Military

September 24, 2002

U.S.-SAUDI RELATIONS:  DIFFICULT TIMES AHEAD?

 

KEY FINDINGS:

***  Saudi writers praised durable U.S.-Saudi relations, assailed Western criticism of Kingdom.

***  Others suspected that the U.S. plans to supplant S.A. with Iraq as primary oil supplier.

***  Muslim observers saw bilateral tensions as fallout from hardline U.S. regional policies.

***  Some non-Muslim editorialists gave credence to the notion that S.A. is a 'hot house' for international terrorism.

 

MAJOR THEMES:

Saudi papers cited enduring U.S.-Saudi ties, condemn Western critics of Kingdom.  Saudi writers, uneasy with the recent strain on U.S.-Saudi relations, hearkened back to 70 years of amicable ties.  The moderate Saudi Gazette outlined the historic strength of U.S.-Saudi relations, affirming that they are "not based on whims of fickle-minded men...nor the vagaries of time."  Editorialists tenaciously defended the Kingdom against recent criticism that Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorism.  The independent, pro-government Riyadh Daily wondered how such a "resolute anti-terror nation" could be the target of "unsavory, totally unfounded propaganda."  Others pointed to the country's "firm commitment" to the war on terrorism.  Several papers noted pointedly that the disruption of U.S.-Saudi relations is a primary goal of international terrorism. 

 

Many observers saw Iraqi oil fueling U.S. attitude change.  Belgian writers opined that the U.S. is angling to set up a regime in Iraq more sensitive to U.S. oil interests "in anticipation of more difficult times" due to the "clear radicalization of Saudi Arabia."  Italy's Il Sole-24 Ore noted that regime change in Iraq is a "fundamental stake" if the U.S. wishes to "change its power and economic relations with Saudi Arabia" where opposition to the U.S. is increasing.  Even Abha's moderate Al-Watan suspected that anti-Saudi feelings may lead the U.S. to retaliate "toward our country and its economy [by] securing its oil supplies from non-Saudi sources."

 

Muslim editorials contrasted Washington's 'public' support for Riyadh with 'secret' anti-Saudi briefings; others found Saudi terror role credible.  Jordanian, Turkish and Pakistani media placed U.S.-Saudi tensions in the context of a purported anti-Muslim U.S. foreign policy.  The independent Jordan Times railed against the U.S. treatment of Saudi Arabia, while Turkish Ortadogu noted that the result is that "anti-American sentiment is mounting in the whole Islamic world."  The Pakistan Observer called for a concerted effort in the Muslim world to stop "Washington's unbridled bullying."  Several non-Muslim outlets lauded U.S. willingness to examine Saudi Arabia's record as a supporter of terrorists.  An Indian paper called Saudi Arabia "the biggest financial source of terror."  Israel's Yediot Aharonot accused the Kingdom of being a "huge hot-house for terror."  Nigerian and Venezuelan papers also joined in condemning Saudi Arabia for providing stimulation and support for terrorism.

 

EDITOR:  James Iovino

 

***********************************************************************

 

EDITOR'S NOTE:  This analysis is based on 35 reports from 15 countries, August 29-September 20.  Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.

 

MIDDLE EAST

 

SAUDI ARABIA:   "Ignorance"

Jeddah's moderate, English-language Arab News stressed (9/19):  "Today, while there is much about Saudi Arabia in the U.S. media, the ignorance is not any less.  The coverage shows a disdain for the truth, for facts....  A good example of that was a recent snide piece by Pulitzer Prize winner William Safire in the New York Times and syndicated around the world about supposed rivalries in the Saudi royal family....  That foreign media, after decades of disinterest, should want to write about Saudi Arabia is a welcome development.  But they have to know what they are talking about.  Safire clearly does not know one member of the Saudi Royal Family or of the government from another, let alone what happens in the Kingdom."

 

"Saudi Arabia And US: Allied Against Terrorism"

 

Prince Turki al-Faysal commented in the independent, pro-government, English-language, Arab News (9/18):  "Saudi Arabia has worked with the United States for the past 70 years.  Both countries have benefited from this enduring partnership.  Remember that we face the same threat:  Bin Ladin targeted Saudi Arabia before he targeted America.  Al-Qa'ida has thousands of followers from more than 60 countries, including those of many U.S. allies.  That he chose 15 Saudis for his murderous gang, many of whom, he boasted, did not even know the ultimate goal of their mission, can only be explained as an attempt to disrupt the close relationship between our two countries....  There are those in America who condemn all Saudi Arabians as uncivilized, close-minded and barbaric.  But such blanket accusations are not worthy of the American people....  Let us deny extremists the victory of undermining our partnership. Instead, let us remain strong, and, whatever shortcomings we see in each other, let us confront them and overcome them together in a spirit of mutual respect and openness."

 

"Saud-U.S. Ties"

 

Jeddah's moderate, English language Saudi Gazette stated (9/16):  "King Fahd has renewed Saudi Arabia s firm commitment to the war on terrorism and stressed the strength of historic relations with the United States in a message to U.S. President George W. Bush.  This affirmation does not signify a new policy, it has always been the Kingdom's position....  The Saudi-U.S. relations are not based on whims of fickle-minded men, nor are these ties swayed off the course by the vagaries of time.  These harmonious relations have been built over the generations on the firm foundations of mutual understanding and bilateral cooperation in international affairs... The terrorists will claim victory if Saudi-U.S. relations are adversely affected."

 

"Two Letters" 

 

Deputy editor Mohammed Al-Ghamdi commented in Riyadh's moderate, Riyadh Daily  (9/16):  "Western media attacks on the Kingdom's government, culture and people seem to come from suspicious dark corners of hostility, envy and hate for everything Arab or Muslim.  But thanks to a wise U.S. leadership and voices of reason everywhere such propaganda of hate seems to be receding, giving both the American and Saudi people a break to sit and soberly analyze events in their correct perspective.  The future task is more serious than the tragedy of the past.  It is to work together and confront terrorism from all directions.  We owe this to the future generations of a world thirsty for peace, stability and growth."

 

"U.S.-Saudi Cooperation Against Terrorism"

 

Riyadh's moderate, Al-Jazira editorialized (9/15): "King Fahd's message to President Bush was to reconfirm and restate once again our strong determination to continue working with the international community against terrorism....  It is extremely important as well to maintain the current momentum in confronting terrorism because, those who work in the dark will continue devising new methods to destabilize nations and peoples.  To counter those crimes the international community must remain always vigilant and to continually develop new weapons in its war against terrorism."

 

"We Are All The Victims Of Extremism!"

 

Independent, pro-government Al-Riyad opined (9/15):  "The kingdom is perhaps the leading Arab country in having received Americans from all classes, starting from the discovery of the first oil well they dug and ending with the thousands who have been assigned to various tasks in companies and elsewhere.   Similarly, the United States was the number one country in attracting the kingdom's students, businessmen and tourists.   This means that interconnection has been the main feature in official and social relations....  The September 11 events came as a thunderbolt because those who committed the crime are counted on our nationality.   They are from among those who were pervaded by the culture of violence and viewing the world from a narrow angle....  The sympathy of the kingdom with the victims of the explosion was prompted by true feelings and intuition, and these are essential factors in rejecting the principle of violence that is listed as a crime and premeditated murder....  We reject generalization that the American people, or any other people, are all evil, just as we reject pinning such descriptions on the people of the kingdom or the Islamic world.   Perhaps dealing with the reasons and causes and searching for formulas of concurrence that serves our interests are the higher objectives that are achieved by each party getting acquainted with the other, not only through diplomatic pouches, but by opening windows to dialogue on all popular and individual fronts and all other strata." 

 

"Voice Against Terror"

 

Independent, pro-government Riyadh Daily opined (9/13):  "It is indeed ironical that such a resolute anti-terror nation as Saudi Arabia is a target of unsavory, totally unfounded propaganda, seeking to portray it as a supporter of terrorists.  It was the Kingdom that first saw through the designs of master terrorist, Usama Bin Ladin, and stripped him of his citizenship in the mid-90s.  At that time, the Western world largely ignored the threat posed by Bin Ladin despite the distinct warnings sent by the Kingdom.  Without meaning to rake up history, it would be suffice to say that the enemy today continues to be roaming the streets. The Kingdom needs to be cheered on to strengthen its own contribution toward efforts to curb the terror menace.  And unjust fault-finding is surely not helping....  The Kingdom has repeatedly spoken of its strong resolve to fight terrorism. Prince Abdullah has said this again in the strongest possible way. While the American leadership surely comprehends the Kingdom's stand, it is now left to the common U.S. citizen to expose the lies floated by vested interests and contribute to the anti-terror war in their own humble way."

 

"How To Eradicate Unfriendliness With The U.S?"

 

Riyadh's conservative, Al-Riyadh editorialized (9/12):  "We hope that the events of September 11 will provide a useful lesson for all.  Despite bitterness, fear and terror, which prevailed in the U.S. there is no wise man or believer who does not reject those terrorist actions.  Even for those Islamic countries which supported the U.S., their support was not out of fear or supplication, but because the phenomena is extremely dangerous on nations and peoples' peaceful coexistence with each other....  We in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia consider the American people to be the best in the world's nations because of their friendliness and kindness.  We do not want to lose this through the actions of individuals or organizations who have a desire to create tension and to end those ties."

 

"Crown Prince Abdullah's Correct Method"

 

Abha's moderate, Al-Watan pointed out (9/12):  "On the first anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Saudi leadership, through Crown Prince Abdullah's message to President Bush, reiterated their firm approach to combat terrorism....  Crown Prince Abdullah's words are also a message to those media outlets, which attempt as usual, to fish in troubled waters....  The 'Muslim' who denies tolerance--a basic foundation of Islam--will be deserted by true Muslims."

 

"After 9/11 Challenges"

 

Jeddah's conservative, Al-Madina opined (9/12):  "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia looks forward to engaging in a public dialogue with the U.S., says Interior Minister Prince Naif, who confirmed in public, statements commemorating the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  It comes out of an understanding of the 9/11 challenges, which is now a top priority in the Kingdom's agenda....  However, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia addresses those international changes without surrendering its own firm principles or traditions."

 

"The Best Of One World"

 

Mohammed Alkhereiji commented in the largest English-language, liberal-leaning Arab News (9/11):  "The cultural gap that opened on Sept. 11 has widened to the extent that some say it will be impossible to overcome during our lifetime.  Many of us have been told to choose sides between the United States and Saudi Arabia, even though we know we are on both sides: Against the terrorists....  On that subject, in the months that followed I saw a stream of Western journalists flock to Saudi Arabia.  Their intention was to 'expose the terror network in the secret Kingdom.'  I have not seen much of that.  What I have seen is gross generalizations, half-truths, and blatant lies reported about my home country.  Armchair commentators, most of whom have never set foot in Saudi Arabia, have been tarnishing its reputation at every possible opportunity.  Those into the new craze of 'blogging' have taken full advantage of the fact that Saudi Arabia is an easy target."

 

"A Hasty Withdraw Of (Saudi) Investments From The U.S. Would Have No Effect"

 

Abha's moderate, Al-Watan published an op-ed commentary by Saudi economist Abdullah Dahlan (9/1):  "An irresponsible decision, such as decisions to withdraw investments for the U.S. markets, would have no effect except on its own owners primarily, and secondly on public opinion because the U.S. media will portray it in such a way that increases the hate campaigns against Arab Muslims and Saudis.  The notion that Europe might provide a more secure market to Saudi or Arab investments is wrong since the European banking system in one way or other follows the American system itself economically and politically.  If the thinking is to withdraw funds and to reinvest them in our Arab or Saudi markets, the fact is that our markets are not prepared neither in regulations or systems nor in their infrastructure to absorb these investments....  (The U.S.) may retaliate with a stronger, more hurtful and harmful action toward our country and its economy such as securing its oil supplies from non-Saudi sources."

 

"Funny The Way The U.S. Administration Is Behaving" 

 

Independent, pro-government Ukaz opined (8/30):  "It is indeed bizarre the way the U.S. Administration has been conducting itself.   George W. Bush has called his highness the crown prince on the phone to underscore the solidity of the historic ties that bind the kingdom and the United States.   The U.S. president was at pains to state that the criticisms and attacks on the stands of the kingdom toward the United States were those of irresponsible elements that did not reflect the point of view of the U.S. Administration....  Whatever the differences in opinion about one thing or the other, that ought not to be allowed to sour the long-standing friendship between the kingdom and the United States....  It would seem that the U.S. Administration has ceased to be able to accommodate the value of friendship and the duties that go with it.   It may be that the United States, in its dealings with the kingdom, is looking to achieve something else.   But the kingdom had nothing to offer aside from true friendship to a historic friend, the United States.    But if the U.S. Administration has in mind something else other than true friendship with the kingdom, it will have to look elsewhere....  Such U.S. rhetoric and the leaks from the Rand Corporation that has links with U.S. Government agencies cannot be disclaimed just like that on the grounds that they only represent the opinion of their authors....  Would that the U.S. Administration say, unequivocally and free from any vagueness, what it is that it wants and expects from us?   Would that the U.S. Administration call a halt to these twisted styles that are proving unavailing?...   Only when this is done will the vagueness of the American position toward us have been cleared up."

 

IRAN:  "Saudi Arabia-America, The Irreversible Path Of Dispute"

 

Jamshid Salmanian commented in Tehran-based, conservative Resalat (8/29):  "The serious tension in the 60 year old relations between the United States of America and Saudi Arabia began when it became clear that most of the hijackers in the 11 September attacks of last year were Saudi nationals....  Although America had been aware of the terrible state of human rights in Saudi Arabia, throughout the years it has preserved its cordial relations with that country in order to make untroubled use of the oil resources of the Persian Gulf....  However, the 11 September incidents where at least 3000 Americans lost their lives forced the American political leaders to review their relations with that country....  It was revealed that on 10 July, Pentagon officials were told in a briefing:   'Saudi Arabia is an American enemy.' At the same meeting, Laurent Moravek [phonetic], an analyst from the 'Rand' institute, described Saudi Arabia as a terrorist states that is a 'seed of evil' and the 'most dangerous opponent' of the United States of America in the Middle East....  Despite efforts aimed at playing down the issue, Saudi Arabia is still displeased with America....  American President George Bush's administration is strongly divided over the continuation or cutting off of relations with this oil rich country....  Since 11 September, conservative American journalists and politicians have begun a number of attacks against Saudi Arabia so much to such an extent has been unprecedented in the past 60 years.   Beyond this controversy there also lies a strategic concept.   This is the use of military force to change the regime in Iraq.   America's principal aim in trying to change Saddam Hoseyn's regime is not to liberate the oppressed Iraqi nation.   On the contrary, it is to change the whole of the Middle East in such a way to render it safer for Israel.   This means that in any case, America must also forego the present Saudi rule....  As to what the U.S. is going to decide about the future of its relations with Saudi Arabia, it is definitely not quite clear yet.   However, what is clear is that the relations between the two countries will never go back to their former state....  Although it cannot be said at present that America and Saudi Arabia are enemies, it can be stated with certainly that Washington and Riyadh are friends that no longer trust each other."

 

ISRAEL:  "Everyone's Terror"

 

Senior columnist Nahum Barnea opined in mass circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (9/11): "[In September 11, 2001] America, and to a great extent Europe as well, lost in one fell swoop their tolerance for any type of terror: there is no bad terror and good terror and tolerable terror.  There is only Western society, which is strong and rich, that is prepared to pay nearly any price to protect itself from evil.... America was forced to change its way of life instantaneously-and proved that it was capable of so doing.... Gradually other voices began to be heard in America.  People began to recognize that the pro-American regimes in the Arab world, headed by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, serve as huge hot-houses for terror....  America relied on them....  Relations with the Saudi and Egyptian governments went into a crisis.... The American effort was focused entirely on the short-range, on the military aspect....  But terror has not disappeared.  America knows how to remember it, but it still doesn't know how to deal with it.  If it is not dealt with at the root, ultimately it will return.  We've been there before, and American will get there too."

 

JORDAN:  "American Middle East Policies--Lacking In Stability And Credibility"

 

Fahid al-Fanik commented in the Amman-based, independent Jordan Times (9/9):  "The Bush administration's policy resembles a piece of straw carried by the wind in this and that direction; and what is said today may be forgotten tomorrow....  U.S. officials publicly speak of their strong relations with Saudi Arabia, and then, at a secret briefing, describe the kingdom as an enemy of the United States and the Saudis as 'active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, cadre to foot-soldier, ideologist to cheerleader.'...  America also puts itself forward as an advocate for democracy and human rights. But its hypocrisy is laid bare through its ignoring of despotism and repression when a friendly country practices them, and using human rights as a tool with which to dent the credibility of, pressure and embarrass countries that have bucked U.S. authority."

 

EUROPE

 

BRITAIN:  "Poring Over A Question Of Oil On Troubled Water"

 

Bronwyn Maddox commented in the influential, center-right, London-based Times commented (9/20):  "The meeting also showed what a tricky game Saudi Arabia is trying to play: the U.S.'s indispensible friend--and also something rather less helpful....  Until yesterday in Osaka, it was doing well in its bid to reclaim its place as the U.S.'s trusted friend after a strained year.  Its declaration that it would support Bush's plans, which came as soon as the U.S. decided to consult the UN, was sudden and emphatic.  Saudi Arabia apparently feels that the move gave it enough diplomatic cover to quell the criticism of its neighbours or the threat of a fundamentalist uprising at home....  It is, in a way, a bewilderingly dramatic reversal.  Since the September 11 attacks, the kingdom has been in a state of frozen alarm about fundamentalist militancy, and has repeatedly offended or rebuffed the U.S. for fear of stirring unrest....  The curiosity is that Saudi royals think a nod from the UN is enough to calm their young militants (many of whom have surely not even heard of the UN).  But for all the generosity of this gesture, in Osaka, in a snub to the U.S., Saudi Arabia also made the decisive case against raising production....  Saudi Arabia is in a weaker position than you might think.  If the U.S. overthrows Saddam, the politics of the world's oil supplies will change dramatically--probably at the Saudis' expense....  It would be untrue to say that the U.S. wants to attack Iraq to get at its oil....  But that doesn't mean that the U.S. could not make good use of a "regime change" to protect its oil supplies. Anything like a stable Iraqi government could turn the country into a world oil power to rival the Saudis....  We can deduce that the bumpiness of the Saudi relationship in the past year and OPEC's continuing stubbornness are not going unnoticed in Washington."

 

FRANCE:  "Saddam Hussein Capitulates"

 

Washington correspondent Jean-Jacques Mevel opined in right-of-center Le Figaro (9/17):  "It seems as though the U.S. president carried off a double victory by choosing the UN as the platform for issuing his warning to Iraq. The first victory is on the diplomatic front, where he won over difficult allies such as France and uncertain allies such as Saudi Arabia."

 

GERMANY:  "Bases"

 

Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger noted in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (9/17):  "Obviously the Arab front against the United States is not as strong as some people like to claim....  In case of a UN Security Council decision, Saudi Arabia no longer rules out that U.S. force can use the military bases of the country.  Until President Bush's pressing speech to the United Nations, we usually heard a categorical 'no' from Saudi Arabia.  But now that quite a few Arab governments back a UN mandate, the Saudi government sees a chance to save face and change its view.  It can now at least stop a further deterioration of Saudi-U.S. relations and keep self-confident neighbor Qatar, which is offering its services as favorite ally to the United States, at a certain distance.  It may also be possible that Saudi Arabia is thinking in strategic terms:  President Bush had accused the United Nations of dishonorableness and of lacking principles, and pressed it to stick to its resolutions towards the regime in Baghdad.  Saudi Arabia and other regional states will not give away this lever if attention focuses on the core conflict in the Middle East.  In this respect, other UN resolutions still need to be respected."

 

"Bush Scored Points"

 

Business daily Financial Times Deutschland of Hamburg opined (9/17):  "Saudi Arabia's reaction shows that President Bush's appearance before the United Nations was a masterpiece.  The country was at the top of opponents to an attack against Iraq, but now the Saudi monarchy has announced that it will allow the use of U.S. bases in the country as long as a UN Security Council mandate exists.  With this announcement, Washington has removed the last big obstacle for military intervention....  A number of other Arab nations has also distanced themselves from Baghdad and are exerting massive pressure on Saddam Hussein to allow the return of UN weapons inspectors."

 

"Helpless Towards President Bush's Ultimatum"

 

Heiko Flottau said in an editorial in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (9/16):  "The United States is increasingly opposed to Arab leaders it no longer likes.  Saddam Hussein is the first, Yasser Arafat the second leader, and maybe Bashir al-Assad will be the next.  And even the Saudi Monarchy is falling out of favor with the United States....  Many Arab leaders are loudly criticizing U.S. unilateral moves in global politics.  But because of their internal weakness, they are unable to undermine their arguments with a self-confident policy.  In 1991, they were unable to prevent Saddam from attacking Kuwait.but they have not learned their lesson up until today.  Countries such as Qatar, Kuwait , and Bahrain and probably Jordan must make themselves available as U.S. deployment areas.  Those who, like the Arab world, wants to determine their own fate, must be strong.  But the path to this goal will be long and rocky.  And that is why President Bush can boss the Middle East around at his own discretion."

 

ITALY:   "The Iraqi Oil On The American Chessboard" 

 

Alberto Negri asserted in leading business daily Il Sole-24 Ore (9/17):  "Every time winds of war blow in Iraq and the ME, we must talk about black gold....  But oil is a means and not an end.  This war on Iraq, which would have been unlikely without the 9/11 attacks, is not only an issue of black gold, but also of control of the Euro-Asian area.  If the Americans will be able to do in Baghdad what they already did in Kabul, that is to replace a hostile regime with a friendly one, they would make the ME and central Asia a whole geo-strategic area, a vast area under their direct influence.  In absolute terms, the world market could do without Iraqi oil, which accounts for 3-5 percent of the global market...but it is a fundamental stake if the U.S. wants to change its power and economic relations with the ME and, above all, with Saudi Arabia, which is the world's main producer after Russia.. Saudi Arabia is also the homeland of al-Qaida, of most of the 9/11 highjackers and of Usama....  In perspective, the risk of the Iraqi operation is to destabilize Saudi Arabia, where opposition to relations with the U.S. is mounting."

 

BELGIUM:  "Bush's Motivation"

 

Foreign editor Gerald Papy concluded in independent La Libre Belgique (9/12):  "To justify such an adventurous operation as a war against Iraq, one is reasonably tempted to think that more arguments are still necessary....  Because one is not showing anti-Americanism but realism when one considers that George Bush has afterthoughts, such has getting his claws on the Iraqi oil thanks to a friendly government in Baghdad, in anticipation of more difficult times in his relations with Saudi Arabia."

 

"We Are No Longer All Americans" 

 

Chief editor Jean-Paul Duchateau editorialized in independent La Libre Belgique (9/11):  "Like former President Bill Clinton, on the Old Continent, people think that it would be more efficient to first finish the work with Al Qaeda rather than attacking another target, which has no clear connection with the first target....  On this side of the Atlantic, people are so afraid of the devastating effect which such an operation would have on an already explosive situation in the Middle East that they are even tempted to minimize the harmful nature of the Iraqi regime. Besides, many in Europe suspect that U.S.  President Bush wants to finish what his father started in order to install in Baghdad a regime which would be more sensitive to American interests, which are threatened by the clear radicalization of Saudi Arabia."

 

TURKEY:  "If U.S. Strikes Iraq"

 

Kamuran Ozbir wrote in nationalist Ortadogu (9/13):  "Unlike his father's success, President Bush failed to form an international coalition as well as consensus against Iraq.  Along with opposition voices from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt, the anti-American sentiment is mounting in the whole Islamic world.... This fact leaves out the 'international alliance' option for now.  There is another option for the U.S. which is to use Kurdish opposition groups in northern Iraq as a starting base for the U.S. operation.  However, the Iraqi Kurdish opposition is too much divided and efforts from Washington did not produce a concrete result yet, except the recent rapprochement between Barzani and Talabani....  The U.S. should also consider the post-Saddam era.  In case of toppling Saddam regime, a Kurdish state in the north might be a case which will result serious consequences for the whole region."

 

SOUTH ASIA

 

INDIA:  "Saudi Arabia, The United States And The Muslim World" 

 

Senior commentator M.V. Kamath opined in the right-of-center RSS publication Organiser (9/17):  "Musharraf has been quoted as saying that an American attack on Baghdad would be inadvisable as it would hurt Arab sentiment.  This is a U-turn on the part not only of Riyadh but of Islamabad as well....  For both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to take what is literally a pro-Iraq stance is highly significant.  Is this the beginning of a civilizational conflict?  Would Saudi Arabia and Pakistan dare to take on the United States and, by definition, the entire West? Or are they playing out a charade?"

 

"Between Us And 'Them'" 

 

Dina Nath Mishra opined in the pro-BJP, right-of-center Pioneer (9/15):  "The U.S. has shown remarkable resolve to fight out terrorism, but in the process, it has compromised with the biggest financial source of terror, Saudi Arabia and the biggest manpower supplier of terrorism, Pakistan.  It succeeded in creating a broad alliance in which former foes.  Russia and China, were respectively supportive and acquiescent, but their support was limited to war on terrorism....  That is why U.S. dropped the idea of nuclear threat on Iraq and is now trying to get UN endorsement for its designs against Iraq. It plans to talk with the leaders of France."

 

"Partial Success Against Terror"

 

Hindi Dainik Jagran opined (9/13):  "The U.S. has only met with partial success in the Afghan war, as the key players continue to elude....  The U.S. has taken great care not to give its war against terror a Christianity versus Islam look.  But the truth of the campaign has not been lost on the world.  Although the governments of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Indonesia are with the U.S., their nationals are not.  There is simmering discontent among the nationals of these countries against their own governments....  Today even some of America's European supporters are advocating restraint against Iraq.  It is clear that the support for attacking Iraq is not as much as it was in the aftermath of 9/11....  And, look who is espousing the cause of democracy?  America, the self-proclaimed champion of democracy, has no qualms about being pals with the undemocratic regimes in Pakistan and other Islamic nations.  What hypocrisy!"

 

"Unfinished Agenda"

 

The pro-economic-reform Economic Times opined (9/11):  "Posterity will look back on the events of 9/11 as a defining moment, not only in the history of the U.S., but of the world at large.  For the first time, the Americans faced terrorism at home.  And that brought about a fundamental change in the way it sees itself vis-a-vis the rest of the world.  There is also much greater appreciation of India's position in its fight against terrorism.  Beyond that, the war against terrorism has very little to show for itself...has that made the world a safer place?  No. The reason is that many of the underlying reasons for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism--continued U.S. support for oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the marked Israeli bias in U.S. foreign policy and a world view that sees some regimes as 'evil' (manifested in repeated attempts to topple Iraq's Saddam Hussein)--remain unaddressed...as long as U.S. authorities continue their blinkered approach, the odds in the fight against terrorism remain that much more loaded against victory."

 

"Post-9/11: Clash Of Civilisations"

 

Sandhya Jain commented in the New Delhi-based Pioneer (9/10):  "Some Western commentators claim that Mr Bush's real goal is to secure Saudi oil supplies....  The thesis is faulty on several counts.   First, a revolution that can dislodge the House of Saud, a la the Shah of Iran, can equally throw out the hated Americans.   Second, the US imports much less Saudi oil than previously.   Third, this does not explain President Bush's extreme obsequiousness towards the Saudis, especially in the aftermath of September 11, 2001....  The Saudi envoy, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, spirited nearly two dozen close relations of Usama and the Saudi royals studying in America, to Riyadh, within 24 hours of the disaster.   This precluded their possible interrogation by security agencies and obviously involved administrative cooperation, as American commentators sharply pointed out.   To this day, it rankles Americans that 15 of the 19 hijackers of September 11 were Saudi nationals....  But what really set [Americans] aflame was Mr Bush's telephone call to Crown Prince Abdullah the same day, telling him to ignore the rising crescendo of anti-Saudi sentiments in the superpower.   The call was intended to mitigate a Rand Corporation presentation to an important Pentagon advisory board that the Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot soldier, from ideologues to cheerleader....  Americans, as opposed to the Bush Administration, increasingly view Saudi Arabia as the greatest threat to world peace today.   Three-fourths of the September 11 hijackers were Saudis; two-thirds of the Islamic militants in Guantanamo Bay are Saudis.   Usama is of Saudi stock and, according to the Times of London, received $300 million as protection money from Saudi royals.   Saudi funds created al-Qa'ida.   The House of Saud patronizes the fanatical Wahhabi Islam, the inspirational creed of militant Islam."

 

PAKISTAN:  "Washington Needs Cool Heads"

 

Sunil Rao commented in the Islamabad rightist English-language, Pakistan Observer (9/20):  "The U.S. considers Saudi Arabia an area where terrorists are produced, even as it has labeled two other countries--Iraq and Iran--as "evil."  So this region has been branded in such a shameful manner that many of the accusations, valid or otherwise, tend to stick....  What is it exactly that Washington wants?  I believe the time has come for this region to take a more aggressive stand.  Yes, this may worsen things and make the problem more difficult--but we can't keep on remaining defensive.  At some point we have to go on the offensive through united action.  In particular, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia--the three perhaps most vilified by Washington--must present a united face.  They must stand together and cooperate and coordinate their efforts to stop Washington's unbridled bullying....  After 9/11, the gap with the rest of the world has widened--but even as the gap widens, the U.S. itself is destroying such bridges that are as yet standing.  In fact, the Bush administration is burning all its bridges, even with Asia.  We hear more Americans are interested in Islam, in reading and understanding the Holy Qur'an....  America is a very diversified society, with very diversified views."

 

"Iran-Saudi Ties" 

 

The center-right, national Nation argued (9/17):  "Saudi Arabia and Iran have tasted the demerits of a house divided and have started the healing process not a day too early, especially since they are faced with a U.S. bent on pounding the UN to back a military strike against Iraq, regardless of the consequences for stability of the Middle East and the Muslim world."

 

AFRICA  

 

NIGERIA:  "Time To Re-think"

 

Tony Okerafor commented in the Lagos-based independent weekly Sunday Champion (9/1):  "Strategically speaking, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia is about America's most important ally in the entire Gulf region....  With the exception of Egypt, the Gulf state of Saudi Arabia has enjoyed more goodwill from the world's only surviving super-power than any other member of the twenty-two nation Arab League....  What have the Saudis given the Americans in return?  This is the one angle to the so-called sixty-year-old U.S.-Saudi partnership that has been causing ripples between Washington and Riyadh, particularly since the tragedies of September 11, 2001 and principally since the Saudi ruling monarch, King Fahd, suffered a stroke and faded from the scene, a few years ago....  Consequently, some U.S. politicians, particularly those in Congress, have been fighting back.  The say it's high time that Washington started re-thinking and re-assessing its close ties to the kingdom.  Some have even gone further to accuse Riyadh of not showing sufficient solidarity with Americans, following the attacks on New York and Washington D.C. on September 11, last year."

 

WESTERN HEMISPHERE

 

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO:  "War On Iraq? U.S. Wants Control Of Saudi Oil"

 

Attorney Leela Ramdeen asserted in the liberal Newsday (9/10):  "So, is George Bush's statement that he has to remove Saddam because he is 'stifling' the world simply a smokescreen?  I agree with Mo Mowlam, a former member of Tony Blair's UK cabinet from 1997-2001, that this whole affair has nothing to do with a threat from Iraq but everything to do with America seeking to create mayhem in the Middle East so that in the midst of this they would seize and control vital oil assets in Saudi Arabia, in the name of 'saving the west'.  Oil is really looming larger than democracy or human rights in American calculations.  As Mowlam stated in the Guardian:  'No longer would the U.S. have to depend on a corrupt and unpopular royal family (in Saudi Arabia) to keep it supplied with cheap oil.  If there is chaos in the region, the U.S. armed forces could be seen as a global savior.  Under cover of the war on terrorism, the war to secure oil supplies could be waged.'...  This theory is not so far fetched when we read the briefing to the pentagon by the Rand Corporation, leaked recently, which talked about Saudi Arabia as the 'kernel of evil' and proposed that Washington should have a show down with its former ally, if necessary seizing its oilfields which have been crucial to America's energy.  The oil companies of the West are already counting their chickens."

 

VENEZUELA:  "Al-Qaida Revived"

 

Afternoon El Mundo, usually critical of the U.S., opined (9/6):  "Fundamentalist Islam, represented by the Talibanism of al-Qaida and supported economically by the countries of the Gulf, with Saudi Arabia at the head of the group, is the clearest diabolical representation of the evil intrinsic to human nature....  We are beginning to believe that Bush is right: either we defeat terrorism where it is housed, or civilization as we know it will disappear.  I believe, without reservation, in being at the side of the man from the White House." 

##