About 15 years ago, ITV (a commercial channel in England)
showed a secretly-made film of a Saudi Arabian royal princess being
beheaded by sword in Riyadh. It created the most almighty diplomatic
stink because this was one of the few glimpses we plebs had had of what
the Saudi regime was like. Generally, the British government have been
able to smother news of this sort coming out of Saudi Arabia because they
know that the Saudi royal family are very sensitive -- and, of course, we
depend to a considerable extent on Saudi Arabian oil.
Even fairly recently, when four or five British engineers were arrested
because they happened to be having a party in a flat very near to where a
terrorist explosion had occurred in the street outside, the Foreign
office were able to pretend to be helping the families of the men but not
doing very much at all in order not to annoy Saudi Arabia. (And they were
working class engineers anyway, which didn't help.) The men were tortured
for years before being finally released. (Very little has been heard
since, and my guess is that the Saudis/UK Foreign Office have compensated
them generously on the condition that they talk about it no more.)
But the story that really got through the official carapace, both Saudi
and Western, was the incident of last year when a dozen or so girls,
fleeing from a burning school, were forced back into it by the Wahabi
sect's secret police, the muawa'a, for not wearing their
head-dress.
There can be little doubt that Saudi Arabia is a time-bomb waiting to
explode, such is the profligacy of the Saudi royal family, the repression
of the population by the Wahabi mullahs, the inferior position of Saudi
women, the lack of skills and the high unemployment of the very large
population of young males -- the last being a forcing-bed for the
Al-Qaeda terrorists. And, once again -- sorry to be tedious -- it is a
country with indescribably vast oil and gas fields which, by themselves,
could energise the whole of the world's industry for a decade or
so.
The relationship of the West with the Arabs since the discovery of oil
has been duplicitous to say the least. I am sure that all readers will
remember that, during WWI, the Ottoman Empire (that is, the Turks), which
controlled most of the Middle East, allied itself with Germany, and we,
through our strange, but charismatic British officer, Lawrence of Arabia,
enlisted the Arab tribes on our side and threw out the Turks from Saudi
Arabia and elsewhere. The understanding, nay, War Office agreement with
the Arabs, was that the Arabs would have independence after the war. But,
in the background, the British Foreign Office made a secret agreement
with the French that they could have a chunk mainly of what we now know
as Syria and we would have the rest -- namely what is now Israel, Saudi
Arabia, Iraq and Iran. At that time, we were changing the boiler-rooms in
our navy fleet from coal-fired to oil-fired and we wanted Middle East oil
very badly even in the 1920s.
Western needs for oil and the vast fortunes that the royal family of
Saudi Arabia has derived from it, using the Wahabi clerics to keep its
population ignorant and repressed (and in turn being used by them) has
fouled Saudi Arabia since the '20s. President Roosevelt gained
preferential treatment in 1945 after WWII, and America has stood on the
sidelines ever since, as Saudi Arabia drifted further and further into
medieval repression and cruelty and, more recently, real poverty for
increasing numbers of ordinary Arabs. I can quite understand why Al-Qaeda
is able to thrive in such circumstances.
One of the most expert writers on the Middle East who is more
well-informed on Saudi Arabia than most is Roula Khalaf and I will
follow with one of the best accounts of the current political situation I
have read from a recent Financial Times. It is frightening to say
the least. Tucked away at the bottom of the article was a line-up of the
dramatis personae -- at least those who are known about. We
(probably including the CIA) know nothing of the influential figures in
the Wahabi sect who have the power of veto over many of the decisions
made by the royal family. Instead, I've put these micro-CVs at the
beginning of the article because I think readers will find it useful to
bear them (and their ages!) in mind when reading the article.
Keith Hudson
<<<<
'THERE IS A DANGEROUS PERIOD COMING': BETWEEN REFORM AND REPRESSION, THE
HOUSE OF SAUD FACES ITS GREATEST PERIL
The growing threat from Al-Qaeda has dramatically increased the pressure
on Saudi Arabia's royal family. Political reform and economic
liberalisation are imperative but also risky
Roula Khalaf
----
King Fahd -- The 82-year-old king has ruled since 1982. After
suffering a stroke in 1995 he turned the day-to-day running of the
kingdom over to Crown Prince Abdullah, his half-brother. Although rarely
seen in public, he has the final word on key decisions.
Crown Prince Abdullah -- Next in line for the throne, the
80-year-old crown prince has been the de facto ruler in recent years. He
has tried to push through social and economic reforms but he has faced
resistance within the family and the bureaucracy.
Prince Sultan -- A brother of the king, the 76-year-old defence
minister is considered next in line for the throne, after Crown Prince
Abdullah. He has had strong relations with the US and his son, Bandar bin
Sultan, is the Saudi ambassador in Washington.
Prince Nayef -- [KH -- from the photo in the FT, he looks
about 70] Also a brother of the king, the interior minister has had the
most visible role in the struggle against al-Qaeda. After September 11 he
refused to acknowledge that 15 out of 19 hijackers were Saudi but
recently he has admitted that the kingdom faces a terrorist
threat.
Prince Salman -- Another of the king's brothers, the governor of
Riyadh is known for conservative views. At 67, he is seen as a possible
future monarch who could have a long rule, if some of his older brothers
were to step aside. [KH: God! I'm 68, and I'm thinking of my death daily
and am looking forward to retiring to a country cottage and breeding
canaries in my dotage -- but he, presumably, is thinking of a possible
future reign. With him sitting on the most prized assets in the whole
world over which countries might fight to the death, God help us all!]
----
Muhaya, a residential complex home to several hundred mostly Arab
expatriate workers and their families, lies in a desert valley on the
outskirts of Riyadh. For the terrorists who bombed it 10 days ago,
killing 17 people, it was a soft target.
From the hill opposite, the attackers shot the security guards outside
the gates, then drove a car -- witnesses say it looked like a police
vehicle -- into the compound. The explosion tore apart houses on both
sides of the street, burying residents in the rubble. Investigators are
still trying to establish whether the car was driven by a suicide bomber,
or whether the perpetrators somehow managed to escape.
The atrocity, six months after similiar attacks on three other
residential compounds, has focused international attention on a reality
that Saudi Arabia's rulers have long sought to deny: that the world's
largest oil producer and guardian of Islam's holiest sites is a key
battleground in the struggle against al-Qaeda.
The House of Saud which has ruled the desert kingdom since the country's
foundation in 1932 faces an unprecedented threat. Confronted by an enemy
intent upon its destruction, it is caught between criticism from the US
-- the kingdom's traditional ally that feels betrayed by Saudi's
exporting of terrorism -- and the pressures of a conservative religious
establishment on whom it has long relied for its legitimacy.
With King Fadh incapacitated by illness, the fractious and ageing
leadership has yet to agree on either the long-term succession or a bold
programme of reform. Meanwhile, the fabulously wealthy lifestyle of the
royal family is alienating a young and restive population. Poverty,
begging, and unemployment -- once unknown in a country that expects to
earn $85 billion from oil exports this year -- are entering the mix of
Saudi Arabia's troubles.
Some diplomats in Riyadh dare to hope that the terrorist cell responsible
for the Muhaya bombing, whether members of al-Qaeda or merely inspired by
it, had been unable to recruit more than one "martyr" because
the intended victims were Muslim. But what strikes many Saudis deepest is
the inept police response. "The attackers are terrifyingly
determined and able to outmanoeuvre Saudi security," says Abdelaziz
al-Qassim, a reformist religious scholar.
The persistent failure to weaken the terror networks does indeed hint at
support for al-Qaeda within the system. "We assume al-Qaeda has some
kind of presence at various levels -- how much is a matter of
debate," says a US official.
Yet few inside the Kingdom or beyond believe repression alone can
preserve the al-Sauds. Rather, the country's future depends on the
ability of its rulers to defeat al-Qaeda through reform --
democratisation, social liberalisation and economic redistribution. As
one US administration official says: "Since the 1980s, the question
has been -- can the family survive the economic crisis? Now there's that
question, and: can it survive the political challenges or is it too
rotten to change?"
To the casual visitor, life in Riyadh seems little changed. The most
frequent complaint is that tighter security causes traffic jams. But the
capital has lost one of its virtues. In a city where there are no cinemas
or nightclubs, women must be covered from head to toe and unmarried
couples cannot dine together at a restaurant, foreigners could at least
feel safe.
Now the hotels are fenced. Cars entering landmark buildings such as the
Kingdom Tower, a giant office and shopping complex, are thoroughly
checked. After dark, police and special security forces mount checkpoints
to search vehicles for explosives.
Security crackdowns are nothing new in Saudi Arabia. At the beginning of
the last century, Ibn Saud, the founder of the kingdom, ruthlessly
suppressed the Ikhwan, a religious army that had helped him unify the
kingdom. In 1979 a group inspired by the Ikhwan laid siege to the Grand
Mosque in Mecca, Islam's holiest city, challenging the House of Saud's
status as custodian of the holy sites. In 1995 al-Qaeda -- then little
known to the wider world -- struck at a compound for the Saudi National
Guard. The following year, a US military base in the Eastern Province was
bombed.
But al-Qaeda, with its radical Islamist creed, poses a unique threat to
Saudi Arabia, home to the religion's holiest shrines. Osama bin Laden has
a large pool of potential recruits among the disaffected youth raised in
Wahabi Islam, a puritanical Sunni ideology. According to the US, the
country's charities have largely financed al-Qaeda activities. And it is
through radical clerics in Saudi Arabia that Mr bin Laden finds
legitimacy and ideological support for his jihad.
Every month since May there have been police raids against militants
suspected of planning terrorist attacks. Last month, gas masks, assault
rifles, ammunition and plastic explosives were seized.
Political reform is promised. Crown Prince Abdullah, the de facto ruler,
has recently signalled that a moderation of religious intolerance is long
overdue. In his strongest words so far, he said last month: "It is
high time to rid our society of the seeds of fanaticism and hatred and
instead plant the seeds of tolerance and unity." The Islamic land,
he said, was "the possession of all Muslims, men and women. There is
no difference between one sect and another".
It is true, too, that some changes are being made -- quietly, for fear of
upsetting conservative clerics. Chapters in religious school books that
are offensive to foreigners -- those that warn against shaking hands with
non-Muslims on religious days, for example -- have been edited out this
year. Radical clerics have been sacked. The Shura Council, a consultative
assembly whose members are appointed by the king, has set up a women's
committee for the first time.
Officials, pointing to the collapse of communism that followed Russia's
glasnost, argue that it is only through gradual change driven from the
top that Saudi Arabia can both modernise and remain stable. "The
worst thing one could do to a country is to go 180 degrees," says a
person with close ties to the government. "You need a gradual
programme and there is a real determination for the first time to pursue
clear and measured improvement."
But for many Saudis, progress is frustratingly hesitant. There is no talk
of reforming the royal family itself, or of narrowing the country's huge
economic inequalities. The government last month announced a limited
municipal election in a year.
But a little-noticed clause in the decree says land ownership is to
remain under the control of the ministry of local affairs, which is run
by a member of the royal family. Land donations by the state are a major
source of remuneration and patronage for the princes and government
cronies.
"What's promised is still modest and not commensurate with what's
needed," says Alt al-Doumaini, a newspaper columnist who has signed
petitions calling for a constitution and elections. "The country is
a candidate for many troubles and terrorism is just one of the
manifestations."
Mr al-Qassim agrees. "The best way to win the war against terrorism
is to isolate the extremists. To do that, you need to focus on the people
who sympathise with them for political and economic reasons and respond
to them by reforming."
One difficulty for the al-Sauds is that few of those outside the royal
family urging reform can agree on what path it should take. The liberal
intelligentsia, a small but vocal group, urge relaxation of social
customs and democratisation, including a constitution and an elected
national assembly. Non-violent Islamists, a much larger constituency,
want limited social liberalisation but have yet to agree a clear
programme of political reforms. Their priorities are for power to be more
widely shared and for corruption to be eradicated.
With US pressure for reform dramatically intensified since the attacks of
September 11 2001, the regime has turned to independent, conservative
clerics for support. "Some members of the government made contact
with us and we showed flexibility," says Mohsen al-Awaji, a member
of the Sahwa, one of the domestic Islamist movement.
"The government is trying to convince us to work with them but we
say we need to be sure about them, that we want reforms."
Another initiative -- for which the regime has high hopes -- is the
creation of a forum for religious dialogue, bringing together Wahabi
clerics with other schools in Sunni Islam as well as representatives of
the minority Shia community. The move is intended to signal the
al-Sauds'-desire to reduce their reliance on Wahabism.
Najeeb al-Khuneisi, a Shia writer, says the forum -- it officially begins
work next month -- could mark a welcome attempt to redress the
marginalisation of the Shias by recognising, however slightly, other
schools of Islam. But he has yet to see any reduction in everyday
discrimination. Moreover, the regime remains determined to direct the
religious debate, even to the point of choosing who takes part. As a
result, some independent clerics have declined to participate.
Officials say Crown Prince Abdullah's aim is to balance conflicting
demands and isolate the most radical voices on both sides, religious and
liberal. But the results are often muddled. While some of the country's
most outspoken liberal writers have been banned, at least temporarily,
the mutawa'a, the feared religious police, has been asked to start
employing women.
"They don't know who to please -- the Americans, the traditional
religious establishments, the liberals, the public -- and every time they
do something they upset someone," says an Islamist
reformist.
The regime's resistance to initiatives that emerge from society rather
than the state is becoming a severe constraint on progress.
Thus, it is under a government umbrella that a human rights body and a
journalists' association are being formed (though the government says an
independent human rights organisation will also be allowed). Prince
Nayef, the interior minister, opened the country's first human rights
conference last month by dismissing the numerous complaints made by
international monitors. There were, he declared, no violations in the
kingdom. The day after, he attended a seminar on the kingdom's good
treatment of detainees. Human rights lawyers maintain prisoners are
subjected to torture and other abuses.
"There is something we repeat here: [it is] our Saudi particularity,
as if this society is different from the whole world ... as if people are
trying to avoid admitting that this is a country, not a tribe," says
Fawzia al-Khaled, professor of sociology at King Saud University.
"Maybe 20 years ago we were a happy family. But society is changing
and people know what's going on in the rest of the world. Different
social forces have developed in the last two decades. People are not
children anymore."
At the same time as it embarks tentatively on reform, the Saudi regime is
employing authoritarian measures to prevent further terrorist attacks. It
is keenly aware that while last week's killing of fellow Muslims may dim
the appeal of a network that claims to be fighting the cause of
Palestinians and Iraqis, sympathy lost by the jihadis is not necessarily
gained by the royal family.
The jihadis are believed to have held a meeting this summer in Saudi,
attended by as many as 1,000 followers, at which it was decided that the
government officials were to become targets.
According to Mr al-Awaji, the Islamic activist, many of those rounded up
by the Saudi security forces since May belong to the 15,000 nationals who
.fought in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Kosovo. These suspects, he
maintains, have no connection to the perpetrators of the May attacks.
"There is overwhelming sympathy for the mujahedeen. The government
is creating more and more rivals among their own people."
The detainees' case has been taken up by Islah, a London-based Saudi
opposition group that until recently beamed a popular radio programme to
Saudi Arabia via satellite. With unprecedented boldness, the group twice
called for demonstrations last month to protest against allegedly unfair
detentions, unemployment and restrictions on civil liberties. Saad
al-Fagih, head of the group, says the suppression of peaceful
demonstrations, the arrests of his organisation's followers, and the
alleged jamming of his radio station only increases the risk of
violence.
"People have been spectators for the most part," says a Saudi
analyst close to the religious establishment. But he adds: "There
are people who say the government doesn't listen to us -- so let the
jihadis hit them, maybe then they'll listen."
For decades many ordinary Saudis were content to leave politics to their
rulers while they basked in the generosity of the welfare state that oil
wealth provided. But while higher crude prices have this year boosted
revenues to record levels, the average over the past 15 years has been
much lower. In the same period, a rapidly growing population has
shattered the social contract. Saudi Arabia remains far wealthier than,
say, Algeria or Egypt, yet unemployment, particularly among the young,
has reached about 15 per cent. The country's schools and universities
remain heavily skewed towards religious instruction at the expense of
vocational skills.
There have been steps towards liberalising the capital markets and
regulating the insurance industry, but the measures seem insufficient to
raise the rate of economic growth or create jobs on a large scale.
"Have they made the decision that the private sector should take the
lead in growth? I don't think so," says one leading economist.
"There is still a fairly paternalistic view. They still want to
control and dole things out, here and there."
In spite of the economic constraints, the royal family has both swelled
in number and maintained its privileges. Descendants of the late King
Abdelaziz, the kingdom's founder, may number as many as 7,000. The
extended family includes perhaps 20,000 members. At the Crown Prince's
behest, the royals must now pay for airline tickets. But according to
diplomats and analysts, more far-reaching efforts to curb their lifestyle
have been resisted.
Even at the best of times Saudi Arabia was an inefficient autocracy, in
which the King exercised absolute power but sought to build consensus
within the royal family and, often, within society. Although Crown Prince
Abdullah has come to the fore since King Fahd's stroke in 1995, the
ailing monarch still has the final say. And at least two of Abdullah's
half-brothers -- Prince Sultan, the defence minister, and Prince Nayef -
each with his own military or security force, represent competing power
centres.
Turki bin Talal, a young prince and a son of Prince Talal, a
liberal-minded royal who often criticises the system, says the country's
leaders have various plans for the country but not necessarily one
strategy on which all could agree. "One vision, one strategy for all
bodies in government to abide by? That is not clear."
The biggest, souce of uncertainty is the succession. The Crown Prince,
favoured by the west as the leader most likely to advance modernisation,
is 80. Prince Sultan, considered next in line for the throne, is 76. So
far, there is scant evidence of any willingness to pass the reins to a
younger generation -- and even less sign of whose sons will take over
after that. By law, power must be exercised by the sons or grandsons of
the late King Abdelaziz; by tradition, it passes from one brother to the
next, according to seniority.
One analyst with contacts in the regime reports that a pool of 15 younger
princes has been identified, from which a future king will emerge. Each
of the leading princes is clearly preparing a son for high office.
Mohammed bin Nayef, for example, is second in command at the ministry of
the interior. Prince Sultan's son is his deputy at defence.
"There's a dangerous period coming and the question is whether the
family is going to be capable of transferring power to the next
generation with the ability to maintain cohesiveness," says a senior
western diplomat in Riyadh.
Officials stress that the al-Sauds have proved adaptable in the past and
able to put personal rivalries aside when the survival of the regime is
at stake. The leaders of Saudi Arabia's various tribes, they note, have
visited the Crown Prince regularly since the May attacks to pledge
allegiance and denounce terrorism.
"If the state manages today to have the national religious dialogue
and, in tandem, to show real progress on poverty and economic reforms and
in education, and hold some elections, then in two years the situation
will be less tense and we'll be heading to a more tolerant society,"
says a person with close ties to the government. "And when you have
elections and the ball gets rolling, there will be greater accountability
and sharing of power."
Time is not on the al-Sauds' side, however. Many Saudis would still
prefer to see the royal family initiate reform, rather than disappear.
But, with the threat of al-Qaeda growing, this may only be because they
fear the alternatives more.
Financial Times -- 18 November 2003
>>>>
