Posted on 07/10/2002 6:53:54 PM PDT by Pokey78
How much longer are we going to have to put up with the rantings of Ghazi Algosaibi, the Saudi ambassador to the Court of St James's? This week he described the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as "far more severe than anything the Germans did".
The Foreign Office described the remarks as "wrong and insensitive", but it should do more. When it complained after Mr Algosaibi published a poem praising a Palestinian girl who blew up Israeli shoppers, he told officials he was both a poet and an ambassador. That had been in his role as a poet, he said. And this time?
Saudi Arabia's behaviour is increasingly erratic. Relations since September 11 have worsened as the House of Saud distances itself from London and Washington, trying to improve its own image among its own hostile population, many of whom view Osama bin Laden as their sort of leader.
Apart from a new ambassador, the Government should be considering sanctions on military supplies and reducing Britain's dependence on Saudi oil. The proportion of Saudis in al-Qa'eda is overwhelming, yet Riyadh appears to be in denial. Not only were 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11 from Saudi Arabia, but Western officials also say there is a similar ratio among the detainees held in Guantanamo Bay.
According to a leaked British intelligence dossier, al-Qa'eda has been receiving large sums from bin Laden's Saudi supporters since last year to fund future terrorist attacks. A British official said last month that he hoped funds from Islamic foundations had been cut off, but he doubted whether the kingdom had the political and legal will.
More worryingly, there is evidence that senior Saudi princes paid off bin Laden after his followers carried out a bombing in Riyadh in 1995. Officials estimate that "hundreds of millions of dollars" were transferred to al-Qa'eda to encourage it to place its bombs elsewhere.
Despite Saudi Arabia's claim to be against using oil as a weapon, this is exactly the threat the world's biggest oil exporter has been making. At President Bush's summit meeting with Crown Prince Abdullah in late April, the Saudis said they had enough money saved to be able to cut off oil for two months, unless Washington became more sympathetic to its demand to put pressure on Israel.
A Saudi prince was a guest of honour when Pakistan test-fired its nuclear-capable Ghauri missile on the Prophet Mohammed's birthday last month. Also present were scientists from North Korea - part of President Bush's "axis of evil" - who designed the missile, and a delegation from Libya, which Washington still regards as a terrorism-supporting state.
There is a particular British concern that our expatriates arrested on spurious explosives charges are still being held. The fear is that, instead of all of them being released, only a few might be let off, or their sentences will only be halved. The matter was raised again last month when Baroness Symons, a Foreign Office minister, met Crown Prince Abdullah in Jeddah, just before a British banker in Riyadh was killed by another mysterious bomb. There is little confidence in Saudi promises that the matter can be sorted out smoothly.
"The kingdom is changing by drift rather than revolution," mused a senior British official last month, contemplating the emergence of an Islamic state as harsh as Iran - and as hostile to Western interests. In the past, the Saudi royal family has been seen as overwhelmingly pro-Western, despite the deep conservatism and xenophobia of ordinary Saudis.
Western officials worry about an ageing political leadership. In the kingdom's first 70 years, it has had just five kings - Abdul Aziz, known as Ibn Saud, and his sons Saud, Faisal, Khalid and Fahd. The 82-year-old King Fahd was flown to Geneva in May for what one well informed observer described as "last-gasp treatment". Crown Prince Abdullah has been increasingly running the kingdom since 1995, but is 79 this year. His next half-brother is Sultan, the 78-year-old defence minister. Unless the system of succession changes, there could be five kings in 10 years.
What can done? Public debate in America is lively, with the neo-conservative press delighting in being rational yet outrageous. A Wall Street Journal column this month warned: "A nuclear war stirred up against the 'infidels' might end up displacing Mecca and Medina with two large radioactive craters." A range of only slightly less critical comment has had to be countered by full-page advertisements in the press, placed by a PR company acting for the Saudis.
In Britain, a vocal group of former ambassadors and ex-foreign policy officials, usually with business ties to the kingdom, preach the Belloc line - "Always keep a-hold of Nurse/ for fear of finding something worse." There are also straightforward political pressures. About 20,000 British expatriates live in the kingdom, mainly linked to the al-Yamamah military aircraft contracts run by BAE Systems. Several times that number back in Britain are dependent on the kingdom for jobs.
Would more democracy help? The Saudi business and technocratic middle class has always been disfranchised, but is not necessarily enlightened. In April, 126 Saudi academics and writers published an open letter saying: "We consider the United States and its current administration a first-class sponsor of international terrorism, and it along with Israel form an axis of terrorism and evil in the world."
Britain is currently doing nothing. We need to reduce our exposure to a kingdom that is fast becoming a liability. Given technological progress in transport, in 15 years the world may not be dependent on Saudi oil. We should work to make that faster. Would the Saudis work to change our minds? Probably not, but setting free the detainees would be a good first move. Otherwise, get ready for an increasingly rough ride.
While I'm encouraged by the writer's tone and sense of alarm in the article, I find it strange and perplexing that the comparison with this scenario and the Blitz on London followed by massive bombings on Germany by both the Brits and U.S. is lost on the writer. Has he no sense of the seriousness of such an attack on our soil, or his, for that matter? Have the Brits completely lost their senses? What will it take to convince them of the threat on us all, a dirty nuc going off in the center of London?
Wouldn't it be a shame if the "big attack" on Iraq just happened to take over Suadi instead? I think the lowliest division in the U.S. Army could probably clean the place up in about two days. (47.9 hours for deployment of forces, 0.1 hours for actual fighting.)
This is what happens when you learn all your history from Palestinian history books.
They would probably surrender. They sound more like the French with every passing day. I hope there is another Churchill lurking over there, because if there isn't, they will be in big trouble.
The Saudis are funding the very terrorists who will do what they can to damage the US and its interests, and Israel.
We should disassociate ourselves from the Saudis at once. The problem is Bush41. George Herbert Walker Bush has a relationship with the Saudis and is acting as their spokesman in Washington. He can pull strings to see that the Saudis get special treatment, such as arranging for the plane to fly out the Bin Laden family on September 11th. Bush41 has several Saudis on the Board of Directors of the Carlyle Group.
Fortunately the current President Bush is aware of the duplicity of the Saudis and I am confident he will act in the best interest of the US and won't listen to his father. Condoleeza and Colin also see the Saudis for what they are. Secy Powell is sort of trapped by the State Dept. though, who are very pro-Saudi.
Many problems ahead for us with the Saudis.
As with Pakistan, it is better for now that they are our 'friend' than our avowed enemy.
If we declare them the enemy then we have no influence at all.........and for now the Saudi's still want American approval.
the ambassador is absolutely correct! The german occupation of the west bank and gaza was so light as to be almost non-existent.
< /sarcasm>
Like "Yamamah so fat, the back o' huh neck look like a pack uh hot dogs!"
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.