To many, the statement by Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal that the Kingdom would cooperate in a US-led attack on Iraq if the UN Security Council gives the green light must seem like an abrupt about-turn in Saudi foreign policy. Only days ago, they would argue, it appeared that the Kingdom was opposed to any action against Iraq.
The truth is more complex, however. Yes, there is a change but it is a response to a much bigger change by Washington.
The word that is being overlooked by those who think that Saudi Arabia is making the big shift is "unilateral". The Kingdom has never made any bones about the fact that it would like to see the removal of Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime. in Baghdad. What it opposed was unilateral action by the US against Iraq. It is not, nor has been, opposed to multilateral action if approved by the UN. Indeed, were the UN to pass a resolution calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein, it would be incumbent on all members to help turn that policy into reality. As signatories to the UN Charter, they have a duty to do so. Prince Saud’s statement about the Kingdom’s cooperation in an international effort to enforce a UN decision has to be seen in that light. The difference of views was about due process. The US has decided to follow due process of international law in moving to force Baghdad to accept back weapons inspectors. It is that change that permits Saudi Arabia to change its stance.
Apart from the Kingdom’s commitment to discharge the responsibilities of a member state of the United Nations, it is also crucial for other reasons that the Kingdom participate in any action to remove Saddam Hussein. The first is that, for all our differences over particular aspects of US foreign policy and our resentment at the way sections of the American public have indulged in ignorant Islamophobia, we must preserve the special relationship with the US; our economic and political interests are too deeply interwoven.
Secondly, the Kingdom has to play a role in a future Iraq; it is not only our neighbor, but a neighbor with a proven capability to cause dire trouble to those around it. It has invaded two of its neighbors, and attacked this country: Saudi Arabia has, therefore, very valid interests in making sure that a post-Saddam Hussein government in Baghdad is on the best of terms with the Kingdom and a force for peace in the area.
Saudi Arabia cannot prevent any operation by the US, if that is what Washington decides to do. That is a reality that must be accepted. Another reality that must be accepted is our responsibility to be involved, alongside Washington, to ensure that what happens do not harm our interests and of the other Gulf states in the GCC, those if the wider region and those of the Iraqi people, who desperately want change. Their interests must be paramount. Apropos that, the one thing that the Kingdom does not want to see is a breakup of Iraq, which could happen if any intervention were mishandled or undertaken without the fullest understanding of what is at stake. That would be a disaster.
It is Washington’s change of mind that has enabled a lesser Saudi change to occur, and by doing so, ensure that change in Iraq, if and when it happens, is for the best.
