Current trends in US-Saudi relations

Daniel Pipes and his likes are not too few to be ignored all together. In one of his recent articles (The Scandal of US-Saudi Relations-National Interests-Winter 2002/03) Daniel Pipes chronicles American obsequiousness in her relations with the kingdom. He has given examples of Defence Department's order (since withdrawn) on female service personnel stationed in the KSA to wear head to foot abayas off base; abduction of children by Saudi fathers born out of wedlock with American citizens; discriminatory treatment meted out to Christians and Jews; Saudi censorship of mail sent to American citizens resident in the KSA etc. Republican Congressman Ben Gilman, chairman of the House Internationals Committee, was quoted as saying that Saudi money official or unofficial was behind much of the Islamic rhetoric and activities in the world today. Daniel Pipes faults the US administration with laxity for non-intervention in the funding of militant Islamic institutions in the US as with pedestrian speed in pursuit of human rights and democracy in the KSA as opposed to orgiastic display of determination in other parts of the world.

Henry Kissinger (Years of Upheavals 1982) narrated his experience of a dinner with a Saudi monarch who ( oblivious of Kissinger's Jewish ancestry) told him of the dual conspiracy by the Jews and the Communists to undermine the civilized world as was known then and that Israel was the middle eastern outpost of that plot. Steven Emerson in his book The American House of Saud characterised the behaviour of several US ambassadors posted to the KSA as "visceral, over self interested sycophancy".

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Such brutal and often parochial assessment apart one should be reminded of the rock hard stability of Saudi-US relations established by King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud in 1945. As of recent events one could cite the series of pronouncements by Saudi ulemas (after the nine-eleven terrorist attacks) declaring that neither suicide nor killing of non-combatants is permissible in Islam. During the cold war Saudi Arabia played a key role in meeting a number of US foreign policy objectives including the expulsion of the Soviets from Afghanistan.

To many western minds Wahabism, practiced and promoted in the KSA, may seem a particularly intolerant form of Islam and Saudi Arabia a very "closed" society. In their parochial interpretation Saudi general education and cultural system actively generates intolerance towards other faiths and ultimately finds grotesque expression in terrorism. Before we delve into this question we may ascertain the source of stability of the Saudi regime which should be of great interest to the US and the west. Dr. Michael Donovan of the Centre of Defence Information believes that the Al- Saud's political authority exists by virtue of its intimate alliance with the Wahabi movement which arose out of politico-religious conflict in Saudi Arabia in the eighteenth century. Holy Quran being extremely monotheistic, Dr. Donovan finds no justification in the separation of the church and the state in Wahabism in contrast to the Christian west. Therefore the clearly defined religious puritanism of Abdul Wahab provides a basis for the Saudi royal family's political authority and legitimacy. The religious leadership (ulema) however retains considerable influence as evidenced by 1964 royal family deposition of King Saud sanctioned by the ulemas.

To understand the allegation of alleged Saudi funding of terrorism one has to comprehend the principle of zakat, one of the five obligations for a Muslim, which provides for compulsory donation of a part of personal wealth to the poor and towards charity. The Saudis from the modest to the extremely wealthy are obligated to donate zakat money to charitable causes. Though there is no incontrovertible proof yet of any money having been diverted to finance terrorism during the 1990-91 Gulf Crisis Saudi authorities discovered that some of the recipients of Saudi money were opposed to coalition efforts against Saddam Hussein. The Saudi authorities immediately clamped down on financial networks supporting these groups and took a number of measures to counter Islamist extremism.

The neo-conservative critics of Saudi Arabia would be well advised to remember that one of Osama bin Laden's primary goal is to drive a wedge between the US and KSA. As analyst Lawrence Freedman noted that in the seventies millions of dollars from the USA flowed to support the Irish Republican Army but the British opted for constructive engagement with the US instead of branding them as supporters of terrorism. For Osama bin Laden the Saudi King is an apostate who has allowed "occupation" of the holy land by infidel armies. Such close proximity of the western forces to the holy places of Makkah and Medina, in the eyes of the Islamists, is heretical and dependence on foreign forces for the defence of the holy places is derogation of Islamic credentials of the monarch. Under such circumstances cool heads in Washington D.C. may be reminded that KSA remains the only Muslim country endowed with religious leadership, wealth and good relations with the western powers.

Saudi Arabia continues to be a crucially important player in the international oil market with its substantial oil resources and excess production capacity. It is doubtful that Russian oil can be a substitute for Saudi oil or oil from the Caspian Sea can be despite construction of multiple pipelines a replacement of Saudi oil. Some analyst, however, have found some similarities in circumstances between the present day Saudi Arabia and pre-Khomeini Iran e.g. an authoritarian government, an unbalanced economy, heavy dependence on oil revenue, problematic demographic growth, disparate income distribution and political persecution. But in the context of today one is doubtful about the utility of religion as a revolutionary force particularly Sunni Islam which is more reliant on consensus.

Instead of embarking on a crusade against Saudi Arabia (and by extension war on Islam) the western powers may try to introspect into the shadowy alleys of its not so transparent past activities. Professor Anthony Clark of Georgetown University (International law and preemptive use of military force-The Washington Quarterly-Spring 2003) cited several cases of aggrandisement in the twentieth century unauthorised by the UNSC: Soviet action in Czechoslovakia(1948); North Korean invasion of South Korea(1950); US action in Guatemala(1954); Israeli, French and British invasion of Egypt(1956); Bay of Pigs(1961); Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia(1968); Soviet invasion of Hungary(1956); Six day war (1973); Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea(1979); Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1979); Falklands war(1982); US invasion of Grenada(1983) and of Panama(1989); and Iraqi invasion of Kuwait(1990). It may be appropriate here to quote from Professor Samuel Huntington, "The west won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority of applying organised violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-westerners never do".

In December last chairman and president of the Middle East Institute of Washington D.C. on a trip to Egypt and Saudi Arabia discovered that at the official level there was an increasing conviction that the US administration had little understanding of the region; were reluctant to understand political dynamics faced by traditional friends; and were formulating policies based on false premises. They found a perception pervasive throughout the region that US policies are driven by six Cs: - cowboys; colonialism; conspiracy; coca cola; cowardice( here US is being labeled as school yard bully); and clients (Israel is the client). They found that when the Arabs think of the US they think of Israel and when the US thinks of the Arabs they think of terrorism.

Terrorist attacks of nine-eleven have indeed been a turning point in American history. To the Americans nationalism comes easily and naturally. Convinced of the superiority of the American values and institutions Americans abhor state intervention in the promotion of nationalism. In many other societies, particularly developing ones, nationalism is aggrieved, fuelled by past grievances caused by external powers and once subjected to colonial past. In authoritarian regimes promotion of nationalism needs deployment of state's resources, propagation by state controlled media, display of government orchestrated parades of crack troops and latest weaponry. Distinct as the Americans understand nationalism Minxin Pei of Carnegie Foundation found that the Americans viewed nine-eleven terrorist attacks as an assault on US democratic freedoms and institutions. He, too, faults the US administration with inability to deal with nationalism abroad. As an example he cites the rising nationalism of South Korean younger generation who consider North Koreans as kins and not monsters while in Washington's universalistic political values North Korea is not only the last Stalinist communist outpost in the world but also as an aspirant for WMD is a dangerous candidate for transference of WMD technology and hardware to terrorist hands in exchange of money. North Korea is already accused of bartering missile technology in exchange of nuclear technology to some countries.

American propagation of instruments of modernity in the form of democracy and capitalism occasionally appears hypocritical given American refusal to submit itself to Kyoto Protocol, International Criminal Court, and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. While due to insularity such divorce from international consensus may not mean much to domestic constituency but it is generally incomprehensible to those living outside the United States. Like others Saudis remain skeptical about American policy of "zero tolerance" of terrorism when they see American acquiescence of Israeli "zero tolerance" policy in occupied Palestine. It is seen not only as a US-Israeli unholy alliance but also a Judeo-Christian alliance and that war on terrorism is actually a war on Islam.

Saudi crown prince Abdullah is reportedly worried about US loss of credibility and moral stature in the region because of its preemptive policy and Palestine policy. Prince Abdullah is also worried about the inability of the US public to understand the strongly conservative nature of Saudi society, the popular support of the conservative brand of Islam, abhorrence of dissolute permissive libertarian practices of the western society and most importantly Saudi suspicion of divergent US policies in different parts of the world.

Perhaps President Bush is not overly optimistic when he recently declared that half of Al-Qaida top leadership has either been killed or detained and the other half is on the run. His assessment is supported by the inability of the Al-Qaida to bring the Arab people out on the streets against the US; topple "puppet" governments and replace them with Islamists; or sustain an intense tempo of terrorism against US targets. This inability could spell the beginning of the end of Al-Qaida. If such an assumption can be made then it would be prudent for the US not to embark on a forensic investigation of the Saudi regime as yet since such incursion could affect both regional stability and global energy security. It has been suggested that the US may wish to define its relationship with KSA as one of strategic relationship based on common interests rather than a friendship based on common values; encourage Saudi authorities to institute political reforms; and urge financial transparency in tracking social and charitable activities abroad and counsel restrain on proselytising activities abroad. It would be unwise to open the champagne bottles just because Saddam regime is gone without assessing the depth of the wound inflicted upon Islamic polity( not because of any support for Saddam Hussein which was abundantly made clear during the first Gulf War, if any proof is needed at all) who would need reassurance that aberrants are being targeted for a safer world and it is not a Judeo-Christian crusade against the Muslim world.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.