Posted on 03/16/2003 6:28:46 AM PST by SJackson
Saudi-US Relations After Sept. 11, 2001 Part I
A group of intellectuals and academics attended a forum organized by Asharq Al-Awsat, a sister publication of Arab News, in Riyadh recently to discuss Saudi-US relations after the Sept. 11, 2001 events from a Saudi perspective. In this, the first of a four-part series, the Jeddah-based managing editor of the paper, Tariq Al-Homayed, reports on what they had to say about the political fallout.
In the first session, which was devoted to politics, the participants agreed that there was a problem in Saudi-US cultural ties in particular. The talks emphasized the need for the Kingdom to answer why 15 Saudis were among the Sept. 11 hijackers, not to please the US but to increase its own national security.
The issue of plurality in Saudi society was also raised, and there were heated arguments about its unique features. Speakers highlighted the lack of political awareness in some Saudi media, and of personalities who had a negative impact on Saudi public opinion.
Dr. Turki Al-Hamad, a well-known thinker and novelist, spoke on Saudi-US relations in a world after Sept. 11 events and how the US started reviewing the basis of interests in its foreign relations, including its ties with Saudi Arabia. Al-Hamad said that the US was trying to create a world of its own design, and consequently faced problems when it came to dealing with Saudi culture and politics.
The problem was also sociocultural, added Dr. Abdullah ibn Jaber Al-Otaibi, professor of international politics at King Saud University in Riyadh. It was “society vs. state and not state vs. state,” he explained.
According to Dr. Khaled Al-Dakheel, professor of political science at King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi-US relations were conducted at an official level for seven decades, but the Sept. 11 events brought the cultural side to the forefront of relations and made it difficult for the two countries to reach an understanding.
The lack of a common language adds to the problem, explained Al-Dakheel. “The presence of 15 Saudis on the hijacked planes on Sept. 11 does not mean everyone in Saudi society is a terrorist,” he said.
“Yes, there is a real problem,” said Dr. Ziyad ibn Abdul Rahman Al-Sudairy, a member of the Shoura Council. Saudi-US relations had moved from the top down to the level of ordinary people, and this had exposed the lack of knowledge on both sides.
“The Americans do not know the Kingdom and we don’t know many things about the US. We look at the US only from the angle of the Middle East situation. As a result, they have started attacking us with and without reason. And we are doing the same,” Sudairy said.
There was indeed a cultural gap, Dr. Mohammed Al-Holwa, a member of the Shoura, agreed. “When the Americans found out about their ignorance of Saudi tribes and the nature of our society, they sent their journalists to collect information about us,” he said. “What did the Kingdom do? We don’t have a single center in the Kingdom that talks about the superpower America and introduces that country to our citizens,” he explained.
Holwa disclosed that the Saudi Interior Ministry had proposed the establishment of a center specializing in US affairs under the supervision of King Saud University, but the proposal did not see the light of day because of “a bureaucracy that kills beautiful things.”
Describing Saudi-US relations as secretive, Hussein Shobokshi, a well-known businessman and media personality, said they were based on economic interests, and ignored human and cultural factors.
“While they attack us in their newspapers, we also attack them in our newspaper every day,” he observed.
There are differences between the two countries when it comes to what they value, he added.
“But there are also differences between the Americans and Japanese. France opposes globalization but when a McDonald’s restaurant was attacked the French society dealt with the crime and made it clear that it opposed extremism.”
In defense of concerns in the Kingdom, Raed Al-Qarmali of the Foreign Ministry pointed to the US’ status as the only superpower in the world, which had enabled some American groups to impose their views worldwide. At the same time, the Kingdom’s geographical position and its relative power in the Arab world had led certain popular agencies to think that they had the power to do anything.
“This led to the distortion of relations between the two countries,” he adds.
Debates at the seminar revolved around what was called “Bush’s faith” and how it hampers Saudi efforts to improve ties with the US as well as diplomatic initiatives to shield Arab countries targeted by Washington.
Dr. Al-Hamad at one point interjected: “We have to keep America away from our minds and discuss the interest of our country. For how long are we going to continue building our policies only on reaction?”
Al-Hamad said the discussions should focus on Saudi Arabia before making an assessment of the American side. “We have to find an answer to the difficult question: Why did 15 Saudis take part in the Sept. 11 attacks?”
“The answer to this question is important not only for the US but for the Kingdom,” Dr. Otaibi agreed. “We have to understand whether these youths posed a threat to national security. Others could do the same thing, but here in our country,” he added.
Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal has said in a press statement that the presence of 15 Saudis was not the only issue. The Al-Qaeda leader could have found 15 youths from other countries to carry out the attacks. But the aim, he said, was to use those Saudi youths to destroy Saudi-US relations, as Crown Prince Abdullah, deputy premier and commander of the National Guard, has also pointed out.
But Dr. Qarmali had another explanation on the slow response of the Kingdom to the Sept. 11 events, saying it was purely because of the Kingdom’s conservative ways.
“Conservatism and calmness are the hallmarks of our system. By contrast, the Americans respond to events quickly and make immediate decisions.”
He added that Saudi officialdom was stunned by the enormity of the Sept. 11 events, and it appeared that there was a considerable time lapse before the Kingdom realized the danger involved.
All participants emphasized the need to look hard at problems in Saudi society, rather than blame the Americans for everything.
“We will benefit more from an internal assessment than from making excuses,” Otaibi said, but Dakheel added a note of caution. The US, he said, had to acknowledge that the Taleban and Bin Laden were not creatures of the Kingdom’s policies but the product of the Cold War. The US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia thus had a joint responsibility.
“Why should we shoulder the blame alone?” he asked.
Holwa highlighted the lack of political awareness in the local media.
“There are certain writers in the Saudi press who do not give priority to national security,” he said.
He accused prominent media personalities of pandering to the street at the expense of the Kingdom’s interests.
“If the street wants to attack America in response to its biased policies in the Middle East, you can find those attacks in our press.”
Holwa responded by calling for a change in the extremist views presented in the Saudi press.
“The best way to control such extremist views is to allow the spread of different views, without suppressing them,” Dakheel countered.
All participants agreed on the need for promoting plurality.
“Saudi politics must accept plurality,” Dakheel said.
But Al-Sudairy said the absence of plurality was not a political decision but must be created by Saudi culture.
“For cultural and historical reasons, Saudi society itself will not accept plurality at the family level,” he added.
Al-Hamad agreed and added that the economic boom, far from changing the situation, gave people the wrong impression that they could carry on without developing the system toward a civil society.
“Society must develop,” Al-Hamad said.
In his concluding remarks, Shobokshi said: “In order to achieve that we have to refocus the essence of citizenship both in terms of rights and in terms of duties.”
(Part II on Sunday)
=========================================================
Saudi-US Relations After Sept. 11, 2001 Part II
In the second session devoted to finance and business, the discussion was focused on the volume of Saudi money invested in the United States, the future of Saudi investments abroad, the possible repatriation of Saudi money and the effect of capital on the decision making process.
Financial consultant Bishr Bakheet put the amount of Saudi money invested in the stock markets, treasury bonds and bank deposits abroad at $800 billion. But in the absence of any official statistics or a defined mechanism regulating this activity, he said it is very difficult to arrive at a reliable figure. According to him, the US stock market accounts for 70 percent of the investments, or $500 billion to $600 billion.
Bakheet cast doubts on the amount of money reported to have been withdrawn by Saudi investors from the US. The claim that hundreds of billions were withdrawn remains just a claim, he insisted.
Dr. Marwan Samman, advisor to the governor of the Saudi General Investment Authority, agreed by saying that the Kingdom lacks the mechanism to suddenly absorb such an enormous inflow of money.
Businessman and writer, Hussein Shobokshi said neither the Saudis nor the Americans are able to determine the exact figure. Such investments, he explained, may be conducted through companies in Britain or Latin America. These are mostly stopovers that leave no trace.
Quoting American centers that monitor money transfers, Dr. Nasser Al-Tayyar, chairman of Al-Tayyar Group, said the Saudi money withdrawn from the US could be in the range of $100 million. Al-Tayyar is a strong opponent of withdrawing Saudi money from the US, and argues that in the long term it is the Saudis themselves who will suffer. The US, he said, is a huge market that must be accessed by Saudis.
Investors, said Ala’a Al-Jabri, director of international relations at the National Commercial Bank, usually look for two things: The safety of their money and a handsome return. These seem not to have been on offer in America following the Sept. 11 attacks.
Bakheet said the American stock market had been shrinking and was threatened with collapse long before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Given such circumstances, it was natural for money to leave the country.
Shobokshi agreed, saying the current American administration inherited an economic recession the signs of which appeared in the last years of Bill Clinton’s tenure.
As global investors, Saudis follow their interests, going where there is maximum profit, he explained. So there is no harm in Saudi money being invested or withdrawn as directed by the conditions of the market.
Dr. Al-Tayyar stressed the need for Saudis to invest in America, saying that investment shouldn’t always be taken to mean oil. Saudis, he said, have missed many opportunities before, especially in such vital areas as hotels, tourism and aviation.
Citing Kuwaitis as an example, he said although the volume of Kuwaiti money abroad is less than that of Saudis, the Kuwaiti presence in Western companies is more prominent and their influence much greater than that of the Saudis.
Kuwaitis now own banks and hotels abroad and this prominent presence allows them to have a strong say in the decision-making process.
Al-Tayyar cautioned against confusing patriotism with investment, saying that what matters at the end is economic feasibility.
The forum then moved to the issue of “economic boycott” and over 90 minutes the attendees debated the merits of applying it as a weapon.
The participants agreed on the need to make use of the tool as a symbolic measure. However, Al-Jabri called for any boycott to be carefully planned to serve a clear purpose which should not be launched from a patriotic and nationalist platform. Traders and even politicians in many parts of the world promote the boycott because they are driven by illogical or unrealistic objectives, he added.
Dr. Marwan Samman said all the parties who may be affected by the boycott should be taken into consideration because ultimately it is the Saudi consumer who will suffer. Any damage suffered by local traders will be passed on to the consumer.
Shobokshi asked whether we would be able to cope with a boycott of American goods, saying it is a question that remains to be answered. It is important not to generalize but rather to draw a distinction between boycotting goods and boycotting companies. The Saudi-US relations as a whole continue to suffer from this generalization with the Americans labeling all Saudi people as terrorists. “Some American firms considered as strategic partners in the region are doing less business transactions with Israel than they do with Arab countries. Diabetic patients in Saudi Arabia account for 42 percent of the total population and there are two American firms that make insulin. Can we live without this medication? I don’t think so,” said Shobokshi.
A company like Caterpillar that helped build Jubail and Yanbu industrial cities and many hospitals, schools and airports in the Kingdom should not be treated as firms like Starbucks and Marks & Spencer who provide support to Israeli, he said.
What matters, explained Shobokshi, is internal reform and transparency to serve our own interest and not the interest of America or any other party. Dr. Samman was of the view that the boycott exists only to send a message to the American government that there is public discontent over its policies on the Palestinian question.
He rejected using the boycott as a weapon that could backfire on the Saudi and Arab markets at a time when these markets need more investment and higher growth rates.
The boycott wasn’t the only topic that generated heated debate. Transparency, too, was the focus of discussion, with the participants calling for more resilient and open regulations to attract capital and steer investment in the tourist sector.
Shobokshi said that they had asked the minister of finance and national economy four times in the past to approach the media to explain the state budget, but the ministry “continues to deal with us in secrecy.”
In what was seen as an unprecedented move, the Shoura Council recently started debating the budget.
The participants also called for transparency when it comes to issuing tourist visas by Saudi embassies abroad to encourage tourism and infrastructure projects.
Dr. Al-Tayyar said in other parts of the world it was the ambassadors and consuls who promote tourism by encouraging people to visit their countries. Some neighboring countries even gave investment opportunities to foreign companies to encourage domestic tourism.
Al-Jabri stressed the need for flexible laws to attract investment, referring to reports that Manhattan and City Bank have cut down their investments in the Kingdom.
“Even when raising the slogan of patriotism and nationalism to attract capital, this must be backed by flexible laws that help investors make gains,” he added.
“Money settles where there is a safe haven.”
(Part III on Monday)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.