High time for US to act sensibly abroad

High time for US to act sensibly abroad
Updated 11 October 2013

High time for US to act sensibly abroad

High time for US to act sensibly abroad

America may have been rejoicing in the capture of someone they believe to be a top Al-Qaeda planner but their seizure of the man in Tripoli and his removal to a US warship, may, days later have come very close to costing Libya’s prime minister his life.
Early Thursday morning a group of armed men barged into the suite in the coastal hotel in the capital, where Prime Minister Ali Zeidan spends part of his time. They apparently fooled the politician’s heavily armed security men, by showing a phony warrant for the prime minister’s arrest. Pictures posted on social media show a disheveled and confused Zeidan being bundled out of the building. Significantly, he is without his heavy pebble-lens glasses, without which he can see very little.
President Barack Obama could probably have done with an equally strong pair of spectacles. They would have been useful to look more closely at the likely outcomes, before he personally authorized the kidnapping of Nazih Ruqaii, also known as Abu Anas Al-Libi. The Al-Qaeda suspect is a Libyan citizen. He was arrested in broad daylight outside his home.
The initial abduction may not have been carried out by members of the US Navy Seals Delta Force, but rather by a Libyan gang out to claim a $5 million reward. If true, the Americans have so far not admitted this. Nevertheless the impact of this illegal act shook many ordinary Libyans, who have absolutely no sympathy for Al-Qaeda and its message of hatred and intolerance.
The sovereignty and freedom of their country, for which so many fought and died in the desperate war against the dictatorship of Muammar Qaddafi, had once more been violated.
Their fury was twofold. First they wanted to see any Libyan suspect tried in Libya, not some US or international court. Second, they found it hard to believe that the government of Prime Minister Ali Zeidan did not know about the impending attack. In addition, if Zeidan knew, he approved, even if this approval was given grudgingly.
Libya has many problems. It has been argued that the government’s writ does not run very far beyond the gates of the prime minister’s offices. It is certain that while the state struggles to rebuild an army and a police force, security actually rests with the armed militias. Unfortunately insecurity rests with them as well.
This instability has been exploited in particular by Muslim Brotherhood elements, inspired by their brethren in Egypt. More worryingly, they have also bred extremist elements, under the banner of Ansar Al-Sharia, who were almost certainly responsible for the murder of US ambassador Chris Stevens and three fellow Americans in Benghazi just over a year ago. That outrage, roundly condemned by the vast majority of Libyans, produced a cold fury in the Obama White House. That anger was made worse by credible accusations that the administration had reduced security around doomed Ambassador Stevens, despite his pleas that it be kept at the same level, if not actually increased.
Obama has not forgotten the triumph when the same Delta Force of the Navy Seals stormed Osama Bin Laden’s Pakistani hide-out, killing Al-Qaeda leader and seizing large quantities of crucially important intelligence data. To have seized or killed a leading member of Al-Shabab in Somalia and a top terror commander in Libya on the same day would have been another victory in the war against terror.
But while the first operation against Al-Shabab leader was botched from the start, it seems that the Libyan kidnapping was also full of errors. Not the least of these was the reaction of the extremists among Libyan militias. Within days, hot heads had put into action an audacious and dangerous plan to seize the prime minister, and probably hold him as a ransom for the return by the Americans of Abu Anas Al-Libi.
It is Washington’s good fortune that despite Libya’s security situation, wise counsel was able to prevail. The kidnappers were quickly identified and then persuaded by a combination of Libyan politicians to hand over Zeidan. Even though he is widely unpopular, had Zeidan been killed by his captors, the reaction against America would have been massive.
Once again Washington has acted entirely in what it perceives to be on its own best interests and ignored the impact of its planned actions on the country in which it chose to exert main force. Foolish arrogance.


Editorial: Iran must not go unpunished

Editorial: Iran must not go unpunished
Updated 16 May 2019

Editorial: Iran must not go unpunished

Editorial: Iran must not go unpunished
  • Arab News argues that while war is always a last resort, an international response is a must to curb Iranian meddling
  • US strikes worked well when Assad used chemical weapons against his people

The attacks on Tuesday by armed drones on Saudi oil-pumping stations, and two days beforehand on oil tankers off the coast of Fujairah in the UAE, represent a serious escalation on the part of Iran and its proxies, should the initial conclusions of an international investigation prove to be accurate. 

Riyadh has constantly warned world leaders of the dangers that Iran poses, not only to Saudi Arabia and the region, but also to the entire world. This is something former President Obama did not realize until the Iran-backed Houthis attacked the US Navy three times in late 2016. The recent attacks on oil tankers and oil pipelines were aimed at subverting the world economy by hitting directly at the lifeline of today’s world of commerce. Tehran should not get away with any more intimidation, or be allowed to threaten global stability. 

It was in 2008 that the late King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz called upon the US to “cut off the head of the snake,” in reference to the malign activities of Iran. Nearly a decade later, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman referred to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as the “new Hitler of the Middle East.” We are in 2019 and Iran continues to wreak havoc in the region, both directly and through its well armed proxies. Crown Prince Mohammed was therefore clearly correct when he argued that appeasement does not work with the Iranian regime, just as it did not work with Hitler. The next logical step — in this newspaper’s view — should be surgical strikes. The US has set a precedent, and it had a telling effect: The Trump strikes on Syria when the Assad regime used Sarin gas against its people.

We argue this because it is clear that sanctions are not sending the right message. If the Iranian regime were not too used to getting away with their crimes, they would have taken up the offer from President Trump to get on the phone and call him in order to reach a deal that would be in the best interests of the Iranian people themselves. As the two recent attacks indicate, the Iranians insist on disrupting the flow of energy around the world, putting the lives of babies in incubators at risk, threatening hospitals and airports, attacking civilian ships and putting innocent lives in danger. As the case always is with the Iranian leadership, they bury their heads in the sand and pretend that they have done nothing. Nevertheless, investigations indicate that they were behind the attack on our brothers in the UAE while their Houthi militias targeted the Saudi pipelines.

Our point of view is that they must be hit hard. They need to be shown that the circumstances are now different. We call for a decisive, punitive reaction to what happened so that Iran knows that every single move they make will have consequences. The time has come for Iran not only to curb its nuclear weapon ambitions — again in the world’s interest — but also for the world to ensure that they do not have the means to support their terror networks across the region. 

We respect the wise and calm approach of politicians and diplomats calling for investigations to be completed and all other options to be exhausted before heading to war. In the considered view of this newspaper, there has to be deterrent and punitive action in order for Iran to know that no sinister act will go unpunished; that action, in our opinion, should be a calculated surgical strike.


Editorial: Two thumbs up, Mr. Trump

Editorial: Two thumbs up, Mr. Trump
US President Donald Trump speaks during the Arabic Islamic American Summit at the King Abdulaziz Conference Center in Riyadh on Sunday. (SPA)
Updated 05 June 2017

Editorial: Two thumbs up, Mr. Trump

Editorial: Two thumbs up, Mr. Trump

There was one topic that dominated the lobby of the Riyadh Marriott, where the media center for the Arab-Islamic-American Summit was set up: US President Donald Trump’s speech. Journalists from the Middle East, and those flying in from the US, seemed to all have the same question in the back of their mind: How bad would Trump’s speech be, considering his controversial pre-election rhetoric?
Not only did last night’s speech silence most critics — in this region at least — but it made it very clear that Trump will do what he thinks is right, no matter how harshly he is made to look like he is contradicting himself back home.
What matters to this part of the world is that we feared a president who would seek to divide us, but got one who last night talked about unity and how standing together will ensure we do not fail. We feared a president we were led to believe hates our values and culture, but we got one who sipped our coffee, joined us in sword dancing and told us last night that the US is not here to impose its way of life, but to offer us a helping hand if we choose to take it.
We thought that when Trump said “America First,” he meant we would be neglected and left to our misery. But it is his predecessor Barack Obama who did that when he opted to lecture and profess instead of adhering to his own red line when Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his own people.
What did Trump do? He fired back in less than 48 hours, and attacked a Syrian regime convoy a few days ago to make sure nobody thinks his administration is messing around. Trump is now off to Israel, and while he deserves two thumbs up for his Riyadh speech, all eyes will be on his negotiation skills to see if he can deliver what Obama and his other predecessors failed to achieve: A peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians.


Editorial: For the sake of humanity, Russia!

Editorial: For the sake of humanity, Russia!
Russian Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations Vladimir Safronkov listens during a meeting of the United Nations Security Council at U.N. headquarters, on Wednesday in New York City. (AFP)
Updated 06 April 2017

Editorial: For the sake of humanity, Russia!

Editorial: For the sake of humanity, Russia!

The horrible images coming out of Khan Sheikhun in Syria’s northern province of Idlib are both shocking and mind-numbing. The pictures of lifeless little ones in the arms of their parents and relatives are heart-breaking.
No words can describe this and other horrors that have been visited upon the innocent people of Syria by an inhuman and murderous regime.
This is not the first time the Bashar Assad regime has used chemical weapons against its own people. Nor most likely is it the last. The first time these weapons of mass destruction were used was in August 2013 in Ghouta.
The Assad regime was not held accountable for that, despite tough talk from the then-US President Barack Obama.
In contrast this time, the world seems united in its condemnation of the regime’s barbarous and abominable act. Nonetheless, there is one country that continues to stand by a dictator whose appetite for blood-letting and killing does not seem to have been slaked even now.
Russia maintains the attack came from opposition fighters. There is, however, clear evidence to the contrary. The attack was, according to the evidence, the result of an aerial bombing and only the regime has aircraft. The opposition has none.
It defies logic and good sense as to why Russia would stand on the wrong side of history. How many more Syrians need to die for the calculations in Moscow to change? More than 400,000 have died in the war and more than 5 million have been uprooted from their land and scattered to countries far and near.
The chemical attack is — as US President Donald Trump rightly said — an affront to humanity.
There has been far too much dilly-dallying at the UN. For much too long, the fate of Syrians has been held hostage to the deadly game of Russian roulette. The business of the veto must stop. And with it, the dance of death in Syria can also be stopped.
Russia must, for the sake of humanity, join the world in stopping the devil in Damascus from raining more death and destruction upon innocent people. 

 


Editorial: The stars are aligned for cinema in Saudi Arabia

Editorial: The stars are aligned for cinema in Saudi Arabia
The Saudi Film Festival in Dhahran was a huge success.
Updated 08 April 2017

Editorial: The stars are aligned for cinema in Saudi Arabia

Editorial: The stars are aligned for cinema in Saudi Arabia

A Saudi film festival concluded a few days ago in the Eastern Province of the Kingdom. In what was a magnificent display of local creativity and an appreciation of the beautiful art of movie-making, local producers, directors, actors and film fans all got together and enjoyed the wonders of the big screen together.
More importantly, the festival served as a reminder that Saudis — like anyone else in the world — can enjoy the magic of motion pictures and experience the thrills and chills of public screenings without any issues.
Of course, this was not the first festival of its kind in the Kingdom; such events have been organized more frequently over the past few years. However, there is no escaping the obvious question: If Saudis and foreigners can enjoy films at these local festivals, then why can’t the Kingdom simply open up public movie theaters, where both locally produced films as well as selected Hollywood blockbusters can be shown?
The ban on cinema in Saudi Arabia is a complicated matter. Technically, there is no law or religious edict (fatwa) that prohibits it and the disappearance of movie theaters (which used to exist up to the 1970s in some Saudi cities) is known to be a recent matter which crept its way into society.
This was possibly based on the “ijtihad” of some overzealous elements and the negligence of officials who may have not seen the matter as a priority... after all, to many people cinema is merely a pastime.
Could there have been an element of media control at that time as well? Possibly... although that argument, if it ever existed, was shredded to bits with the introduction of satellite television in the early 1990s and the Internet a decade later.
Yet today’s Saudi Arabia is incomparable with that of 1980s or 1990s. In fact, the pace of change occurring in the Kingdom is so fast that it is even incomparable to the Saudi Arabia of two years ago!
Yes, there are still plenty of social issues to fix. However, one cannot ignore that in the past six months alone, we have seen live concerts, mixed audiences, visit of Hollywood stars, the Kingdom’s first ever Comic-Con and more art galleries and film activities than perhaps ever before.
Naturally, credit needs to be given where credit is due, and the newly-formed and government-backed General Authority for Entertainment certainly deserves a round of applause for all its efforts to bring joy, laughter and magical moments to the Kingdom and paint a bright future which awaits us within Vision 2030.
Will there be those who are unhappy with a decision to re-open movie theaters? Of course there will be. However, nobody will be forcing them to change their mind or watch a film if they don’t choose to. We must remember that there were also those who opposed schools for girls and if it wasn’t for the late King Faisal and his stern and decisive approach to the matter in the 1960s, women’s education might have been delayed for decades.
Will there be a security risk of having people together in a public arena? Of course there will be. But would that be any more dangerous than attending a football match or flying on a plane?
On the other hand, we need only think of how such a step would allow a wider slice of society to be empowered, cultivated and exposed to this beautiful art form (not everyone can afford to fly to Dubai, Cairo or London to watch a film). Furthermore, we will be creating jobs and a brand new industry, not just for local filmmakers, but for everyone from ticket-booth attendants to ushers and everyone else in the supply-chain of the movie-going business.
We do hope to see cinemas opening soon; after all, the stars could not be any more aligned than they are now.


Editorial: Saudi budget 2017: short-term pain, long-term gain

Editorial: Saudi budget 2017: short-term pain, long-term gain
Updated 07 March 2017

Editorial: Saudi budget 2017: short-term pain, long-term gain

Editorial: Saudi budget 2017: short-term pain, long-term gain

Saudi Arabia’s 2017 budget, announced today, will include some tough decisions which neither nationals nor expats living in the Kingdom are used to nor will find easy.
However, with the ongoing oil price crisis, Riyadh — which until today still relies mostly on the energy economy — had only one of two options: Fight or flight.
Rather than burying its head in the sand, praying for solutions and exhausting its reserves, the government opted for the more difficult of the two choices: To fight.
Believing that the best time to introduce reforms is when your back is against the wall, the Saudi leadership earlier this year announced an ambitious, yet undoubtedly challenging, set of reforms under the umbrella of Vision 2030. It was an overarching initiative spearheaded by Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is head of the Kingdom’s Council of Economic and Development Affairs (CEDA).
Many Saudis believe in the vision and value its importance, particularly given that it was crafted after a series of focus groups and workshops, which included many representatives of the country’s population. However, there were those — mostly people who benefit from the status quo — who sought to brush off the reforms as either unattainable or unnecessary.
Of course, there is no question that, over at least the next two years, the majority will suffer from a financial pinch — and the criticism of the reform plans will now undoubtedly increase.
After all, citizens and residents of the oil-rich Kingdom are not used to paying a higher rate for energy prices; and of course, the impact does not stop there, as the domino effect will also mean price increases for goods and services; many of which will soon also be subject to a value-added tax (VAT).
Expats working in the Kingdom, who also began paying a higher rate on their entry/exit visas this year, will also be subjected to paying fees for as long as they work in Saudi Arabia. However, these fees are minimal and are in no way comparable those levied in the US or European countries, where not only a hefty income tax (reaching 50 percent in some cases) applies, but also taxes on energy, water, municipality or council services, property transactions, inheritance and even TV licenses.
Yet to say that these Saudi reforms were not necessary is simply ignorant. Numbers Arab News has reviewed with senior government officials over the past few days demonstrate a real “doomsday scenario” within less than five years if such reforms were not introduced as quickly as they have been.
The good news is that the 2017 budget, and the government’s budget-balancing act it aims to achieve by 2020, has assumed only the worst-case scenario. Things will be ever rosier if positive factors come to pass, such as the imminent oil output deal, and the eagerly-anticipated Saudi Aramco initial public offering.
We should not neglect to mention that the price hikes are going to be introduced alongside a generous government assistance program, the aim of which is twofold. It will both help Saudis on low incomes cope with the increased rates, while at the same time attempt to limit waste and rectify bad habits by offering incentives to citizens who cut down on their energy and water consumption.
The measures announced today come with a whole set of commitments designed so that the people of the Kingdom will begin seeing the results as soon as possible, and that a budgetary balance is achieved by 2020, paving the way for a sustainable economic future.
First and foremost, Riyadh has pledged full transparency on its projects and spending. Now, while some might be wary of Saudi Arabia’s dealing with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the reality is what better “seal of approval” could the economy get than working with the IMF and other such internationally-trusted entities?
What is interesting is that the pledge of being transparent is not only directed outwards, but inwards as well; even though the government does not actually have to make such promises. Among the reforms it intends to introduce is a public record detailing the achievements, KPIs and spending of different ministries and entities.
Will this succeed? Well, there have been many Saudi projects which were announced and never delivered; however, the majority of the ones that were fruitful had one thing in common: The involvement of the head of state himself.
A few days ago, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman addressed Saudi Arabia’s Shoura Council and made it clear he is fully supportive of the reforms. He was also the first to subscribe to full transparency when it comes to the reality of what the various economic reforms will entail. As he said earlier this year, they “might be painful in the short run but ultimately aim to protect the economy from worse problems.”