The Wall Street Journal article of Oct. 30, 2001 displays the usual deliberate misrepresentation in the US media that Saudis have become accustomed to. Not only does it reveal ignorance but it also adopts a patronizing tone and arrogance. Both have become the hallmarks of the American elite in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse. No one has been spared degrading criticism by this self-appointed group of decision-makers. The late Senator William Fullbright captured the essence of this attitude in his classic work, ‘The Arrogance of Power.’
The article begins its attack on Saudi Arabia by quoting from Crown Prince Abdullah’s letter to President Bush last August. The letter pointed out that the US-Saudi relationship was “at a crossroads.” And indeed they are. For much of the twentieth century, Saudi Arabia has been one of the United States’ most trusted allies. It is the one country that has committed its vast oil resources to the well-being and prosperity of the American people.
As swing producer in OPED, it has played a moderating role to accommodate US and Western interests. It has also exerted a moderating influence on Middle Eastern politics. Over the last twenty years, Saudi Arabia has spent a considerable portion of its GNP on foreign economic assistance worldwide; the assistance at times amounted to 7% and was never less than 3%.
The United States, in contrast, spends less than 0.20% of its GNP on aid to developing countries — and much of that goes to Israel. And finally, Saudi Arabia has built its entire economic and financial structure on the American model to the exclusion of all others.
When the United States called on Saudi Arabia to help contain the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan, the Kingdom recruited volunteers and supplied them with arms and money. Osama Bin Laden was one of the volunteers supported and trained by the United States. When the war was over, the United States simply walked away, leaving the Afghans, the volunteers and Saudi Arabia holding an empty bag.
Human and religious emotions that had provided the drive for fighting the Soviets could not simply be turned off like a spigot. It was inevitable that those emotions become bitterness towards the United States.
The Saudi volunteers, pure at heart and committed to high principles, could understand neither the opportunism nor pragmatism of US foreign policy. If anything, Saudi Arabia suffered guilt by association with the United States. And hence, the country’s stability in no small measure depends on its disassociating itself from the United States. It takes twisted logic to argue that the stability of Saudi Arabia is due to the presence of American troops on Saudi soil. The fact is that the US military presence is very unpopular throughout Saudi society and is a liability rather than an asset.
The article raises serious issues in respect of Saudi economic development, its institutions and government. It also makes a veiled threat to “take over the Saudi oilfields, which would put an end to OPEC”. These will all be dealt with.
First, the charge of Saudi corruption in the awarding of contracts is a matter for the US government to address. It takes two to be corrupt: Giver and receiver. It is true that 90% of all Saudi government contracts, particularly military ones, have been awarded to American and British companies.
The United States has had the lion’s share and the Foreign Anti-Corrupt Practices Act is applicable with the burden of proof resting on those who make the accusations. The vast investigative power of the US government could, if it wished, be utilized to evaluate these accusations once and for all.
Second, it is true that Saudi Arabia is not a democracy in the Western tradition. Its form of government is certainly not derived from French ideas of human rights and popular democracy. But only a fool would argue that those concepts flourish nowhere but on European soil. Saudi Arabia’s human rights and democratic practices are rooted in Islam and its tribal traditions.
The country provides its citizens with education, health care, housing and employment on a level equal to most developed countries. Unlike the United States where 40 million citizens lack basic health insurance, in Saudi Arabia economic and social rights endorsed by various United Nations conventions are guaranteed.
Third, in respect of political rights, Saudi Arabia has steered away from the electoral system as the only form of representative government. Instead, it has chosen a Shoura (Advisory) Council with all the powers, prerogatives and functions of a parliamentary system.
The Council drafts laws, conducts hearings and passes legislation just as the US Congress does. Its 120 members are drawn from a cross-section of the Saudi population. The benefit of this system is to guarantee the selection of members on the basis of honesty and standing in the community, unrelated to the influence of special interest groups and financial contributions. Senator John McCain would be advised to take a look at the system. He might like what he would see.
As for women’s rights, it might come as a surprise to Americans to learn that more than 50% of Saudi private wealth is controlled by women. Saudi women are the masters of their own wealth and do not require husbands’ signatures to enter into contracts. These rights and privileges — economic, social and political — are far from the hallmarks of what the article calls “backwaters”. Backwaters are where rape, incest, drugs and violence are the order of the day in any American city, large and small.
Fourth, concerning cooperation with the United States in locating and stopping funding for terrorism, the Saudi government has cooperated and continues to do so.
In each case where it was proven that funding was made against Saudi government directives, accounts and funds were blocked. In cases where proof was lacking, the accounts and funds were not blocked. It would be well to remember that Saudi Arabia is a sovereign state and is not subject to the whims of bureaucrats in the US Treasury Department.
Finally, the veiled threat to take over Saudi oilfields. No one could be so ridiculous as to suggest that the United States could — or would — take over the oilfields.
The article claims that Saudi Arabia has missed the 20th Century. In making this suggestion, the writer seems to have missed the 19th. In case he is unaware, colonialism has long since withered away.
The people of Saudi Arabia, who have always accorded the United States respect and favorable treatment, would blaze into patriotic fury at such a move and would turn the oil fields into infernos to end foreign occupation.
In conclusion, US-Saudi relations are indeed at a crossroads. If attacks on Saudi Arabia and its people do not cease, Saudi Arabia might well find it necessary to reassess its 70-year special relationship with the United States.
This might well include reversing its policies and entering into partnerships with the rest of the world. This might well include cutting its links with American educational institutions where Saudi students face daily harassment.
This might well include pulling hundreds of billions of US dollar private sector investments out of the American financial system, thus further accelerating the US economic recession. This might well include playing a different role within OPEC. The list goes on.
No one is served by the rhetoric of hate and bigotry. Terrorism takes different shapes and forms.
The original article advances the cause of terrorists by emulating the terrorists. Saudi Arabia is a peaceful country where people live in harmony according to their culture and traditions. Terrorism is alien to Saudi society. The incidents that have taken place since the Gulf War were committed by foreigners and targeted foreign interests. The people of Saudi Arabia do not need advice based on ignorance and arrogance.
