When Interior Minister Prince Naif accused the United States of applying double standard in its war on weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, he was giving voice not only to the misgivings in the Kingdom and the region, but in most world capitals. From Paris to Moscow to Beijing, there is the same cynicism. What is it about weapons of mass destruction, they wonder, that makes one a threat, and another a solution? Why is the world’s mightiest military machine moving to prevent the possibility of their future possession in one case and its mightiest diplomatic muscle reaching out to throttle even a mention of their real possession in another case?
Prince Naif was not arguing that Iraq should have the right to develop weapons of mass destruction. Saudi Arabia’s position has always been that their possession would not contribute to mankind’s security. For that reason, it has been a forceful advocate of nuclear, chemical and biological disarmament throughout its history.
Further, it has no reason to defend the present regime in Baghdad. A nation that provided land, bases, facilities, men and material, apart from $80 billion in funds, to the war that rolled back Saddam Hussein’s invading forces in the 1990s would not defend the man’s right to own such weapons of hegemony. The point Prince Naif made was that Saddam was not the only threat to freedom and human dignity in the region. There is Israel, in possession of an arsenal supported by a most sophisticated delivery system that can take nuclear, chemical or biological annihilation to all the Middle East and far beyond. Why is there no effort to disarm it? Why are Israel’s nuclear weapons not even discussed at disarmament confabs?
The conclusion has to be that America’s vision for a stable Middle East is that of a collection of vassal states living in perpetual subjugation to a Zionist Rome — the stability of a slave colony. That is the dream Prince Naif said that he or his nation or community was not prepared to share.
Iraq has defied UN resolutions. It should be punished for that. Israel has defied four times the number of UN resolutions that Iraq has. Why is there no action to punish it? Why is there a US veto every time a resolution is brought to pull it up for its refusal to abide by UN resolutions? Why is it terrorism when Israeli civilians are killed, and self-defense when Palestinians are killed? If it is morally right for Israelis to kill in "self-defense" inside Palestine, why is it not morally right for Palestinians to kill in "self-defense" inside Israel?
America gives billions of dollars, weapons and technology to help Israel to occupy Palestine, invade its cities, demolish its homes, and kill its people. That is the civilized thing to do, we have been told. But, if Saudi Arabia helps the Palestinian families who had lost their breadwinners, it is an evil act that must be sought forgiveness for. What but hostility for Arab and Muslims would explain such an attitude?
The questions raised by Prince Naif may be condemned as anti-American. They are not. They go to the very core of the Middle East problem. Unless they are addressed, and addressed honestly, and unless all evil forces are treated as evil, the solutions forced may prove to be more catastrophic than the problems they seek to solve.
