Posted on 08/29/2002 1:42:02 PM PDT by 1bigdictator
Dear Reader:
I would like to bring to your attention two unusual television transcripts from Tuesday, August 27. In the first, Ali Al-Ahmed of the Saudi Institute says some remarkable things about the Saudi government (“They arrest everybody that sneezes in the country, except al Qaeda members”) and about U.S. policy (“America should not let Saudi Arabia have any role in the Iraqi liberation campaign because if they do, they put their hand in it, it will stink”).
In the second, I have a civil and even constructive conversation with Pat Buchanan.
Daniel Pipes
Interview With Ali Al-Ahmed, Daniel Pipes
On the Record with Greta Van Susteren Fox News Channel August 27, 2002 http://www.danielpipes.org/article/451
LINDA VESTER, GUEST HOST: Good evening, everyone. I'm Linda Vester, in tonight for Greta Van Susteren, and this is ON THE RECORD.
Tonight the president welcomed the Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar to the western White House [in Crawford, Texas]. …
The Crawford meeting begs the question again. Are the Saudis our friends or are they a threat? Daniel Pipes is in Philadelphia tonight. He's the director of the Middle East Forum and author of "Militant Islam Reaches America." In Washington, D.C., we have Ali al-Ahmed, executive director of the Saudi Institute. Gentlemen, welcome to you.
Ali, let me ask you-let's just get-let's strip this meeting down to what it's really all about. You think it's Saudi spin to make Crown Prince Abdullah look good before he goes to the U.N. next month.
ALI AL-AHMED, SAUDI INSTITUTE: Yes, I think the visit wanted to set up for the meeting to make sure that Saudi Arabia is in the good side of the United States. They have been having-Saudi Arabia have been hammered in the U.S. media and public opinion since September 11 because of their involvement in the attack. So they are trying to sort of clear up their image. They've spent at least $20 million on that since the first of the year.
VESTER: So Daniel, what do you think is in it for President Bush? I mean, you know, symbiotic relationship? What does he get out of the meeting today?
DANIEL PIPES, MIDDLE EAST FORUM: It's very interesting, Linda. This American-Saudi relationship has been in place since 1945, and it's always been a very private relationship, where diplomats and politicians in back rooms make deals. And now, since a year ago, it's become public. Questions of abducted children, of Saudi involvement in terrorism and the like, have made this into an issue which we're discussing on television. We didn't used to.
And the meeting today, I believe, was an attempt by our leadership to say, "Don't worry, Saudis. Everything is like it used to be. Don't pay any attention to what President Bush is said to have called 'irresponsible statements' by people out there. We politicians and diplomats, we can handle it."
VESTER: Well, you know, if our relationship is so good with the Saudis, then why, Ali, when President Bush raised the question of a Monica Stowers, who still cannot leave Saudi Arabia because she can't get her father's or her husband's or anybody else's permission, despite the fact the United States has filed this official request, I mean, how good is our relationship if the president can bring this up with the Prince Bandar and we don't get anyone coming out today saying, "OK, Monica Stowers is allowed to leave Saudi Arabia"?
AL-AHMED: I think the United States has not done enough for its people on that question. I think what Saudi Arabia needs to do is just basically allow these women to go and be able to petition in Saudi courts.
VESTER: Well, why can't...
AL-AHMED: They don't have that opportunity.
VESTER: Why do you think-then why do you-why do you think that President Bush wasn't able to prevail on his "good buddy," Prince Bandar?
AL-AHMED: I think because he has not tried. We haven't heard any statement.
PIPES: Right.
AL-AHMED: When you meet-when Bush meets the Chinese, he makes a statement, you know, to try to build pressure. He has not done anything in that regard, unfortunately.
VESTER: Daniel, I mean, what do you think? I mean you would think that, you know, we would have some sort of statement today if the president raised it.
PIPES: You would think.
VESTER: And it's unheard of. It's unprecedented.
PIPES: Well, but it's heard of and precedented in the U.S.-Saudi relationship, which is a very odd one where American leaders, Republican and Democratic, have not stood up in a robust fashion for American national interests but have always had this sort of supplicant attitude that the Saudis must be deferred to. And the Saudi monarchy has its own national interests, which are very, very different from ours.
And so what we find is an American leadership, Republican, Democratic, going back over 50 years, that has not stood up for American interests. And that's been OK with the American population, which has not paid attention. But it's no longer OK. And the government is beginning to feel the heat. And I think it's very important that the media and the think tanks and universities and churches become aware of the problems we have and raise their voices.
VESTER: Ali, in fairness, we should mention that yesterday, the Saudis did arrest several al Qaeda sympathizers, or at least they say they did, including 11 Saudis, 11 of their own people accused of planning to blow up a U.S. military plane. Does that really mean that the Saudis are going to help us crack down on terror?
AL-AHMED: Well, I choose to differ. The person who was arrested, or he handed himself to the authorities last week after the FBI issued a bulletin. He was vacationing in Egypt. He was so relaxed, he was able to come and go. And if Saudi Arabia was working on this, they have-he should have been arrested, for God's sake. They arrest everybody that sneezes in the country, except al Qaeda members, who have been arrested, detained and released, 160 people confirmed released who were in Afghanistan and fought along Taliban and al Qaeda.
VESTER: Daniel, back to the question of are the Saudis our friends or our foes.
PIPES: Great question.
VESTER: Interesting that the Pentagon has just chosen to exclude Saudi Arabia from a list of our allies in the war on terror. Why do you think that is?
PIPES: Well, this government in Saudi Arabia, looked at sensibly from an American point of view, is not our friend. I would say it's not our enemy, either. That's too strong. It is our rival. I think that's the way to see it. The Saudis see themselves as head of an international Muslim community, one billion strong, and they see themselves as promoting the interests of that community in their own very special and rather extremist way. And they see themselves as our rival.
And we should see them as our rival, as opposed to this rather silly notion of friendship, which our politicians keep on repeating, Democratic and Republican.
VESTER: Or perhaps just a mutually symbiotic relationship, Ali. I mean, one wonders if, for all the talk that the Saudis are making now about "No, you can't use the base if you ever attack Iraq," that, you know, when push comes to shove, that they'll just kind of find a way to let us through just because it's pragmatic.
AL-AHMED: I think the relationship is sort of illogical. However, I think America-my opinion is America should not let Saudi Arabia have any role in the Iraqi liberation campaign because if they do, they put their hand in it, it will stink. They are not in favor of free and democratic Iraq, so I think they should not be involved in the Iraq liberation effort.
VESTER: Those are harsh words. This is probably the first time I've heard it from a Saudi. Daniel Pipes, Ali al-Ahmed-gentlemen, thanks to you both.
PIPES: Thank you.
Debating Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Democracy
MSNBC: Buchanan and Press August 27, 2002 http://www.danielpipes.org/article/452
BUCHANAN: The president of the United States invited the Saudi ambassador down to the ranch in Texas, which is something of a major gratuity, if you will, to the Saudis. And it's to repair a damaged relationship, somewhat damaged, by an issue we're going to raise right now with Daniel Pipes, who is director of the Middle East Forum.
Mr. Pipes, one of the problems the United States has in its relationship with Saudi Arabia was a briefing which Mr. Perle, Richard Perle's Defense Policy Review Board gave in which an individual, who turned out to be a LaRouche-y, briefed this very prestigious board and said, in effect, Saudi Arabia is the kernel of evil in the Middle East and its an enemy and, virtually, after we take down Iraq we've got to take down Saudi Arabia.
What is your take on what that briefer said, and what the president is doing right now in trying to repair the relationship? Is the president doing the right thing here?
DANIEL PIPES, DIR., MIDDLE EAST FORUM: What the briefer said, Pat, was that we have to reassess this relationship, Saudi Arabia is not our friend, but our enemy. What you see the president doing, especially today, is trying to repair that.
Now, what's extraordinary about this is that the U.S.-Saudi relationship, which has been an important relationship since 1945, has always been a private one. It was one between the diplomats of the two countries, the politicians.
Now for the first time, you have this briefer, but you've much more. You have the question of Americans being abducted and held against their will in Saudi Arabia. You have the recent court case against the Saudis for no less than one trillion dollars. And much more. It's now become a public issue. And what you have is the president saying, whoa, we want to keep this a private issue between you and me, Mr. Ambassador. Let's ignore what the rest of the people are saying. And...
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Mr. Pipes, let me interrupt you right there. You said in your pre-interview that Saudi Arabia is not an enemy but it is also not a friend. If they're not a friend of the United States, and certainly Iran is not a friend, and Iraq is not a friend, why don't we just pull the five thousand American ground troops out of Saudi Arabia, get our ships out of the Gulf, and let these non-friends and enemies settle their own problems without the United States having to go to war there every 10 years?
PIPES: Well, I partially agree with you. It was a mistake to put those soldiers in Saudi Arabia. They should have gone to Kuwait or some other more friendly country. On the other hand, it is very useful to have American troops in a part of the world where there is a tremendous American interest. I mean, were the oil and gas to stop coming out of the Persian Gulf, our economy would obviously be very badly hit. So we have real interests there, but it was a mistake to put troops in Saudi Arabia, I agree with you.
PRESS: Mr. Pipes, let me just ask you the bottom line question, I guess. How can we go around the Arab world preaching democracy? That what we're all about is bringing democracy to the Arab world and supporting a corrupt monarchy like you got in Saudi Arabia.
PIPES: Actually, we have not preached democracy in the Middle East.
PRESS: Well, that's what we say we want in Afghanistan, that's why we say we want to topple Saddam Hussein!
PIPES: Well, actually, we have pushed democracy in Latin America, East Europe, East Asia, but distinctly we have not done that, until June 24, when the president gave his speech about bringing democracy to the Palestinian Authority. It has been not our policy in the Middle East.
I think it should change. And, what you're suggesting is that we should start pressing the Saudis for democracy. We have simply not done that over the decades, we haven't done it in Saudi Arabia, we haven't done it in Morocco, we haven't done it in Jordan, we haven't done it in Egypt, we haven't done it in the Middle East. Time for a change.
PRESS: I want to move on to Iraq, because you recently wrote in the "New York Post" where you say that if you look at all the options the only option in Iraq is a military campaign, the only option left and you know as well as I just to remind all of our viewers that we'd go into there, here's how the sides are going to line up [visuals on screen follow].
OK, countries supporting a U.S. attack on Iraq at this point. Only one, the U.K. In fact, only one man, probably, Tony Blair. We're not even sure the British people are behind him.
Countries against the attack at this time. Now just look at this: Australia, Bahrain, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy--Japan, Jordan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Yemen.
PIPES: That's a great list. How about I give you a different list? I'm going to give you a list of countries supporting the United States...
(CROSSTALK)
PRESS: Do you really believe that this war is in our best interests, going it alone?
PIPES: I sure do. Let me put it in a different way. Countries supporting the United States are, obviously, very few. And how about another list, of countries supporting Iraq? None! It's us against the Iraqis, with the rest of the world sitting it out. Who do you think is going to win that war?
PRESS: I have no doubt who is going to win it.
BUCHANAN: Let me not only agree with you, who is going to win it, but once the shooting starts, people will have to take sides, and my guess is nobody will line up with Iraq, and some will line up with the United States.
PIPES: There you go.
BUCHANAN: Mr. Pipes, I want to ask you this, though. During the Cold War, we had liberals and leftists were yelling for democracy and they didn't like our allies, they said they were flawed. And they helped take down the Shah under Jimmy Carter and they helped take down Somosa in Nicaragua. And we wound up with the Ayatollah and that horrible situation in Iran and we wound up with the Sandinistas down there, right there, in Nicaragua.
Are folks like you not inviting the same sort of thing; we got-not a single democracy in the Arab world, understandably. But you make them demo - more democratic-more expressive of the will of the Arab street and won't they all be in favor of a war on Israel and do you really think it's going to be better in Saudi Arabia when the monarchy goes down?
PIPES: Your point, Pat, is a very good one. You're making a very good point. Which is that we have a better relationship with the rulers than we would with their democratic successors and we have to go very carefully. I agree. I am not calling for a democracy now - getting rid of the rulers and replacing them with elections next month. I'm saying what we should do is start pressing for the development of civil society; we should push for freedom of movement and speech, for rule of law, political parties, and so forth...
(CROSSTALK)
BUCHANAN: Let me interrupt you right there. I would agree with all that if we could get it, but aren't they going through sort of what we went through in the 16th Century, the religious wars among the Christian nations and also with the French Revolution and all that, aren't they being dragged through and having an internal battle with modernity and isn't it in our interests to get out of that and let them resolve that themselves?
PIPES: It's in our interests that they modernize and it's in our interests to help them modernize and I think we know how. We are very modern and we can help them. Look, we've done that elsewhere. Look, for example, at Japan. We defeated the Japanese and then we guided them towards a democracy. We did the same with Germany. We should be doing the same thing with Iraq.
BUCHANAN: But democracies existed in both countries before, even in Japan.
PIPES: In Japan?
BUCHANAN: In Japan it certainly did in the 1920s. It's qualified, and certainly in Germany up until 1933.
PIPES: Well, by that token there was a much more decent system in Iraq before 1958. Look, the key point I'm trying to make is in a very cautious and slow and deliberate manner, we should look to the Middle East as we have to other parts of the world and encourage the opening of the political process. Slowly, carefully.
PRESS: OK, Mr. Daniel Pipes, from the Middle East Forum, thank you very much.
BUCHANAN: Thank you very much.
While the numbers that are allowed into America is wide open for debate, no one can deny that those who actually bother to go through the hoops to get into this country legally deserve our respect and support. The amount of red tape that they must go through is out of control and most of it useless and uncalled for.
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.