LONDON, 26 June — Crown Prince Abdullah, deputy premier and commander of the National Guard, yesterday flayed Washington’s one-sided support to Israel and called for a more effective and balanced US and European role to establish peace in the Middle East.
Speaking to the Financial Times of Britain, the Saudi crown prince also urged an international force to monitor the Palestinian-Israeli cease-fire. He said the US role in the conflict contradicted with its position as an advocate of human rights.
“We believe the US when it says that it is an advocate of human rights and international legality, and that it seeks a new world order. What has appeared until recently as one-sided support to the behavior of an extremist Israeli government contradicts the US position,” he said.
Prince Abdullah urged Europe to play a leading role in the Middle East. “Europe has a moral and political responsibility because of its past as a colonial power in the region and because of its close links with the Arab world. It should play a more prominent role than the present one which is hardly noticeable.”
Referring to Israeli attacks against unarmed Palestinians, he said the US and Europe must do justice and show respect for the human rights. “We want them to look at the reality and to consider their conscience. Don’t they see what is happening to Palestinian children, women, the elderly. Don’t they see the humiliation, the hunger?” Prince Abdullah warned that an escalation of the crisis could raise the specter of guerrilla action across the world and a war in the Middle East.
“Our fear is that, if the situation is not brought under control, terrorism would emerge from the region and it would engulf the world. At some point, there could be a regional war.” The Saudi leader did not rule out a visit to the US in the near future. “A visit that does not occur today can occur tomorrow. What is important is that it occurs within a climate conducive to its success.” Prince Abdullah, who is on a private visit to Morocco, is due to meet US Secretary of State Colin Powell when he visits Paris on Thursday.
The crown prince underlined Saudi Arabia’s commitment to oil market stability amid concerns over a continued halt in Iraqi oil exports. He said the Kingdom, which recently allowed foreign investment in gas development, would not open its upstream oil sector to foreign investment. “State-owned Saudi Aramco had the technical and marketing capabilities to develop oil on its own”, he added.
Asked whether the Kingdom would use oil production as a political weapon, he said: “Oil is a strategic commodity upon which the prosperity of the industrial as well as the developing countries depend. Our oil policy is a prudent one, seeking a logical balance between the interests of producers and consumers. It serves no purpose to speak about oil outside this framework.”
The crown prince said the Kingdom’s economic reforms were progressing well at a normal pace. “The same thing goes for the privatization program. We are keen to progress with privatization in a way which would not have a negative impact on the welfare of citizens, especially the less privileged.” On repatriation of Saudi funds, he said the Kingdom would create a favorable climate to attract funds invested by its citizens abroad. “Our strategy is to continue the process of economic reforms so that our private sector finds investment locally more rewarding,” he added.
Prince Abdullah said Saudi Arabia set up the 120-member Shoura Council to ensure its active and real participation in the decision-making process. He said Riyadh would not change its Shariah-based rules and policies despite the strident anti-Saudi campaigns.
The crown prince said the Kingdom believed that its rapprochement with Iran would boost stability and development in the region. “Our security agreement with Iran reflects the desire of both countries to curb the evils of terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering and similar illegal activities,” he said, adding that the accord was not directed against any other state. “We believe an American-Iran dialogue adds to the stability of the region.”
Following is the excerpts from the crown prince’s interview with the Financial Times:
Q: Do you expect OPEC to raise its production ceiling in the next meeting in early July?
A: OPEC usually acts in accordance with its stated statutes and objectives, taking into consideration the interplay of the law of supply and demand and the interlocking relations of producers and consumers. I have no doubt that if and when OPEC deemed it necessary to keep the market well supplied, it would act accordingly, to keep the market balanced.
Q: Saudi Arabia has repeatedly stated that the burden of stabilizing the world oil market should not be shouldered by OPEC alone and that coordination between oil producing and consuming countries is essential for market stability. Do you think the new US administration’s energy policies are in line with the Kingdom’s thinking? Has the pressure the US previously exercised on OPEC now eased?
A: The new US administration has proposed energy policies that emphasize the importance of dialogue between producers and consumers which has been a stated Saudi policy all along. As for the perceived pressure on OPEC, there is a realization now that OPEC cannot stabilize the international oil market alone and that the other producers as well as the governments of the oil consuming countries have a role to play in market stability.
Q: In your opening address to the seventh International Energy Forum held in Riyadh last year, you proposed establishing a permanent secretariat for the forum in the Kingdom. How did producers and consumers respond to such an initiative?
A: Our proposal is based on the fact that oil is such a precious source of energy that it should not be left to the vagaries of the market. The issues pertaining to the production, consumption, investment and technology in energy should always be discussed among all parties. The future outlook points to a continued growth in world energy and, specifically, oil demand, which necessitates continued dialogue and cooperation for the benefits of producers and consumers. The establishment of a secretariat provides the means to enhance and broaden the dialogue, and the appropriate mechanism to build efforts for energy date transparency and exchange which has been of concern to all participants in the energy market.
Q: Are you in particular satisfied with the pace of non-oil investment in the Kingdom? The negative list — areas where foreign investment is not allowed — is seen by observers as a potential deterrent to attracting outside flows. Are there any plans to reduce the number of industries in which foreign investment is not allowed?
A: We have reiterated our willingness to listen to the international investors and have said time and again that the rules and regulations we put up are subject to revision whenever we find out any shortcoming or possibility for improvement. The negative list you referred to is not final and is always revised with the aim of reducing it. In our numerous meetings with the European business community we discussed this point quite extensively and are willing to listen to all concerned parties.
Q: Is it the Kingdom’s firm intention not to allow foreign companies into the upstream oil sector? And is investment in oil confined to refining or could there be further opportunities?
A: The decision of the supreme petroleum and minerals council to restrict the upstream oil from foreign involvement is based on solid economic criteria. The state oil company Saudi Aramco is one of the largest world oil companies and has the necessary technical and marketing capabilities. Saudi Arabia possesses more than ten million barrels per day of oil production capacity and is capable of increasing it when necessary to meet world oil demand. As to the other oil-related industries such as refining and petrochemicals, they are all open for foreign investment. The Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority could provide the details and investment opportunities there.
Q: The Kingdom has just announced the winners in its gas development projects. How much do you expect Saudi Arabia to receive in terms of foreign investment from the three core ventures in which foreign investors have been announced and how many jobs are these investments likely to create?
A: In its endeavor to fully utilize its energy resources, the Kingdom invited the international oil companies to invest in gas development, processing and production for use in electricity generation, water desalination and petrochemicals. The three core projects, which have been assigned to selected companies cover large areas in the eastern and western provinces. The total investment in those projects is more than $20 billion projected to double in a few years. These integrated gas, electricity, desalination and petrochemical projects will provide employment opportunities to thousands of our citizens, provide commercial opportunities to the Saudi private sector, contribute to the growth and diversification of the Saudi economy and enhance transfer and dissemination of technology. While such projects consolidate the role of the Kingdom in the oil and gas industry, the international oil companies’ involvement reaffirms their strong partnership with the Kingdom and the attractiveness of its investment climate.
Q: Job creation is a priority for the Saudi government. We understand that unemployment among the youth is running at 15 percent to 20 percent. Do you agree with these figures? Do you consider unemployment the greatest challenge facing the Kingdom? And what are the government’s other plans to create new jobs? Are you satisfied with the private sector’s response to the government’s call to employ more Saudis?
A: We in the Kingdom believe that the right to work is essential for our citizens. Previously, the government was the employer of last resort but now the private sector is the natural source of employment. As to the figures, due to the strong social bonds in our society and the inclination of our youth not to undertake some available jobs in some sectors or areas, it is difficult to specify the unemployment rate. But that is not to belittle the problem which the government considers one of its top priorities and one it is trying to deal with on different fronts — first by enabling the private sector, through more liberalization and privatization, to increase the employment opportunities and second by creating a favorable investment climate for local and international businesses and third and most important by channeling funds toward investment in human capital to build a labor force that is active and productive in this competitive and open world.
Q: Do you have any plans to allow the Shoura Council to debate the government budget? Are there any plans to give the Majlis greater powers?
A: The consultative council discusses the five-year development plan, on which government annual fiscal budgets are based and it overlooks the performance of government ministries. The recent increase in the number of deputies of the council is indicative of its increasing role and responsibilities. I would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation and admiration of the work of the council, through its thorough reviews of reports and laws and the high degree of professionalism exhibited by its members. This has contributed effectively in all fields of national interest. Any new responsibilities assigned to the council depend on the cumulative experience and the growing needs and changes in society and government.
Q: What legitimacy and what counterbalance does the Shoura have since all members are appointed and their role does not exceed consultation?
A: Is there a real democracy? It is always based on favoritism and money. Political legitimacy of the decision-making process in any country emanates from such particular conditions of each society, its social institutions as well as its cultural and value systems. Appointment to the Shoura is in line with such particular conditions and needs. It would not be legitimate if it was based on favoritism and if those chosen do not have an interest or say in public issues. Members of the consultative council are not such as these, because we seek active and real participation in the decision-making so that government decisions are taken after thorough discussion and enrichment from wide-ranging views.
Q: The Kingdom faces constant criticism for alleged abuses of human rights. What is your reaction to human rights groups’ accusations and what has the Kingdom done in response?
A: There are always campaigns against the Kingdom, but our religious beliefs cannot be changed. Even if there was one woman left in the Kingdom, she would not be in a position to give up her Islamic beliefs. There can also not be an imposition on us of any outside system. Americans came to King Abdul Aziz a long time ago and told him you behead people, you cut hands. When they finished, he said I did not demand this, God did, and I am only performing my duty as a Muslim, I am applying God’s constitution. When you cut off a hand as punishment, you save many others from committing a crime.
Q: Since the outbreak of the Palestinian intifada (the uprising against Israeli occupation which erupted last September) Saudi Arabia has been calling for greater international — particularly US — involvement to resolve the conflict with Israel. Are you satisfied with the US role? Do you believe the new Bush administration’s Middle East policy is an improvement over its predecessor and is the endorsement by Colin Powell (secretary of state) of the report by the Mitchell Committee and the naming of a new US envoy sufficient engagement?
A: The US should play a more effective role. Our American friends, however, consider that the time is not right for them because of internal issues. They have taken some steps and we hope that they are successful in them. Mr. Powell’s acts are a positive first step. Mr. Powell fought in a war for the security and stability of the region — the war to liberate Kuwait. A man like him understands the effect of Israeli violence on regional security and stability.
Q: What specific measures are you looking for from the US in particular and, more broadly, the international community? What is needed today to consolidate the cease-fire (brokered by the US Central Intelligence Committee on June 13)? What are the risks if the cease-fire does not hold? What are the regional implications of the conflict and how concerned are you about a destabilization across the region?
A: Now, Palestinians have stopped and Israelis say they have stopped. The solution is to stop firing but who is doing it? What we need — the only solution — is for there to be a monitoring force to say who is firing on whom. You also have to take into account that if Palestinians do not see Israelis withdrawing (to pre-September) positions, if they do not feel a change, it will be difficult for Arafat to maintain calm and the cease-fire will have little hope. If there is a force between the two sides, it will also give the ability to sustain the cease-fire. It is in the interest of Saudi Arabia to be in a region living in peace, tranquillity, justice, whose people have equal rights. This will not come about so long as Israel conceives itself as a superpower ruling the region, and dictating its will on the peoples of the region. Jerusalem on the other hand is part and parcel of the conscience of every Muslim. We do not see the Palestinian question from an angle of extreme nationalism or unmitigated emotion but rather from careful considerations of regional interests within the framework of consciousness. The oppression of the Palestinians is a violation of fundamental human rights and international legitimacy.
Q: Some observers say that Saudi Arabia is taking an extremist political line on the Arab-Israeli conflict. What is your reaction to this? What is behind the radicalization?
A: This is an incorrect evaluation. Saudi Arabia has accepted every peace initiative irrespective of its source and it has made one such initiative in the name of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd. The extremists are those that either reject every peace initiative or frustrate or abort it. There are some things we simply cannot understand. How can the world turn a blind eye to Israeli F-16, assault helicopters and tanks attacking unarmed civilians. How can the Palestinian Authority be asked to maintain security and perform the duties of a state while the Israelis deprive them of the means, financial and otherwise, to do so? Israel is the only party that gets away with such contradictions and finds apologists. On the other hand it is the will and grace of Allah that honored the Kingdom to be at the heart of Arab and Muslim nations. This carries with it responsibilities no one can ignore. Any serious peace plan requires the support of the Kingdom. In the final analysis, we are a country with high credibility with all parties in the Arab and Islamic worlds. Maybe we are also the one qualified to persuade all concerned to come to the peace table. But we cannot play this role or perform this honorable duty while Israel continuously frustrates every peace initiative. Let me ask you this, who is the extremist? Is it the party that seeks peace on the basis of understandings, agreements, and conventions or is it the side who speaks of destroying the Aswan dam, calling for waging war, describing the Arabs as snakes, calling for the reoccupation of Palestinian territory and destroying the Palestinian Authority? These were pronouncements by some Israeli Cabinet ministers and leaders of influential political parties.
Q: Has the US raised any concerns over your security agreement with Iran. What is your view of US sanctions on Iran?
A: Our security agreement with Iran reflects the desire of both countries to curb the evils of terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering and similar illegal activities that are harmful to both peoples, and require multilateral cooperation. The agreement is not directed to harm the interests of any state. The contrary is the case. We consider the American sanctions on Iran a bilateral issue but in general we look forward to constructive relations between all states especially those countries that are either our neighbors or with whom we have common interests. We believe an American-Iranian dialogue adds to the stability of the region.
Q: The Bush administration is backing new smart sanctions against Iraq, involving measures that would alleviate the suffering of Iraqis but tighten controls over Iraq’s borders to prevent smuggling. What is your view of the US proposals? Do you think the US will be able to convince Arab public opinion that it is not responsible for the humanitarian situation in Iraq? Would the US ability to do so be related to its attitude toward Israel?
A: Three years ago we launched a Saudi initiative intended to ameliorate the conditions of the Iraqi people and to enable them to meet all their humanitarian needs. This is the permanent position of the Kingdom. Responsibility lies now with the Iraqi leadership. It is hindering any attempt to improve the conditions of the Iraqi people. I do not conceive the sanctions or the American policy to be directed at the Iraqi people. Sanctions and boycotts are a means to an end, which is the protection of the region from new adventures by the Iraqi regime. It is important not to lose sight of this end, and not to reach a stage where the means replaces the end. The success of the US in convincing Israel of the necessity of renouncing its expansionist and oppressive policies and to adhere to the will of the international community and the resolutions of international legality, is in the interest of international peace and indeed the interests of the US. If such a success materializes, it will reflect positively on political conditions in the region.
Q: In the Arab summit in Amman last March, an attempt was made to pass a resolution on the Iraq-Kuwait situation. Arab leaders said both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait had made great efforts but that Iraq had refused to provide security guarantees to Kuwait. Do you believe sanctions on Iraq should be lifted if Iraq provides clear guarantees to Kuwait? What would these guarantees entail?
A: The problem is not between Iraq and Kuwait alone, it is between Iraq and all its neighbors. It is a problem between Iraq and the whole Arab system and between Iraq and the international legality.
