Greed that feeds terror : Madeleine Albright

[emad]

Washington must press for radical reform in Saudi Arabia if al-Qaida is to be defeated, says Madeleine Albright
Thursday November 27, 2003 The Guardian

If there is a central front in the war against terror, it is Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. If the battle there is lost, it will be because of a joint failure on the part of the Saudi royal family and the west, especially the US. If it is to be won, the worst habits of both must change. Saudi Arabia's direction matters because of its role as custodian of Islam's holy places, its status within the Arab world and its oil. A reformed Saudi Arabia could defeat terror at its roots. A radicalised Saudi Arabia could rock the global economy and destabilise the entire Middle East. The latter possibility remains unlikely, but is dire enough to demand serious attention. As the terrorist bombing of a housing complex in Riyadh earlier this month reflects, the House of Saud is besieged. Osama bin Laden has derided the regime as illegitimate, apostate, ineffectual in defending Arab interests, and a lackey of the US. These charges find echoes in the writings of western critics, whose sensationalist books portray Saudi leaders as greedy hypocrites funnelling money to terrorists while throwing wild parties that mock pretensions to piety.

Domestically, the regime is facing pressure for greater political openness from both conservative clerics and newly vocal modernisers. Popular disaffection is fuelled by the government's inability, despite vast oil reserves, to balance its budget or provide jobs for the 25% of the workforce that is unemployed. What foreign minister Saud al-Faisal has described as "a Middle East sense of time" has not given the Saudi regime fast reflexes. Bludgeoned by criticism since the twin towers attacks, it has been slow to respond. But it is trying to respond. Between September 11 2001 and May this year, the Saudis arrested more than 300 suspected terrorists. On May 12, terrorist bombs killed 35 in the Saudi capital. Since then, the government has arrested 300 more suspects, engaged in shootouts with cells linked to al-Qaida and seized vast quantities of illicit guns, grenades and travel documents. Saudi officials have finally acknowledged - at least implicitly - the connection between what happens in the streets and what is taught in mosques. More than 3,500 imams have been attending "programmes of re-education" designed to promote tolerance within Islam. The government in Riyadh is moving ahead with plans to privatise numerous economic sectors, encourage trade and foreign investment, and apply for entry to the World Trade Organisation.

One week after the May bombings, a statement issued in the name of King Fahd renounced his country's insular tradition and declared: "We are part of this world and cannot be disconnected from it." The statement also promised to "broaden popular participation in the political process and open wider horizons for women." Symptoms of the new openness include measures to reform judicial procedures and create an independent human rights commission. Some of these initiatives may prove short-lived, ballyhooed for the moment only to be forgotten when the heat dies down. That is why the heat must not die down. The House of Saud cannot conduct business as usual and survive. The era of unaccountable high living is over, and the sooner the rank and file of princes (and princesses) understand that, the better. It is not possible to buy protection from the likes of an Osama bin Laden; nor can Saudi leaders pretend the evil he represents does not exist. They have to defeat his message, and show by their own actions that he is wrong. The de facto head of the Saudi government is Crown Prince Abdullah. For years, Abdullah has fought an heroic but often losing battle to curb the licentiousness within the sprawling royal family. A Saudi government that is accountable, disciplined in its behaviour, respectful of human rights and tolerant of dissent would deprive Bin Laden of much of his "street" appeal. Today, the Saudi royal house is none of those things. The US and the west are right to scrutinise Saudi actions, but we should also review our own. Eager for petro-dollars, the west has made Saudi Arabia its best customer for high-tech weapons and major infrastructure projects.

Since the 1970s, Americans have taken the lead in assessing Saudi defence needs, selling top-of-the-line armaments to meet those needs, then raking in billions more on follow-up contracts. This build-up began as part of President Nixon's post-Vietnam doctrine, which called for the development of militarily self-reliant anti-communist regimes in key regions. In Saudi Arabia's case, the Nixon doctrine did not work. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the Saudis were hardly in a position to defend themselves, despite having spent extravagantly for that purpose. With the oil fields in jeopardy, the US flew to the rescue and remained after the war as a precaution against renewed Iraqi thrusts. It was the presence of infidel troops on Arab land that created a casus belli for Bin Laden. The US and the west lack the leverage to determine outcomes in Saudi Arabia. There are, however, steps that can be taken to help the Saudi government oppose and deter terror. First, the US should re-engage seriously in the Middle East peace process. The Bush administration is justified in backing Israel's right to self-defence. But that is only part of a policy. The realisation is growing, even in Israel, that hardline measures are not sufficient to protect Israeli security. The diplomatic option must be kept open and emphasised. Saudi leaders will have more flexibility to cooperate with the west if the US is again viewed as an honest broker. Second, the Bush administration needs to release or prosecute the prisoners in Guantanamo. The most recent state department human rights report criticises Saudi Arabia for detaining suspects without charge. For almost two years, the US has been doing the same thing to more than 600 Saudi and other detainees. This notorious example of prolonged detention without due process is likely to have created more new terrorists than the number of prisoners being held. The detention policy is also sharply at odds with the administration's lofty rhetoric about transforming and democratising the Middle East. Third, the White House should admit that it made a mistake trying to go it alone in postwar Iraq. It should ask the UN security council to authorise a new transition team that adds European and Arab representatives to the Coalition Provisional Authority. It should renew efforts to recruit international help on everything from patrolling borders to drafting a constitution. And it should organise and recognise an interim Iraqi government by the end of this year. Finally, the US should continue working with allies to encourage steps toward democracy in Saudi Arabia and throughout the Arab world. The Bush administration is right to cast its lot with the peoples of this region, despite its astounding lack of popularity among them. Over the past 30 years or more, the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the west has nourished unhealthy habits within both. Cynicism, secrecy and greed have tarnished pragmatic accomplishments, which include considerable behind-the-scenes cooperation on security matters. The concerns of average Saudis have been neglected, creating openings for extremists. Critics can write as much as they want about what the Saudis have done in the past. More important is what happens next. By attacking and killing fellow Muslims - and by bringing explosives into the Holy City of Mecca - it is possible that al-Qaida has overreached. That is an opportunity, because the battle against al-Qaida must be fought and won by Islam's mainstream majority. To win the allegiance of that majority, the Saudi government must reinvent itself by keeping its promises to reform. The US can help by living up to its own principles, terminating any complicity with Saudi corruption and waste, and showing respect for the rights of all who live in the Middle East.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1093915,00.html

[Dirk39]

1. A bit late you, Lady Massmurder

"If there is a central front in the war against terror, it is Saudi Arabia, not Iraq."

"About three years ago (1996), Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, when asked on national TV about her reaction to reports that the sanctions have killed half a million Iraqi children in 5 years, she responded that it is "a very hard choice" but "we think the price is worth it".

That this creature dares to still open her stupid sadistic mouth anymore is somehting that makes me speechless.
This same corporate-whore did celebrate and sell the UCK and Bin-Laddens mercenairies as "freedom-fighers" and "democrats" during the illegal invasion in former Yuguslavia. If there is a central front in the war against terror, it's whether Saudi Arabia nor Iraq, it's people like you, Madelaine.


"The general American public justifies: "Iraqi children are dying solely because the wicked tyrant in Baghdad, , stops them from getting food and medicine we let him buy for them to further his own ends" (Middle East International Editorial No.606)

For all those who do not know: the sanctions include most types of
essential medicines needed for survival of unhealthy newborns. According to UNICEF, infant mortality in central and southern Iraq over the last five years has increased from 47 to 108 per thousand since the period 1984-89. For children under five, mortality has risen from 56 to 131 per thousand over the same period.

The rhetoric used by politicians in Britain and US is that "the tyrant
gobbles up all aids". The truth is that Saddam, however tyrannical he may be, presided over a marked improvement in Iraq's living standards between 1979 and the Gulf War (Middle East International Editorial No.606). Given this, the Iraqi people is much more likely to attribute the present state of affairs to the Western world which has trade-blocked Iraq rather than Saddam. These sanctions are, in effect, increasing the popularity of the "tyrant" as the savior against Western oppression much to the contrary of the generally accepted argument that these sanctions would eventually
weaken Saddam and topple his government.

The only aim that the sanctions can achieve are to damage Iraq's economy, make its people poorer and kill some 5,000 children each month. The sanctions have turned into a war against innocent civilians rather than against Saddam. We might as well bomb some civilian hospitals to make things simpler - the effect is really the same.

Ms. Albright, do you still think the price is worth it?"
Noam Chomsky, 1999

If there is a central front in the war against terror, it's whether Saudi Arabia nor Iraq, it's people like you, Madelaine.

Hello from Germany,
Dirk