Saudi Arabia - Painful times to come

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

An interesting Op-Ed piece by Will Safire in today’s NYTimes. It is amazing that the Royals of Saudi Arabia can survive for as long as they have. If there is a civil war in Saudi Arabia, I wonder how will the Muslim nations react? Whose side will Pakistan take? Just some of the questions that come to mind. I am sure that the US will stay out of any trouble in Saudi Arabia. It might pour some oil on the flames to keep it going, but it certainly wont take the side of the Royals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/12/opinion/12SAFI.html?todaysheadlines

The Split in the Saudi Royal Family
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

W
ASHINGTON — Fifteen of the 19 suicide bombers who killed 3,000 Americans a year ago yesterday were Saudi citizens.
Their crime does not stain all 22 million Saudis, of whom two-thirds are under 19. But one conclusion cannot be escaped: The murderous fanatics were the product of an oil-besotted monarchy that has long been the prime sponsor of the radical Islamic spewing of hatred at all “infidels” — Christians and Jews, as well as the majority of Muslims who refuse to accept medieval Saudi Wahhabism.
In light of that monarchy’s production of terrorists, and considering the refusal of Saudi intelligence to let the U.S. interrogate Al Qaeda prisoners it holds, we are entitled to ask the John Gunther question: “Who runs this place?” Who will hold the keys to the kingdom when the present king, Fahd — a stroke victim and totally out of it — dies? And when the two factions of the royal family clash, for whom should we root?
One faction is headed by Crown Prince Abdullah, the de facto monarch today, backed by most of the Faisal branch of the royals; one Faisal is foreign minister. Abdullah, while no moderate, recognizes that Saudi girls will have to get some education, and I’m told he worries that the Palestinian dream of taking over Israel is dragging out a war that will one day trigger an internal Saudi explosion.
The opposition within the House of Saud is the Sudairi branch, headed by Prince Sultan, now the defense minister (and father of the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar, a k a “Mr. Smoothie”). Sultan has a brother in charge of internal security, has control of oil and gas production and is locked into both the influential bin Laden family and the radical Wahhabi imams. Sultan spells trouble.
The rivals are both past their prime: Abdullah is 79, Sultan only a few years younger. The betting is that when the ailing King Fahd, now 83, dies, the Sudairis will let Abdullah become king, stepping up as crown princes are supposed to — on condition that the Faisal branch agree to appoint Sultan to be Abdullah’s crown prince and successor.
But Abdullah knows he won’t be king for long and does not want to pave the way for Sultan and his ultra-conservative Wahhabi backers. (Office politics are complicated everywhere.)
Evidence of the rift between the competing factions came when Abdullah fired the chief of King Fahd’s intelligence apparat, a hard-line member of the Faisal branch who had switched sides to support Sultan. That snatched a key power base from the Sudairis. Abdullah’s new chief, Nawaf, is a malfunctioning functionary who is no threat to anybody, including Al Qaeda.
Sultan countered by squelching the female-education plan, and then empowering his man, Minister of Industry Hakim Yamani, to dominate the Supreme Petroleum and Mineral Affairs Council. (Suggested holdup slogan: “Yamani or ya life.”)
Here’s Abdullah’s trump card: As soon as he becomes king, he’ll doublecross the Sudairis, skip over Sultan and the rest of that aging generation of King Fahd’s brothers and appoint one of Fahd’s sons crown prince. That’s Abdullah al-Aziz bin Fahd, nicknamed Uzuz (the dear one), son of King Fahd and his favorite wife, Jawhara, and a smart guy of about 60.
Such designation of Uzuz would be welcomed by non-princely Saudis. Their resentment has risen as their per capita income plummeted by more than half in the past decade, in sharp contrast with the boom in more democratic Bahrain. But it would infuriate Sultan and his terror-cleric allies and might well bring on civil war.
This dire prospect has some thinking of a compromise candidate. One of Sultan’s brothers, Salman, governor of Riyadh, is secularist and adept at fooling Americans with a costly advertising and publicity push. Salman, whose late son was the owner of the Kentucky Derby winner, was behind the hiring of Qorvis Communications at $200,000 a month to get Americans to forget the 15 Saudis who led the Sept. 11 attack. He could continue spreading Wahhabi poison around the world behind a pro-Western facade.
The House of Saud is beset with dissension. Its nation is nobody’s ally. The royal family can fight a civil war or undergo a revolution — or join the modern world.

2

King Faisal was assassinated and life in the KSA went on. There are your top line royals who have a desire for power, and then you have royals who are just happy being royals. the latter category outnumbers the first category by a huge margin.

Safire yawn is a sensationalist. Are there issues present, sure. Would they be an issue, unsure, but if teh goal is to have some self fulfilling prophecy going thats a diff deal.

He does forget in writing this that Abdullah is much more focused on KSA's role in regional affairs and was teh architect of teh Saudi Proposal for the resolution of Israel-Palestinian issue.

Are Safire and his 'pals" ready to deal with a regime which will be proactive and outspoken in solutions?

The royals may not be the best thing for KSA but the current alternatives are worse. the only realistic way is to work with the royals to bring about some reforms and over time it will become a good change.

There simply is not enough of an organized and balanced political movement there which can fill in the gaps if the royals are just chucked out.

3

I like to take the temperature of the Saudi’s by their English language web site “Arab News”. Yesterday on 9/11 there was such obnoxious sucking up to the US that the puckering sound could be heard well across the Atlantic. The following article contains none of the “9/11 came as no suprise to us, it’s your foreign policy stupid”, that was evident with Rudy Guilliani and New York City. In fact the article goes out of it’s way to state that there is never a grievance that should give rise to terrorism. Exactly what Americans want to hear. I don’t know if this means that the House of Saud is clearly back in bed with the US, or simply public relations platitudes for the day. I guess that remains to be seen.

No to terrorism"
By Khaled Al-Maeena
Editor in Chief

SELDOM has the end of one era and the beginning of another been marked so clearly as the one which ended on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. In retrospect if we compare what was before, the world of Sept. 10, 2001 seems to belong to some incredible time of calm and peace. On that day which changed the world, my wife and I were in America and we saw it all live on TV. The second plane hitting the tower, people fleeing in panic from what they did not understand, people in desperation throwing themselves from the doomed buildings and the Twin Towers themselves collapsing: There is no way anyone who saw those things can ever forget them. The images are now an inescapable and terrible part of our history.

The evil acts which produced those horrifying images are also now a part of history. Those acts must not be forgotten. They must be seen as a tragic signal to a world forced into confronting what it had previously managed to avoid. The signal tells us several things; the first is that the world, like it or not, must unite against terrorism. With one voice, the world must say “No to terrorism” and it must do what is necessary to guarantee there is no repetition of those hideous images.

Another message from the signal is that there is no grievance, no injustice and no oppression which can justify the murder of so many innocent people. No religion condones such meaningless slaughter and no individual worthy of being called “humane” can possibly agree to so barbarous a method of attracting attention. We see a total absence of religious feeling or morality in the acts.

The fact that those responsible for the attacks were allegedly our fellow Muslims and perhaps even our fellow Saudis should make us stop and ponder. We must ask ourselves for reasons. Who were these people? Why did they do what they did? What led them down that path? The first two questions are probably the easiest; it is the third which may take us into regions we do not want to visit and force us to ask unpopular questions which may give rise to even more unpopular answers. But this must be done — coolly, calmly and as unemotionally as possible. We must investigate and if, in the course of our investigation, we stumble upon things that are unpleasant or unpalatable, we must confront them as honestly and sincerely as we can and then act according to the principles and directions of our great religion, Islam.

One of the most important things we — and the rest of the world — can do is to educate our children very carefully. And I do not mean provide them with an education which produces narrow minds and self-satisfied individuals who feel themselves superior to every human being who is in the slightest way different. Our children and the children of the rest of the world must be taught to respect other religions, cultures and traditions and out of respect will come in time understanding and acceptance. There is no question of our losing our unique qualities and customs; there is no danger of that and that is not the purpose of education and could never be our aim. Education must seek to inform, to explain and to illuminate; its purpose is to broaden horizons, not constrict them. Education must make our children citizens of the world and not simply citizens of one particular place with no interest in, or knowledge of, the world beyond that place’s borders.

At the same time, those from outside the region, those who are neither Arab nor Muslim, must not generalize and smear all Muslims with a guilt which is not theirs. That the guilty called themselves Muslim does not mean that every Muslim shares that guilt; neither does it mean that because they called themselves Muslim, they were. Terrorism belongs to no religion, no creed, no sect, no ethnic group or culture. The most cursory glance at history will bear this out.

On this day which is a very sad one, we must think and reflect. We should think on why we believe those things happened and reflect upon how we can prevent them from happening again. In the midst of thinking and reflecting, we should not forget to reach out to those who have been most directly affected by the terrorist acts. The obvious ones are those who lost loved ones on that day but let us not forget that there are also those, much nearer to us in terms of distance than those in America, whose innocent and unsuspecting lives were torn apart by the events of that day. They too are entitled to our love, sympathy and understanding. I most certainly do not advocate excusing the guilty or diminishing their sins in any way; some of them have in fact already been punished and those who aided and abetted them must now be brought to justice. The world must see punishments meted out and those punishments must deter others who, for whatever reasons, might be tempted to follow the same path.

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the United States is a great country and its people are some of the best in the world. The country was founded upon the most admirable and noble principles of freedom, liberty and justice. We Arabs have always respected and admired those qualities and are always happy to encounter them in individual Americans. We do not want these qualities to change. The world needs to know that they exist and that they are honored. As America remembers its victims, we invite them to join us in a prayer. Let us all pray first for the victims and their families. Then we must pray that all the people of the world including the descendants of Adam, Moses, Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad share in their sorrow and that Almighty God grant us strength to act together and so prevent any future tragedy.

Khaled Al-Maeena is Editor in Chief of Arab News. He can be contacted at: [email protected]
http://www.arabnews.com/Static/911a.asp

4

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
The following article contains none of the "9/11 came as no suprise to us, it's your foreign policy stupid", that was evident with Rudy Guilliani and New York City.
[/QUOTE]

OG (btw u sure its ohio guy and not Orginal Gangsta?)

The european public just said the same thing i.e. US foriegn policy played a hand in it. Like it or not, or agree with or not, thats a diff business but Media dinn go all over it and overy sensationalising it.

anyhow on the subject of royals, there are groups and factions within them, in teh absence of a suitable alternative one has to support the group which is in one's best interest. The countries which have moved from monarchy to something else too fast have a pretty bad track record. Iran and Afghanistan come to mind as 2 examples.

5

Fraudz, when Faisal was assassinated, Saudi Arabia didn’t even have a TV channel of its own. Things are much different now. Do you mean to say that the Fundos take over, they will create a major headache for the US? Well, that remains to be seen because the Islamic World is so divided that one can not imagine what the outcome might be. US in any case will only look after its oil interests and not necessarily that of the Saudi Royal family. What Safire is saying is that the Saudi Society is held together with a bunch of weak ropes, none so strong on its own. And that, that it cannot survive a major shock.

Ohioguy. Saudis (Royals) are the epitome of double talk. They would go in bed with anyone who can protect them. US signed the pact in the 30s, and we are still paying for it (they are like an old whore of ours). It is about time that we annulled it. Occidental is long gone, let us look towards North Sea and Venezuela and the Caspian.

6

Fraudz,

No Gangsta here!

Am trying to find a an anlysis that compared the burgeoning demographics of Saudi to it's oil wealth. the conclusion of the study was that about the time Saudis population peaks, the oil money runs out. Recently the Saudi's tried to exclude the US based oil companies from futher development projects. I am sure that this made great press in the Gulf. Undoubtedly those same companies will be snuck in the back door in disguise, and business will go on as usual.

The Saudi's are masters of appeasement. When Saddam used to rattle his sabre, Kuwait and Saudi would pay him a billion or two to keep the Iranians busy. The Saudi Gumby act will continue until there really is a revolution in the Kingdom. When the fundo's take over the near empty oil reserves, and the House of Saud relocates to London, the US will be happily chatting up the 'Stan's to be the new girl friend.

7

everyone has a right to look after their interests. the funny thing is that when the same exact thing is said about US its considered "ooh why they hate us" deal.

Countries and regimes double talk, they try to maintain their status quo and their power. We may not like the way that they manage their interests, others dont like the way we manage our interests, such is life.

The talk of oh we will go to other oil sources is only looking at Saudi Arabia as a gas station. We also have to be aware of what type of extremist groups are being kept at bay one way or the other.

Like it or not we need the royals just as they need us, we need them to keep getting our oil, but now also to prevent the Saudi society from going into chaos and being over run by some Taliban like group.

in past US can jump from girlfriend to girlfriend. This time it has to watch out for the girlfreinds angry brothers too. so a nice breakoff may be required. Chatting up the stans may not be as easy as is thought, Russia still plays a key role there and as much as we want to see Russia as an ally, they are not going to fall back and allow others to lead them all the times. Current stance is an example of that.

8

One fact that the above article failed to mention was the National Guards being under Abdullah's control. Sudairi group is not in a real strong position to face the national guards. As for the Saudi masses, with the fact that 2/3 of the population is under 19, do not consider them to be any kind of a political force, strong enough to bring about any anarchy when the royals are fighting. It will take atleast one more generation for the Saudi population to be politically savy enough to organise a movement strong enough to give the royals a headache. Saudi's main problem currently is employment for all the youths and Abdullah, with his saudization policy has made it mandatory for all companies to employ an increasing percentage of nationals, has made sure of this. This may not replace the expat labor force in Saudi but it will surely guarentee the young Saudi's a job.

As far as money is concerned even if the world comes up with alternate energy sources which are cheaper than oil or gas, if that is possible, Saudis have vast reserves of mineral deposits.

As far as foreign oil companies are concerned, the main reason they have not yet started is the in-efficiency of Aramco and not the royals desire of keeping them out. North Sea has dried out and the activity there is at its lowest, Vanezuela cannot be an alternate to the Saudi oil. Caspian certainly has good reserves of oil and gas but the high content of H2S makesi t a lot more costly to tap out than the Saudi.

Contrary to what NYA says, it is the American's who will continue to bend over to protect te Saudi royals for the US economy to run smoothly on Saudi oil.

9

Excerpts from todays LA Times article:

**Saudis Say the U.S., Not Iraq, Threatens Stability **
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN, TIMES STAFF WRITER

Mideast: Many think Saddam Hussein has been subdued by his military defeats but would be provoked by an invasion.

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – This longtime ally of America isn’t convinced that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein poses a serious and imminent military threat to regional stability and security. That threat, it believes, comes from another source: the United States, top officials say.

Many here think that Hussein has been chastened by his military failures and is unlikely to wage war on his neighbors–unless the U.S. decides to invade.

“The U.S. may know something about the existence of chemical weapons in Iraq, but we are not sure,” said the nation’s longtime security chief, Interior Minister Prince Nayif ibn Abdulaziz, adding that a U.S. attack on Iraq will create problems in the region “faster than any Iraqi operation against its neighbors.”

So far, the Saudi government has been very clear. If the U.S. goes it alone, without the endorsement of the United Nations, the government will refuse to allow the use of its territory.

When authorities said recently they would allow U.S. forces to operate here if there is a U.N. resolution, observers say, the goal was to thwart a war by pressuring Hussein to let in weapons inspectors. It was not meant as a nod to the U.S. agenda.

“Anything that will avoid military operations against Iraq, or military operations in the region, will be a positive act,” Prince Nayif said in an interview.
Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 posed the gravest threat to Saudi Arabia’s security that I had yet encountered in my military career," Prince Khaled bin Sultan wrote in his book “Desert Warrior: A Personal View of the Gulf War by the Joint Forces Commander.” “Our vital oil-producing Eastern province–the principal source of our national wealth–lay open to his mechanized and armored divisions.”

Saudi Arabia is a large land mass, with a relatively small population living on top of a valuable resource: one-fourth of the world’s known oil reserves. It is surrounded by unpredictable neighbors, such as Iraq and Iran, and its leadership strives to preserve credibility in a nation that has blended political and religious authority. An alliance with the United States has helped the Saud dynasty maintain the status quo.

For these reasons, Saudi Arabia continues to allow the U.S. to fly military patrols over a no-fly zone set up in southern Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War and allowed America to use a high-tech command center to run the war in Afghanistan.

Although the United States has moved thousands of its troops out of the kingdom, about 5,000 U.S. military personnel remain in Saudi Arabia, as well as the command center, which could be quietly used in an Iraqi operation.
In the end, almost everyone, including Crown Prince Abdullah and the nation’s top religious leaders, accepted the idea of allowing foreign forces to join a military coalition based on the Arabian peninsula.

The war was successful, Hussein’s military was defeated, and, for a short time, Saudis thanked America for its help.

But the anti-American sentiment started with a growing sense of embarrassment among Saudis who questioned why they could not defend themselves–especially after their leaders had spent hundreds of millions of dollars on weapons.

The hostility was stoked by the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In the early days of the current Bush administration, in particular, the government here grew incensed at the White House’s hands-off policy.

But as important as the Palestinian issue is to the Saudis, nothing has set back relations as drastically as Sept. 11. Americans may feel that they have been double-dealt by the Saudis’ conservative religious system, but the Saudis feel that their faith and culture have been demonized by the secular West.

Many people here believe that America has targeted their religion.

Because Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state, with the Koran as its constitution and religious law, called Sharia, as its guide, to criticize any aspect of the way people live here is seen as a criticism of their faith.

The issue of charity is an example. U.S. investigators have said that Saudis–individually and through the government–gave millions of dollars to charitable organizations that, in some cases, then funneled the money to terrorist groups.

Many Saudis see the U.S. finger-pointing as a criticism of one of the five pillars of Islam: charity.

(rest in the link above)

10

Simply put each group has its own side. The Saudi Govt is no worse than the Taliban, but due to oil they are the favorite boys of the US. I personally would love to see the Royal Family be dethroned. It would of course have a destablizing affect in the region, require further investment to keep the oil flowing and force more people into the arms of the fundemenatlists.

Utter Chaos. You gotta love it :D

Realistically, nothing is happening to Saudi as long as they have oil. Oil disappears nobody is gonna give a damn. The US will not do anything to Saudi as they require the country for an attack on Saddam which will come.

The kissing up is just sick. People died. Get over it. People died in Rwanda nobody gives a damn. The world forgot a little too quickly. Sept 11th changed the world for sure. It go more people killed than ever possible. The US started to play god and the moral values of the rest of the world caved in. Was it the worst thing to happen? No. Is it worth a mention compared to what else has happened? No. It is just another day in the year when people died due to some mad man. Every country can claim that. Sept 11th is no biggie.

11

"If there is a civil war in Saudi Arabia, I wonder how will the Muslim nations react?"

They wont!!!!

Secondly what really bugs is that knowing the terrorists were Saudi..KNOWING it..and still the sufferers are muslims in general and somehow Pakis in particular...scapegoat syndrome..afterall saudia =oil?????

12

saudis are better off without oil wealth remember islam spread
from there when there was no oil wealth.

13

Islam spread at a time when the preaching was done by people who were honourable ..excuse me..but I hardly see honour in nay muslim nation now...Islam and its message was spread by people who were true to the word,to themselves and to the correctness that goes into it..
I was talking to someone about this the other night and this was what I was told which is shamefully missing from us...a sense of credibility and a sense of being honourable and anserable..

A man went to Hazrat Omar at night(late) and Hazrat Omar was working at his desk..he had a oil lamp on...he asked the man what it was that brought him there..official or personal business..and the man said it was personal..Hazrat Omar puts the lamp off and asked the man to go ahead.The man inquired as t why he had put the lamo out...Hazrat Omar answers..this lamp is burnt with the oil that comes from the baat-ul-maal..it is not for my persoanl use....and you have come for a persoanl work..
THAT is the kind of time and people who spread Islam..we are no where near them...naoozobillah..and frankly..we have failed to carry on any of the qualities we were supposed to have.

14

and here comes maee baap ka :smash::smash:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2250750.stm

NY..do you see what I see??? a larger picture taking form and shape..reminds me of Nostradamus..:)..give your views kindly..and C.M you too..kindly..

15

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rvikz: *
saudis are better off without oil wealth remember islam spread
from there when there was no oil wealth.
[/QUOTE]

For once, you made sense...