame for September 11th. I do not think we should do anything more with them right now than be cordial”. The main U.S. media have kept up a constant barrage of criticism. For example, reporting that the Saudis had refused to arrest any of the suspects identified by the U.S. government and that Saudi Arabia had refused to allow America use of its military facilities for the Afghanistan campaign. Such accusations have been shown to be false (although it is certainly true that the Saudis have made it clear that the U.S. will not be allowed to use its Saudi base for launching a new war against Iraq.)
American public opinion has never had a particularly good image of Saudi Arabia, blaming it for the oil price revolution of 1973-74. Yet even though, before the talk of toppling Saddam Hussein gathered pace, oil prices in real terms were below the level that preceded 1973, popular opinion resents what it still believes is the Saudi lock on high oil prices. It doesn’t take much for even quite sophisticated Americans to convince themselves that the time for friendship and the turning of a blind eye to Saudi Arabia’s attachment to Islamic fundamentalism and the wild men who spring from it is over, and that if the chips go down in the Middle East Saudi Arabia should be switched on the strategic chessboard from ally to enemy.
There is a grave danger of America misgauging the resilience of Saudi society. There is a lot wrong with Saudi Arabia for sure – not just the private charitable funding of violent prone Islamic causes including Al Qaeda (but the Americans should know a lot about that from their long tolerance of private American funding of such disparate causes as the IRA of Northern Ireland, the Contras of Nicaragua and even the Serbs of ex Yugoslavia). It is hard to put a gloss on the servile status of women and immigrant workers, a system of justice that tolerates torture, not to mention the lack of democracy.
Yet at the end of the day Saudi rule is relatively benign. Compared with other oil states like Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Algeria and Venezuela that have so grossly misused their oil wealth, the ruling princes of Saudi Arabia have channelled their resources remarkably well – into prosperous cities, efficient communications and transportation, bustling universities and factories and, above all, a sense of order. There have been over 75 years of relative stability in Saudi Arabia and no other country in the region can equal that. In a new study just published by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, “Saudi Arabia and the Illusion of Security” E.J. Peterson describes the regime as “patriarchal rather than tyrannical”. “Far from opposing change and denying basic rights to its citizens”, he writes “the government has promoted steady economic and social change- albeit at a measured pace, so as to keep a workable balance between traditionalist and modernists.” The government is adept at using the small space it has been bequeathed for forward momentum. The kingdom has no choice but to operate in this careful way since the regime itself and a majority of its people remain deeply attached to Wahabism, a conservative, puritanical, expression of Islam, that owes its central position in Saudi political life to the eighteenth century alliance fashioned between the religious reformer Mohammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab and the Al Saud family. Even today the ulama (religious scholars) are consulted before the government makes any significant decisions that involve social innovation.
The House of Saud is likely to remain one of the main pillars of Middle Eastern society for as far as one can see ahead. To argue that American military and economic muscle could make it kowtow would be for America to shoot itself not in the foot but in both legs as far as being able to have further influence in the Arab world. Engagement, tolerance and understanding are words that Washington needs to re-acquaint itself with. Saudi Arabia undoubtedly is going forward into the modern world, at its own measured pace. It is just that it has chosen a different path than America’s.
I can be reached by phone +44 7785 351172 and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
Copyright © 2002 By JONATHAN POWERFollow this link to read about – and order – Jonathan Power’s book written for the
40th Anniversary of Amnesty International
“Like Water on Stone – The Story of Amnesty International”
