Saudi rulers may be swept aside

The Australian ^ | November 13 2003 | Greg Sheridan

[knighthawk]

The al-Qa'ida-backed bombings in Saudi Arabia at the weekend, and President George W. Bush's landmark speech on the US's new determination to promote democracy in the Middle East, represent a potentially decisive moment in the history of the Middle East.

For decades, US policy towards the Middle East has rested on two pillars: support for Israel and support for stability in the region.

While urging its Arab allies to behave better on human rights, Washington has historically not pressured them to democratise. As a result, it has been seen by the regional populations to be supporting dictators.

It is easy now to caricature and sneer at the Bush administration's desire to bring democracy to the Middle East. But it is a fundamental task of history. The Middle East has the potential to engulf the world in flames. It cannot be left outside of history any longer, with only two functioning democracies, Israel and Turkey, in the entire region, and no reasonable hope for progress for huge Arab populations.

The failure of Arab nationalism and leftism has left only Islamic fundamentalism on the ideological field. Surely it is right to promote democracy and development as a competitor.

The heart of the battle is Iraq. Anyone hoping that the Americans suffer a humiliating defeat in Iraq to bring them back to earth is really hoping that Arabs remain forever chained in tyranny, poverty and failure.

But an even more intriguing battle is under way in Saudi Arabia. No relationship in the world is more murky or complex than that between the US and the Saudis.

Saudi Arabia is meant to be a long-term friend of the US, yet the overwhelming majority of hijackers on the planes that attacked the US on September 11, 2001, were Saudis. The Saudis fund Islamic extremism all over the world. A US congressional report on the September11 terrorist attacks blacked out the entire section dealing with Saudi Arabia because it was too damaging to be released publicly.

Saudi Arabia was formed as a modern state in 1932 and signed its first deal with Standard Oil of California in 1933. Ever since World WarII, the Saudi royal family has approached statecraft by using its oil wealth to strike a series of bargains with friend and foe alike.

The bargain with the US is simple -- the Saudis provide energy security to the US and Washington doesn't press them to democratise. The bargain with extremist and terrorist groups, starting with the Palestine Liberation Organisation in the 1970s, is that the Saudis provide money so long as the extremists don't conduct operations on Saudi soil.

With their own religious conservatives, the Saudis let them have total control over education and social behaviour so long as they don't challenge the rule of the royal family.

The Saudi royals even had a bargain with their own people -- they didn't tax them and provided welfare, education and other benefits out of the oil revenue, and in exchange the people were not to ask for democracy. Every single one of these bargains has now broken down. The Saudi method of dealing with the world is exhausted.

The role of Saudi nationals in the terrorist attacks means Washington will no longer accept the Saudis' political irresponsibility. Extremist groups such as Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida no longer need Saudi government-sanctioned money. They've got their own money, loads of rich supporters beyond the reach of the Saudi Government, and now they want to topple the Saudi royals and put in place a much more fundamentalist regime. They can be bought off no longer.

Similarly, the religious conservatives have become so fanatical that in effect, even if not in intent, they threaten royal rule. Their indoctrination of Wahabi Islamic teachings is so extreme that they create a sympathetic environment for terrorism.

Even the Saudi people can no longer be bought off because the Saudi state can no longer afford it. In the 1990s, Saudi Arabia's population grew by 2.8 per cent a year while its per capita gross domestic product declined by 0.5 per cent a year. Apart from the oil industry, there is no substantial economic modernisation in Saudi Arabia.

It may well be that the Saudi rulers are heading the way of the shah of Iran -- to be violently overthrown and replaced by a far more radical and fundamentalist regime. The Saudi education system has been so toxic for so long that instant democracy would almost certainly produce success for extremists.

The question is whether the Saudi royals have enough political dynamism to start the monumental task of modernising their society, building institutions, creating a more consultative government and hang on to power at the same time.

I don't think Washington's ambitions are driven by neo-conservative hubris and therefore the criticism from the Right - that Bush is overambitious - is misplaced. Instead, the key dynamic is the wholly pragmatic realisation that the Middle East just cannot go on as it has, for the sake of Arabs and for all our sakes.

I got one word of a Gough Whitlam quote wrong last week. When pressed on why he would not allow substantial numbers of Vietnamese refugees into Australia at the time of the fall of Saigon in 1975 (even Vietnamese employees of the Australian embassy were excluded), Whitlam told colleagues: "I'm not having hundreds of f---ing Vietnamese Balts coming into this country with their religious and political hatreds against us!"

[knighthawk]

Ping

[Lazamataz]

Saudi Arabia is the key problem. I believe the House of Saud will someday fall. In it's place will be the worlds most fundamentalist Islamic regime ever seen. It will make the Taliban look like pikers.

It will also be a nuclear power. Pakistan recently exchanged oil for nuke tech.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Saudi Arabia is the key problem. I believe the House of Saud will someday fall. In it's place will be the worlds most fundamentalist Islamic regime ever seen. It will make the Taliban look like pikers.

Its tough to force democracy to take root in a Wahabbi garden. There will be trouble, either in Arabia, if the world shows some spine, or all over, if not.

[camas]

i sure hope you are wrong but i doubt it.

[kallisti]

it may become a nuclear power, but it won't be for long.

[r9etb]

Yup. Armageddon is shaping up nicely....

[cake_crumb]

Wow, I'm impressed. There it is, laid out in black and white and boiled down to a point: The Saudi royals created, fed and funded the terrorist monster of Wahhabism. He forgot to add that House of Saud is BUILT upon Wahhabism.

The problem is that the Saudi royl family is now in danger from the bigger, badder Wahhabists which they created under the guise of Arab "Nationialism"...which as the author poits out has failed.

[theFIRMbss]

>In it's place will be the worlds most fundamentalist Islamic regime ever

If the free world
wouldn't tolerate Islam
running a hell-hole

like Afghanistan,
what makes you think we'd allow
the Sauds to go down?

(And the Pak nuke threat
cuts two ways -- if the Bomb falls
on anti-Saud nuts

the Arab world
can't immediately blame
the US. Get it?)

[princess leah]

The monster Saudi created is going to destroy them and take over their country - if Osama is still living, he will attempt to takeover that country - you can bet on it! He is power hungry despite his so called fanaticism and when the US exploits that, they'll smoke him out of hiding!

[paulk]

Young men on welfare go into crime and terrorism. Lets tax oil imports from nondemocratic countries and take the collected money off of income tax.

[Billthedrill]

Instead, the key dynamic is the wholly pragmatic realisation that the Middle East just cannot go on as it has, for the sake of Arabs and for all our sakes.

I think this is quite correct, with two addenda - (1) there is a risk inherent in trying to effect this and the outcome is not certain, and (2) for the critics it's a win-win situation - no matter what happens, if it isn't perfect, bloodless, cheap, and immediate they get to say they'd have done it better.

[bjcintennessee]

If the free world wouldn't tolerate Islam running a hell-hole like Afghanistan, what makes you think we'd allow the Sauds to go down?

I think you are absolutely right -- and gee, since we're already over there.......

[Noumenon]

Its tough to force democracy to take root in a Wahabbi garden.

Sounds like a case for a thorough roto-tilling. Followed by a generous application of 2,4D and Roundup.

[joesnuffy]

The Saudi "Royals" were a created lot...they coulda drawn straws to see who would become the Saudi "Royals"...
More akin to "Camel Lot" than Camelot

[RinaseaofDs]

I think deals are being cut as we speak as to where Fahd and his family are going to end up.

This is yet another issue that is going to blow up in liberals faces. It may turn out that Iraqi oil is going to stabilize our demand in the face of an enemy Saudi state.

I've said this before, we need to develop some sort of independence from ME oil. It's too expensive in so many different ways to import oil from the ME.

[Senator Goldwater]

"I believe the House of Saud will someday fall. In it's place will be the worlds most fundamentalist Islamic regime ever seen. It will make the Taliban look like pikers. It will also be a nuclear power."

Which means that the Arabian Peninsula will soon be the world's largest drive-in movie theatre.

[Major_Risktaker]

Muslim clerics, dictators and desert Kings use the hatred of Israel to protect themselves from their ignorant and impoverish subjects from revolting against them.

How can all of the Muslims in the world hate little Israel?

Hatred of Israel has now come home to roost and the Kings are on the hit list.

Full text of the speech delivered by

H.M. King Mohammed VI

on May 29, 2003

Praise be to God His, is the only Eternal Kingdom

My Loyal Subjects,

I have promised to be frank and sincere with you at all times, whatever the circumstances. I refrained from addressing the nation immediately after the terrorist attacks were perpetrated in Casablanca and from telling you that we had won the battle against terrorism in just one night or over a period of a few days

[GOPJ]

You're right. One little state keeps all those Muslims in poverty. It's not the totally corrupt leaders of Muslim countries, and it's not the brain-dead totalitarian systems, or the way the female half of the population is kept useless... It's not even thousands of Mullahs who pretend they speak for God - as though God would not be able to speak for himself. No, it's none of that. It's Israel. Period. All that poverty and miserly and lack of freedom because Israel does ... well, does something. I have no clue... Anyone?

[Walkingfeather]

Me thinks there are going to be some rather....ehem ... unfortunate accidents in saudi arabia and pakistan.