NP? NY Times re Saudis, terrorism, oil politics

[Doug Millison]

Worth reading, from the NY Times in case you have an aversion to the
independent press (although most of the information and argument presented
in this editorial surfaced long ago in the writings of independent and
alternative press journalists in the U.S. and elsewhere).    Pynchon, of
course, zeroed in on oil and oil's entailments as symptoms of the disease
of Western civilization, in GR.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/14/opinion/14SUN1.html


October 14, 2001

Reconsidering Saudi Arabia

Moments of international crisis have a way of stripping away diplomatic
facades and exposing uncomfortable truths. One of the disturbing realities
clarified by last month's terror attacks is Saudi Arabia's tolerance for
terrorism. Students of America's deeply cynical relationship with Riyadh
have long known that the kingdom did little to discourage Islamic
extremists, as long as they operated outside its borders, and that
Washington muted its objections to keep oil flowing to the West. It is now
clear that the Saudi behavior was more malignant. With Riyadh's
acquiescence, money and manpower from Saudi Arabia helped create and
sustain Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization.

Over the decades, the United States and Saudi Arabia have benefited from
the cold-blooded bargain at the core of their relationship. America got the
oil to run its economy and Saudi Arabia got the protection of American
military might whenever the kingdom was threatened by its violent
neighbors, including Iraq and Iran. Now, as international affairs are
reordered in the wake of the terror attacks, it is time for American and
Saudi leaders to see if they can fashion a healthier relationship that
still serves the interests of both countries but with greater frankness and
honesty than in the past.

The Saudi royal family can begin that process by looking unblinkingly at
its passive attitude toward terrorism. Osama bin Laden happens to come from
a wealthy Saudi family, but that is not the issue. The problem is Saudi
Arabia's tangible connections to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

Until recent weeks, Saudi Arabia was one of the two critical sponsors of
Afghanistan's ruling Taliban movement, along with Pakistan. Saudi money,
religious teachings and diplomats helped the Taliban secure and keep
control of Afghanistan. The country was then used to provide sanctuary and
training camps for the bin Laden network. Saudi Arabia has also sponsored
the fundamentalist academies known as madrassas in Pakistan. Many graduates
of these madrassas have headed straight to Afghanistan, some to bin Laden
training camps.

The Saudi government has allowed Saudi-based Muslim charitable
organizations to funnel money to Al Qaeda and its terrorist network. On
Friday, Washington moved against a prominent Saudi businessman said to be
involved in these transfers. Since Sept. 11, Riyadh has refused pleas from
Washington to freeze Mr. bin Laden's assets and those of his associates. Of
the 19 hijackers who carried out last month's attacks, at least 10 were
Saudi nationals. Riyadh has so far refused to cooperate fully with
Washington's investigations of hijacking suspects. It has also barred
Washington from using Saudi air bases to launch attacks against Afghanistan.

This is hardly the performance Americans expect from a country that is
nominally its closest ally in the Persian Gulf region. It reflects the
powerful tensions in Saudi society between the absolute rule of its worldly
and Western-aligned royal family and the Islamic puritanism of the
officially sanctioned Wahhabi sect on which the monarchy's legitimacy is
built. In a closed political system, the only available outlet for
criticism of government policies and corruption is Islamic fundamentalism.
For some, that path has led to Pakistan and Afghanistan. For a small
minority, it has led to terrorism and Al Qaeda.

Washington's embrace of the Saudi royal family dates back to the era of
Franklin Roosevelt. It has always been primarily about oil, but other
factors have played a role, including Saudi investments in American
Treasury bonds and the purchase of expensive American weapons systems.
Since the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia has given American
military forces limited access to its bases. Until now, the stream of Saudi
oil and money has all but silenced serious American criticism of the royal
family's pervasive corruption, its contempt for democracy and the appalling
human rights abuses carried out in its name.

There is no simple way to refashion this unsound relationship. The demise
of the Saudi monarchy could well lead to the installation of an anti-
Western fundamentalist theocracy like that in Iran. Nor can America and its
allies abruptly close the Saudi oil spigot. Still, reforms are possible.
The royal family has a self-interest in making Saudi Arabia more democratic
to ease political pressures that now drive some Saudis to extremist groups
and could eventually destabilize the kingdom itself. The monarchy should
crack down on its own corruption and do a better job of distributing the
nation's wealth so that economic inequities do not generate new legions of
terrorists. Saudi temporizing on matters like freezing the assets of
terrorist groups and their supporters must end immediately.

Washington's evasions need to cease as well. Pretending that Saudi Arabia
is not a source of support for terrorism only invites further trouble.
Muting criticism of corruption and political repression in the kingdom
simply encourages these destructive habits. Over the longer term, the
United States should be trying to develop alternative, environmentally
sound sources of energy so that Western reliance on Saudi oil is reduced.

Decades of equivocation and Hobbesian calculations have left American
relations with Saudi Arabia in an untenable and unreliable state. The
deformities must be honestly addressed before they do further damage to
both nations.



Doug Millison - Writer/Editor/Web Editorial Consultant
millison at online-journalist.com
www.Online-Journalist.com