Re: SA and Work in oil-rich countries
Hi Lawry, On this bright and sunny morning I'll return to the tail-end of your posting (without re-naming the thread this time!) because it contains a couple of very important points. 1. According to Prof Bernard Lewis (What went wrong?), the principal enemy of fundamentalist Islam in most countries is *not* other religions, zionism, communism or even western imperialism(!) but secularism itself and its associated schools and universities. I found this difficult to believe, but thinking about the direction in which fundamentalist Christianity appears to be rapidly heading in western countries (with its denial of scientific facts in biology, for example) then I won't argue with one of the world's authorities on Islam. Wahhabism must therefore share considerable blame for the economic decline of Saudi Arabia in that its type of religious education, which dominates the vast majority of schools (except presumably of the private schools for the rich in Riyadh) excludes any form of practical education and, in fact, produces a state of mind quite early in a boy's life that causes him to abjure any sort of technical education even if it were available later. (Therefore all work in private non-oil industry and the retail trade is carried out by foreignors.) I've mentioned that only 2% of graduates (themselves a minority of the youth population) are qualified in engineering and suchlike. Presumably, this has been allowed in a sort of unconscious manner (by the Wahhibist clerics) in order to produce just enough technically trained Saudis who can supervise their oil industry. 2. The second important point is that, as you say, all Saudi men (and in several other oil-rich Gulf states) don't need to work because they receive an income, health services, etc. from the state. This complete dependency on the state, negating the need for practical education and the faintest spark of enterprise, is now a great danger for these countries. It is a pure example of what happens when the welfare state is predominant. In effect, it is crippling the culture of any such country for at least a couple of generations to come, even if radical reform were to start taking place immediately. (I am not against the idea of the welfare state in principle in the west. It's a matter of where to draw the line. It is quite clear in all western countries that the verdict of the last century [from the political left and right] is that the welfare state has proceeded too far, and that it now needs to recede somewhat if sufficient enterprise [for economic renewal] and self-responsibility [for lower crime rates] are to be maintained.) Keith (LdB) Generally, the oil-rich countries -- and not just the Arab ones -- have tended to become dependent on foreign labor, manual and professional. Oil revenue money is distributed freely, in effect, to nationals of the country, and they do not have to do any work. So the nationals become dependent on the foriegn workers, and fail to develop as a work force of their own. This is the reality behind many of the symptoms you point to. This is a very hard nut to crack. Saudi over-spending has left them in debt, and so this pattern is being severely challenged -- and for simple economic reasons and not religious ones. Will Saudi Arabia and the others, find a way, despite their wealth, to evolve a competent diversified indigenous workforce? This is, IMHO, the number one issue before them. I did a detailed study (including a large public opinion survey) several years ago of this stuation in one such country (not SA) and was impressed by how hard it was going to be. -- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: SA and Work in oil-rich countries
Below is half of an article appearing in today's NYT about India and Pakistan that deals with the issues of socio-cultural and religious expression that ties in nicely, I believe, with the current FW discussion re: the role of fundamentalism and oppressive regimes in the Middle East. Friedman wrote recently, as some of you may have noticed, that the India-Kashmir-Pakistan nuclear threat was averted significantly if not singly, because the thriving back room techie and software industries of India were threatened by the inconveniences of war so that commercial practicalities overcame political rivalry. (see India, Pakistan and GE http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/11/opinion/11FRIE.html). And obviously, education is only one of the most significant avenues to change context. - Karen Where Freedom Reigns By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/14/opinion/14FRIE.html Excerpt: It is for all these reasons that the U.S. is so wrong not to press for democratization in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Is it an accident that India has the largest Muslim minority in the world, with plenty of economic grievances, yet not a single Indian Muslim was found in Al Qaeda? Is it an accident that the two times India and Pakistan fought full-scale wars, 1965 and 1971, were when Pakistan had military rulers? Is it an accident that when Pakistan has had free elections, the Islamists have never won more than 6 percent of the vote? Is it an accident that the richest man in India is an Indian Muslim software entrepreneur, while the richest man in Pakistan, I will guess, is from one of the 50 feudal families who have dominated that country since its independence? Is it an accident that the only place in the Muslim world where women felt empowered enough to demand equal prayer rights in a mosque was in the Indian city of Hyderabad? No, all of these were products of democracy. If Islam is ever to undergo a reformation, as Christianity and Judaism did, it's only going to happen in a Muslim democracy. People say Islam is an angry religion. I disagree. It's just that a lot of Muslims are angry, because they live under repressive regimes, with no rule of law, where women are not empowered and youth have no voice in their future. What is a religion but a mirror on your life? Message from India to the world: Context matters - change the political context within which Muslims live their lives and you will change a lot. Keith wrote: Hi Lawry, On this bright and sunny morning I'll return to the tail-end of your posting (without re-naming the thread this time!) because it contains a couple of very important points. 1. According to Prof Bernard Lewis (What went wrong?), the principal enemy of fundamentalist Islam in most countries is *not* other religions, zionism, communism or even western imperialism(!) but secularism itself and its associated schools and universities. I found this difficult to believe, but thinking about the direction in which fundamentalist Christianity appears to be rapidly heading in western countries (with its denial of scientific facts in biology, for example) then I won't argue with one of the world's authorities on Islam. Wahhabism must therefore share considerable blame for the economic decline of Saudi Arabia in that its type of religious education, which dominates the vast majority of schools (except presumably of the private schools for the rich in Riyadh) excludes any form of practical education and, in fact, produces a state of mind quite early in a boy's life that causes him to abjure any sort of technical education even if it were available later. (Therefore all work in private non-oil industry and the retail trade is carried out by foreignors.) I've mentioned that only 2% of graduates (themselves a minority of the youth population) are qualified in engineering and suchlike. Presumably, this has been allowed in a sort of unconscious manner (by the Wahhibist clerics) in order to produce just enough technically trained Saudis who can supervise their oil industry. 2. The second important point is that, as you say, all Saudi men (and in several other oil-rich Gulf states) don't need to work because they receive an income, health services, etc. from the state. This complete dependency on the state, negating the need for practical education and the faintest spark of enterprise, is now a great danger for these countries. It is a pure example of what happens when the welfare state is predominant. In effect, it is crippling the culture of any such country for at least a couple of generations to come, even if radical reform were to start taking place immediately. (I am not against the idea of the welfare state in principle in the west. It's a matter of where to draw the line. It is quite clear in all western countries that the verdict of the last century [from the political left and right] is that the welfare state has proceeded too far, and that it now needs to recede somewhat if sufficient
Re: SA and Work in oil-rich countries
Some comments lower in the post - Original Message - From: Keith Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 9:25 AM Subject: Re: SA and Work in oil-rich countries Hi Lawry, On this bright and sunny morning I'll return to the tail-end of your posting (without re-naming the thread this time!) because it contains a couple of very important points. 1. According to Prof Bernard Lewis (What went wrong?), the principal enemy of fundamentalist Islam in most countries is *not* other religions, zionism, communism or even western imperialism(!) but secularism itself and its associated schools and universities. I found this difficult to believe, but thinking about the direction in which fundamentalist Christianity appears to be rapidly heading in western countries (with its denial of scientific facts in biology, for example) then I won't argue with one of the world's authorities on Islam. Wahhabism must therefore share considerable blame for the economic decline of Saudi Arabia in that its type of religious education, which dominates the vast majority of schools (except presumably of the private schools for the rich in Riyadh) excludes any form of practical education and, in fact, produces a state of mind quite early in a boy's life that causes him to abjure any sort of technical education even if it were available later. (Therefore all work in private non-oil industry and the retail trade is carried out by foreignors.) I've mentioned that only 2% of graduates (themselves a minority of the youth population) are qualified in engineering and suchlike. Presumably, this has been allowed in a sort of unconscious manner (by the Wahhibist clerics) in order to produce just enough technically trained Saudis who can supervise their oil industry. Another reading could be that the some or most of their elite is very consciously protecting its power and privileges this way too; if only their offspring is permitted to study and have the cultural capital, necessary to thrive in this world, and the outside world, they can control the ignorant masses a lot better; so it's more like an evil alliance between machiavelist princes and ignorant clerics. It also is an insurance against democracy and loss of power and some money. Imported workers will never be able to challenge their bosses the way autochtonous workers can. Who doesn't obey can easily be removed. With fellow saudi they can hardly throw them out of the country. 2. The second important point is that, as you say, all Saudi men (and in several other oil-rich Gulf states) don't need to work because they receive an income, health services, etc. from the state. This complete dependency on the state, negating the need for practical education and the faintest spark of enterprise, is now a great danger for these countries. It is a pure example of what happens when the welfare state is predominant. In effect, it is crippling the culture of any such country for at least a couple of generations to come, even if radical reform were to start taking place immediately. (I am not against the idea of the welfare state in principle in the west. It's a matter of where to draw the line. It is quite clear in all western countries that the verdict of the last century [from the political left and right] is that the welfare state has proceeded too far, and that it now needs to recede somewhat if sufficient enterprise [for economic renewal] and self-responsibility [for lower crime rates] are to be maintained.) Keith I absolutely disagree on this. The Saudi state is not a welfare state. Who indeed decides there on what the population needs for its welfare? Only a democratic state can be a welfare state, because to decide on what welfare we need is a sake of everyone, there must be debate and checks and balances; how else could you achieve 'well-fare'? A state with free health care is not necessarily a welfare stated either (there is also the quality of the care to be considered). I also wonder on what you found this idea that the welfare state has proceded too far and that it would be in the way of maintaining 'sufficient enterprise' and 'self-responsibility'? That's a discourse from the right, outdated if there ever is one, that can easily be proved false and it has been many times over. But this discussion would leave too far from the subject of this thread and I wonder if it would be fruitful. If that is what you believe, no amount of argument will change that. I just can say, look at Belgium: we have the best health care system in the world it seems (according to authoritative sources) and our social system works very well too, we have a lot less people below the poverty line than the united States; in spite of that our workers are amongst the most productive in the world and the country belongs to the richest five. Not bad for a welfare state. That is thanks to this welfare
Re: SA and Work in oil-rich countries
If I may be so bold as to jump into this discourse. It does seem obvious that we are on the verge of financial disaster here in the US. There is no decent safety net to take up the slack. As areas of the country are reeling from the collapse of the telecoms, the airways, and previously the dot. coms, one has to wonder only when, not if, the entire retail sector and housing sector will follow suit following in the footsteps of the most unlucky areas to date. Talented folk put out of work, with negative home equity, have a difficult time relocating and many wonder why bother, since the next remote employer may soon join the list of has been financial wonders. The crisis of faith has become systemic. The best and the brightest are finding that they are dispensible when they get a little age and bright, younger, eager replacements are waiting for jobs at a fraction of their older , but far from old, colleague's salaries. So doing the "right thing" , ie becoming educated and finding a good job, has turned out to be a reciept for economic ruin for thousands of techies. As long as the bottom line is the yardstick upon which all is measured, there can never be a bit of security or safety for American families. The disillusioned are more than ready to go where angels feared to tread just a few years ago. Many good plans could be implimented, but the propensity of the human ego to endlessly modify usually makes any workable plan impotent . We need a workable plan that can be accepted and we need some great orators and statesmen to disseminate. Robert
Re: SA and Work in oil-rich countries
Keith, My impression has been that in the past, the Saudis have provided much, or all, of the living costs for their people from oil revenue. Now, it has changed, and their welfare state is not so nearly accommodating. This may be why the mob is mumbling. If this is so, why? Maybe their oil revenues are down - but can't imagine that. Are the thousands of princes salting away more in the land of cuckoo clocks and chocolate? Any thoughts? Harry Keith wrote: Hi Lawry, On this bright and sunny morning I'll return to the tail-end of your posting (without re-naming the thread this time!) because it contains a couple of very important points. 1. According to Prof Bernard Lewis (What went wrong?), the principal enemy of fundamentalist Islam in most countries is *not* other religions, zionism, communism or even western imperialism(!) but secularism itself and its associated schools and universities. I found this difficult to believe, but thinking about the direction in which fundamentalist Christianity appears to be rapidly heading in western countries (with its denial of scientific facts in biology, for example) then I won't argue with one of the world's authorities on Islam. Wahhabism must therefore share considerable blame for the economic decline of Saudi Arabia in that its type of religious education, which dominates the vast majority of schools (except presumably of the private schools for the rich in Riyadh) excludes any form of practical education and, in fact, produces a state of mind quite early in a boy's life that causes him to abjure any sort of technical education even if it were available later. (Therefore all work in private non-oil industry and the retail trade is carried out by foreignors.) I've mentioned that only 2% of graduates (themselves a minority of the youth population) are qualified in engineering and suchlike. Presumably, this has been allowed in a sort of unconscious manner (by the Wahhibist clerics) in order to produce just enough technically trained Saudis who can supervise their oil industry. 2. The second important point is that, as you say, all Saudi men (and in several other oil-rich Gulf states) don't need to work because they receive an income, health services, etc. from the state. This complete dependency on the state, negating the need for practical education and the faintest spark of enterprise, is now a great danger for these countries. It is a pure example of what happens when the welfare state is predominant. In effect, it is crippling the culture of any such country for at least a couple of generations to come, even if radical reform were to start taking place immediately. (I am not against the idea of the welfare state in principle in the west. It's a matter of where to draw the line. It is quite clear in all western countries that the verdict of the last century [from the political left and right] is that the welfare state has proceeded too far, and that it now needs to recede somewhat if sufficient enterprise [for economic renewal] and self-responsibility [for lower crime rates] are to be maintained.) Keith (LdB) Generally, the oil-rich countries -- and not just the Arab ones -- have tended to become dependent on foreign labor, manual and professional. Oil revenue money is distributed freely, in effect, to nationals of the country, and they do not have to do any work. So the nationals become dependent on the foriegn workers, and fail to develop as a work force of their own. This is the reality behind many of the symptoms you point to. This is a very hard nut to crack. Saudi over-spending has left them in debt, and so this pattern is being severely challenged -- and for simple economic reasons and not religious ones. Will Saudi Arabia and the others, find a way, despite their wealth, to evolve a competent diversified indigenous workforce? This is, IMHO, the number one issue before them. I did a detailed study (including a large public opinion survey) several years ago of this stuation in one such country (not SA) and was impressed by how hard it was going to be. ** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *** --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
Re: SA and Work in oil-rich countries
Harry, At 09:05 14/08/02 -0700, you wrote: Keith, My impression has been that in the past, the Saudis have provided much, or all, of the living costs for their people from oil revenue. Now, it has changed, and their welfare state is not so nearly accommodating. This may be why the mob is mumbling. If this is so, why? Maybe their oil revenues are down - but can't imagine that. Yes, this is so. Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC countries increased the price of oil fourfold in 1972/3 but the free market gradually brought it down. I believe they increased prices again on another occasion, but I've forgotten when. This, too, collapsed later. According to the Economist, the average price of oil has halved in the last 15-20 years. Are the thousands of princes salting away more in the land of cuckoo clocks and chocolate? Any thoughts? My guess is that they haven't been salting away any more (proportionately) in the last 20 years than previously. But prices have gone down and there's a high birth rate (presumably, producing children is about the only thing which ordinary Saudis can do in order to increase their income). Also, the Saudi government have been sending large subsidies to the Palestinians (and also most of these have no work to do, and can only increase their incomes by producing children. And, of course, the parents of those young people who are persuaded by the mullahs/imams to become suicide terrorists also receive handsome compensation for their 'sacrifice'). Besides Swiss bank accounts, the Saudi sheikhs have large numbers of estates in America, England and elsewhere. There are several round here. In fact, where high Cotswold stone walls around some estates in these parts have been more-than-usually well repaired (that is, very expensively), then it's a fair bet that the property belong to Gulf oil Arab (or perhaps a rich Chinese). (As you'll know, our English secret society prevents curious citizens from finding out because access to the Land Registry is forbidden.) A friend of mine was commissioned to build a harpsichord for an Arab Sheikh who has an estate near here. He tunes it every summer while the Sheikh is in residence, but he's not sure that it's ever played. Keith -- Keith Hudson,6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel:01225 312622/444881; Fax:01225 447727; E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SA and Work in oil-rich countries
The thing that most people forget is that the stock boom was the result of saving money by the boomers. Now that they are starting to retire, they are pulling the money out and the speculation [and high P/E rations] will slack off. They are now putting their money into real estate so that it will become inflationary in the near future. Bill Ward On Wed, 14 Aug 2002 14:54:38 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If I may be so bold as to jump into this discourse. It does seem obvious that we are on the verge of financial disaster here in the US. There is no decent safety net to take up the slack. As areas of the country are reeling from the collapse of the telecoms, the airways, and previously the dot. coms, one has to wonder only when, not if, the entire retail sector and housing sector will follow suit following in the footsteps of the most unlucky areas to date. Talented folk put out of work, with negative home equity, have a difficult time relocating and many wonder why bother, since the next remote employer may soon join the list of has been financial wonders.The crisis of faith has become systemic. The best and the brightest are finding that they are dispensible when they get a little age and bright, younger, eager replacements are waiting for jobs at a fraction of their older , but far from old, colleague's salaries.So doing the "right thing" , ie becoming educated and finding a good job, has turned out to be a reciept for economic ruin for thousands of techies. As long as the bottom line is the yardstick upon which all is measured, there cannever be a bit of security or safety for American families.The disillusioned are more than ready to go where angels feared to tread just a few years ago. Many good plans could be implimented, but the propensity of the human ego to endlessly modify usually makes any workable plan impotent .We need a workable plan that can be accepted and we need some great orators and statesmen to disseminate. Robert
RE: SA and Work in oil-rich countries
Greetings, Robert, I am interested in your further ideas for a 'new plan.' Can you explore that a bit for us? It is entirely true that one's economic viability in the US now rests on the ability to do several things, and to learn fast. This implies a quite different cognitive and cultural model than the ones taught by traditional parents and in traditional schools. But the indicators that this would become the case are several decades old, and, personally, it is difficult for me to find a lot of sympathy for those who still haven't figured it out. Some sympathy, but not a lot. I hope you'll follow-up on your posting. Best regards, Lawry -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 11:55 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: SA and Work in oil-rich countriesIf I may be so bold as to jump into this discourse. It does seem obvious that we are on the verge of financial disaster here in the US. There is no decent safety net to take up the slack. As areas of the country are reeling from the collapse of the telecoms, the airways, and previously the dot. coms, one has to wonder only when, not if, the entire retail sector and housing sector will follow suit following in the footsteps of the most unlucky areas to date. Talented folk put out of work, with negative home equity, have a difficult time relocating and many wonder why bother, since the next remote employer may soon join the list of has been financial wonders.The crisis of faith has become systemic. The best and the brightest are finding that they are dispensible when they get a little age and bright, younger, eager replacements are waiting for jobs at a fraction of their older , but far from old, colleague's salaries.So doing the "right thing" , ie becoming educated and finding a good job, has turned out to be a reciept for economic ruin for thousands of techies. As long as the bottom line is the yardstick upon which all is measured, there cannever be a bit of security or safety for American families.The disillusioned are more than ready to go where angels feared to tread just a few years ago. Many good plans could be implimented, but the propensity of the human ego to endlessly modify usually makes any workable plan impotent .We need a workable plan that can be accepted and we need some great orators and statesmen to disseminate. Robert
RE: SA and Work in oil-rich countries
SAUDI ARABIA: Friend or Foe? The Politics of Anger vs the Politics of Fear? A Marriage of Convenience? Headed for Divorce? http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/saudi_8-14.html RS YI Excerpt: RAY SUAREZ: Well, what's behind that turning away from longstanding alliance? You mentioned the Defense Department, you mention leaks and vitriol. It didn't come out of nowhere. Where did it start? YOUSSEF IBRAHIM: Well, of course it started with September 11. And of course it started with the fact that we were attacked. And we were attacked by a group of people headed by Osama bin Laden, and the majority of these people in those planes were Saudi citizens. There is no denial of this. Now, does this mean that the Saudi nation is our enemy? I mean, we have in this country a lot of Christian fundamentalists, our attorney general is a Christian fundamentalist, Ashcroft. They are against abortion, some of them actually shoot and kill doctors in abortion clinics. Does this make all Christian fundamentalists criminals? Does it mean we have to wage war against all Christian fundamentalists? I think we are losing the point here in this campaign that has gone, as they say in Britain, a bit over the top. We need to discuss this issue rationally. Is Saudi Arabia, who has been our ally with 60 years, who has supplied us with oil, has kept the price of oil under control, who has resisted the radicals in OPEC, who has purchased weapons with us, who has given us 3,000 permissions when we conducted the war against Afghanistan to fly over Saudi territories -- isn't really our enemy. Mr. Ibrahim later suggests that Osama bin Laden's attacks may be the beginning of the end for Islamic fundamentalism, but it won't happen at the end of an American gun... This was an intelligent conversation. If you follow the link, you might also want to check out the Lee Hochberg story on Policing Immigration. - Karen
SA and Work in oil-rich countries
It is a sad reality that due to its political nature there is in Washington both 'analysis' and 'spin'. The latter seeks to look like the former, but its purpose is to affect policy. Truth and balance are not a necessary component of spin: it is part of the mammoth lobbying effort that permeates Washington. Lobbyists are, at best, one sided, but to politicians who are largely ignorant of substantive issues and not too particular about procedural or substantive integrity, effective lobbyists can sometimes take on quasi-staff roles with the politicians. The Saudi presentation was in the spin category, a collaboration between Perle et al, and the presenter. It's utility lies in the impact has on the thinking of policy-makers. Officially, Perle is not a policy-maker; he issuccessful only through influence, so leaking a presentation whose credibility he builds up by having it preseneted to his advisory group is the only way he can move Washington opinion against the Saudis. WHY he and the other neo-conservatives would do so is another matter. The comment that can be made here is that the Muslim countries of the Middle East are as different from one another as, say, west European countries still are, despite almost parallel industrial develoment for a century or more. Yes, this is absolutely correct. But understanding these vital differences requires study and understanding, something that the 'instant experts' who eagerly follow governmental interest from crisis to crisis are short on. You cannotr imagine the number of heretofore unknown 'experts' on terrorism have descended on Washington, eager to receive contracts! The Middle East field is now deluged with these charlatans; they learn enough to acquire a bit of a vocabulary, and sniff out some patron to serve. Those who are good at self-promotion and energetic enough can end up with considerable influence. If the government seems to be following naive and incoherent policy, you now know why. However, I think most scholars would agree that the common feature of them all is that, for subtle reasons that no-one has yet adequately explained or agreed upon, the Muslim Empire -- highly civilised, liberal, prosperous, inventive, with great trading routes from Spain through to Asia -- started retreating 500 years or so ago and has subsequently reacted with increasing anger against western civilisation rather than being able to reform (with the possible exception of Turkey -- where the secularisation brought about by Kemal Ataturk is now in some danger even after half a century of being implanted). Yes, this question has been the subject of several books, recently, and some of them are pretty good. In part, it is simply a matter of why empires come and go -- nothing specific to Islam, and in part it has its unique Islamic components. This is a subject that I would love to discuss further, but I think it may radically exceed the scope of this list... The reaction in most instances has taken the form of falling back to an intensely puritanical form of Islam as the only way of retaining their dignity and self-respect. We've seen this fairly recently in the case of the rapid rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan -- which, I suggest, is far from being defeated (I notice, most women are still wearing burkas!) Nothing wrong with burkas, Keith -- except that the Western feminist movement has labelled them oppressive. I haven't heard any feminist say 'Ops, maybe we were wrong. Maybe our Afghani sisters really DO like to wear burkas, in the same way that we Western women have our own clothing habits, rules and taboos. Hm, our enlightened feminist would go on to say, I wonder what our Afghani sisters say about our high-heels, our display of skin, our make-up, our tight-clothing.is it possible that they don't see, whith all these things, how advanced and sophisticated we western women are??? This is particularly so in Saudi Arabia where, indeed, the present Saudi royal family came to power by mounting a jihad in 1902 with the assistance of the Wahhabi sect, and have been indebted to them ever since. 1922 perhaps? It wasn't a jihad -- it was a tribal war vs. the Hashemites. The Saudi tribe WAS Wahhabi -- they didn't do it with the assistance of such a 'sect'-- it is simply a desert tribal Arabian school of Islam. And, yes, Wahhabism is a strong social and moral force in Saudi Arabia, and does stand in variance to modernizing -- meaning, for better or worse -- westernizing forces Generally, the oil-rich countries -- and not just the Arab ones -- have tended to become dependent on foreign labor, manual and professional. Oil revenue money is distributed freely, in effect, to nationals of the country, and they do not have to do any work. So the nationals become dependent on the foriegn workers, and fail to develop as a work force of their own. This is the reality behind many of the symptoms you point to. This is a very hard nut to
Rand surely not spin! (was Re: SA and Work in oil-rich countries
Hi Lawry, I don't at all mind your changing the name of the thread -- so much so that I'm going to change it again for the purpose of this posting, confining myself to the first paragraph of yours only! If she-who-must-be-obeyed does not call me out of my den to keep her company for the remainder of the evening then I'll have time to turn to the remainder. Anyway, I've been surfing on the Net a little to see if I can find out a little more about the Rand report. No! The Rand report surely cannot be spin! Spin is for the punters, the credulous, the hoi polloi -- it's not for a panel of the Defense Policy Board (a group of prominent intellectuals and former sernior officials that advises the Pentagon on defense policy according to the Washington Post). The author of the Rand report, Laurent Murawiec, an ex-senior advisor to the French Defence Department, and not a politician, has a career to protect. Nor would the Rand Corp itself want to damage its reputation with something that was pure political spin. It may well present a skewed viewpoint of a particular state of affairs on occasion because it's closely connected with the US Defense Department and with that mysterious armaments outfit, the Carlyle Group, but it wouldn't come out with a view that hitherto runs directly counter to the official policy of the administration unless it was allowed to do so. It may well be that there is deep conflict at high level in Bush's administration and that the Murawiec/Rand Report has been leaked for their own purposes by Perle and/or Cheney, but this is political intrigue at high level and still not spin in the usual sense. It's possible that it could have been leaked in order to scare the Saudi royal family -- that they have to root out the rogue princes in their midst and the Al Qaeda they're supporting. I've no idea about this -- only that various Saudis have protested about the innaccuracy of the Report and that they and the Americans are really very friendly (even though SA won't allow Americans to build up troops there). However, as far as I'm concerned, the Murawiec/Rand's views about Saudi Arabia closely matches everything I've heard from BBC correspondents and other serious journalists, and these in no way have an axe to grind. I rest my case. However, let me continue briefly with another very interesting point concerning King Fahd. About the only thing we know for certain is that he is 82 years old. When I wrote previously, I understood he was in a serious state of health and was in Switzerland for treatment. According to Asia Times Online, he is supposed to be there for an eye operation. However, he has been there since May, with a retinue of several hundred and that doesn't sound like an eye operation to me. During July he has been receiving a stream of foreign visitors including King Abdullah of Jordan and Egypt's Prime Minister, Hosni Mubarak. This sounds to me like someone who is desperately seeking advice. However, the rumour that he is dying picked up again when it was reported that on 3 August he transferred the rights of his property to his second wife, Princess Johara Al-Ibrahim. This is bad news for Crown Prince Abdullah, the king's official heir. It's looking to me that, since about May this year, palace political intrigue in Riyadh went up more than a few notches, with the consequence that the US administration has suddenly become very unsure of its simple anti-Iraq policy. It suddenly realised that it might have a far more serious problem than Saddam Hussein on its hands. Whether the report was leaked in order to force Bush's hand, or whether it was leaked with Bush's permission in order to force King Fahd's hand, the more I think about this the more I think that some climacteric will occur in the very near future. Keith At 11:35 13/08/02 -0700, you wrote: It is a sad reality that due to its political nature there is in Washington both 'analysis' and 'spin'. The latter seeks to look like the former, but its purpose is to affect policy. Truth and balance are not a necessary component of spin: it is part of the mammoth lobbying effort that permeates Washington. Lobbyists are, at best, one sided, but to politicians who are largely ignorant of substantive issues and not too particular about procedural or substantive integrity, effective lobbyists can sometimes take on quasi-staff roles with the politicians. The Saudi presentation was in the spin category, a collaboration between Perle et al, and the presenter. It's utility lies in the impact has on the thinking of policy-makers. Officially, Perle is not a policy-maker; he issuccessful only through influence, so leaking a presentation whose credibility he builds up by having it preseneted to his advisory group is the only way he can move Washington opinion against the Saudis. WHY he and the other neo-conservatives would do so is another matter.
Re: SA and Work in oil-rich countries
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipsnip debivort Nothing wrong with burkas, Keith -- except that the Western feminist movement has labelled them oppressive. I haven't heard any feminist say 'Ops, maybe we were wrong. Maybe our Afghani sisters really DO like to wear burkas, Not by any means all of them! Burqas are the outward and visible sign of portable imprisonment. Surely you have read about the Taliban not allowing women to even leave their houses to see a doctor without a male relative to escort them? Etc. But the true potential of the burqa has not yet been exploited: The Islamic People's Stealth Technology: The Burqa Bomber! And where there are burqas, the question arises whether the infibulators with their razor blades to perfect what nature left not quite finished can be far away? http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/womenululating.ram \brad mccormick in the same way that we Western women have our own clothing habits, rules and taboos. Hm, our enlightened feminist would go on to say, I wonder what our Afghani sisters say about our high-heels, our display of skin, our make-up, our tight-clothing.is it possible that they don't see, whith all these things, how advanced and sophisticated we western women are??? cordell I think the issue is choice. Westerners can wear anything (or nothing, in many cases) but the the others must wear burkas. Most Westerners would find the lack of choice oppresive. Perhaps some Moslem women as well bridle at the lack of choice. This is particularly so in Saudi Arabia where, indeed, the present Saudi royal family came to power by mounting a jihad in 1902 with the assistance of the Wahhabi sect, and have been indebted to them ever since. 1922 perhaps? It wasn't a jihad -- it was a tribal war vs. the Hashemites. The Saudi tribe WAS Wahhabi -- they didn't do it with the assistance of such a 'sect'-- it is simply a desert tribal Arabian school of Islam. And, yes, Wahhabism is a strong social and moral force in Saudi Arabia, and does stand in variance to modernizing -- meaning, for better or worse -- westernizing forces Generally, the oil-rich countries -- and not just the Arab ones -- have tended to become dependent on foreign labor, manual and professional. Oil revenue money is distributed freely, in effect, to nationals of the country, and they do not have to do any work. So the nationals become dependent on the foriegn workers, and fail to develop as a work force of their own. This is the reality behind many of the symptoms you point to. This is a very hard nut to crack. Saudi over-spending has left them in debt, and so this pattern is being severely challenged -- and for simple economic reasons and not religious ones. Will Saudi Arabia and the others, find a way, despite their wealth, to evolve a competent diversified indigenous workforce? This is, IMHO, the number one issue before them. I did a detailed study (including a large public opinion survey) several years ago of this stuation in one such country (not SA) and was impressed by how hard it was going to be. With this inmind, I have renamed our thread. Best regards, Lawry -- Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works (Matt 5:16) Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) ![%THINK;[SGML+APL]] Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Visit my website == http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
