07/11/2002
Saudi Arabia...Update
It’s been a while since I discussed Saudi Arabia in this space and in reading a piece by Eric Rouleau in the July / August issue of Foreign Affairs, the former French ambassador to Tunisia and Turkey brings up some interesting talking points. I present his main findings without personal comment and let you draw your own conclusions.
Rouleau is convinced the Saudi Kingdom is on the verge of collapse. Crown Prince Abdullah, de facto leader, certainly understands this, which is why he has been out front with his own Arab-Israeli peace initiative. No other issue is of more importance, today, than the anger Saudi people have for the suffering of the Palestinians, which Rouleau says is “blamed less on Israel than on its American protector.”
Abdullah had proposed a result promising full normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab world in exchange for implementation of prior UN resolutions on Palestine. But at the same time, liberal Saudi intellectuals are calling for the break-off of relations with the U.S. and an oil embargo. So this is what Abdullah is up against.
Aside from the majority being angered by the American-backed colonial oppressor, the other chief grievance is the presence of American bases on Saudi soil. The monarchy is so sensitive to this that it is never raised in the media or in public, as many view it as a form of occupation and humiliation, the latter because Saudi Arabia has to rely on the U.S. for protection.
A Saudi prince told Rouleau, on the condition of anonymity:
“The arrogance of the United States is unacceptable. President Bush says that anyone who does not fully support the U.S. war plans is with the terrorists. In other words, we are being asked to board a train without being told where it is going, what route it will follow, or how long the journey will take. And we’re told not to ask questions, which are considered inappropriate.”
On the issue of al Qaeda, the Saudi interior minister, Prince Nayef, argues that they are more dangerous to the Saudis than to the U.S. While America would suffer only physical damage, as devastating as it may be, it wouldn’t undermine the state itself.
“For us, on the other hand,” Nayef concludes, “the threat is ideological and political, since bin Laden accuses the royal family of betraying Islam and of being an accomplice of the United States.”
The rise of someone like bin Laden goes back to the days of “Arab Nationalism” and leaders like Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser. It was in the 1950s and 60s when Saudi Arabia made perhaps its biggest mistake, granting thousands of members of the Muslim Brotherhood political asylum as they fled repression in Egypt and elsewhere. The Brotherhood were soon exerting influence in the mosques, schools and universities, while officials were being selected for positions in the education ministry, where they, in turn, designed the textbooks.
Heretofore, the longtime Wahhabi influence in the Kingdom had been limited to concerning itself with the Islamic code, such as monitoring dress and religious practices. The Muslim Brotherhood, though, politicized and radicalized the Wahhabis.
We then move to the 1970s and the first oil boom. At this point, Saudi leaders encouraged the development and spread of Wahhabi-influenced Islam by supporting the building of schools and cultural centers throughout the Arab world. The monarchy never received any real pressure from the U.S. because America was more concerned with the fight against Communism, and the spread of Islam posed no real threat, certainly when compared to that of the Soviet Union.
Then, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the U.S. came to the aid of the mujahideen, including Osama bin Laden himself.
Following this conflict, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bin Laden went to the Saudi royal family and asked for support to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait himself. But when Saudi Arabia turned to the U.S., instead, bin Laden had his new goal, to destroy the Saudi monarchy and drive the U.S. off of its new bases on “sacred” Arabian soil. Unfortunately, it took a while for the U.S. to recognize this.
Today’s Saudi Arabia is a total mess, of course. Women are banned from all public spaces unless they cloak themselves in black from head to toe, while at the same time they cannot open up a bank account, buy property, work or travel without the express permission of a male guardian. Women also can’t drive or mingle with the other sex in schools. In fact a male university professor teaching women must give his lecture through a closed-circuit one-way television system, to prevent him from seeing his students.
65% of the Saudi population is now under the age of 25, while the overall unemployment rate is 30% for men, 95%(!) for women, and both are rising.
On the fiscal front, while you would expect the Saudi Kingdom to be basking in its oil riches, it now has the largest debt in the Gulf region, $171 billion, which, coupled with an additional $35 billion in foreign credits, equates to 107% of GDP.
Per capita income in Saudi Arabia has plummeted from $28,600 in 1981 to just $6,800! By comparison, in today’s UAE the figure is $36,000, while in Qatar it is $26,000.
Crown Prince Abdullah recognizes he must liberalize the economy, but he’s moving far too slow for fear the reformists will topple the gerontocracy, by encouraging the more extremist elements.
But to sum it all up, Eric Rouleau reaches the following conclusion.
“The fundamental truth remains that radical change would spell the end of the al Saud family’s absolute power and the privileges enjoyed by some 3,000 princes and the hundreds of families linked to them. This is the real source of the government’s conservatism, and helps explain why Prince Abdullah, like (Iranian) President Khatami – both of whom have a stake in the survival of the system – has proceeded so cautiously. There is no doubt that the crown prince fully intends to carry on with his efforts to modernize the state and to promote economic development. But the extent and the pace of his reforms will depend less on his intentions than on the internal tensions of a society riddled with contradictions, and on the external pressures engendered by the irresistible push toward globalization."
---
Hott Spotts will return July 25. Barring any surprise developments, we will begin the story of Nasser.
Brian Trumbore
|