Author:
Publication: The New York Times
Date: October 14, 2001
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/14/opinion/14SUN1.html?pagewanted=print
Moments of international crisis
have a way of stripping away diplomatic facades and exposing uncomfortable
truths. One of the disturbing realities clarified by last month's terror
attacks is Saudi Arabia's tolerance for terrorism. Students of America's
deeply cynical relationship with Riyadh have long known that the kingdom
did little to discourage Islamic extremists, as long as they operated outside
its borders, and that Washington muted its objections to keep oil flowing
to the West. It is now clear that the Saudi behavior was more malignant.
With Riyadh's acquiescence, money and manpower from Saudi Arabia helped
create and sustain Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization.
Over the decades, the United States
and Saudi Arabia have benefited from the cold-blooded bargain at the core
of their relationship. America got the oil to run its economy and Saudi
Arabia got the protection of American military might whenever the kingdom
was threatened by its violent neighbors, including Iraq and Iran. Now,
as international affairs are reordered in the wake of the terror attacks,
it is time for American and Saudi leaders to see if they can fashion a
healthier relationship that still serves the interests of both countries
but with greater frankness and honesty than in the past.
The Saudi royal family can begin
that process by looking unblinkingly at its passive attitude toward terrorism.
Osama bin Laden happens to come from a wealthy Saudi family, but that is
not the issue. The problem is Saudi Arabia's tangible connections to Islamic
fundamentalist terrorism.
Until recent weeks, Saudi Arabia
was one of the two critical sponsors of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban movement,
along with Pakistan. Saudi money, religious teachings and diplomats helped
the Taliban secure and keep control of Afghanistan. The country was then
used to provide sanctuary and training camps for the bin Laden network.
Saudi Arabia has also sponsored the fundamentalist academies known as madrassas
in Pakistan. Many graduates of these madrassas have headed straight to
Afghanistan, some to bin Laden training camps.
The Saudi government has allowed
Saudi-based Muslim charitable organizations to funnel money to Al Qaeda
and its terrorist network. On Friday, Washington moved against a prominent
Saudi businessman said to be involved in these transfers. Since Sept. 11,
Riyadh has refused pleas from Washington to freeze Mr. bin Laden's assets
and those of his associates. Of the 19 hijackers who carried out last month's
attacks, at least 10 were Saudi nationals. Riyadh has so far refused to
cooperate fully with Washington's investigations of hijacking suspects.
It has also barred Washington from using Saudi air bases to launch attacks
against Afghanistan.
This is hardly the performance Americans
expect from a country that is nominally its closest ally in the Persian
Gulf region. It reflects the powerful tensions in Saudi society between
the absolute rule of its worldly and Western-aligned royal family and the
Islamic puritanism of the officially sanctioned Wahhabi sect on which the
monarchy's legitimacy is built. In a closed political system, the only
available outlet for criticism of government policies and corruption is
Islamic fundamentalism. For some, that path has led to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
For a small minority, it has led to terrorism and Al Qaeda.
Washington's embrace of the Saudi
royal family dates back to the era of Franklin Roosevelt. It has always
been primarily about oil, but other factors have played a role, including
Saudi investments in American Treasury bonds and the purchase of expensive
American weapons systems. Since the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Saudi
Arabia has given American military forces limited access to its bases.
Until now, the stream of Saudi oil and money has all but silenced serious
American criticism of the royal family's pervasive corruption, its contempt
for democracy and the appalling human rights abuses carried out in its
name.
There is no simple way to refashion
this unsound relationship. The demise of the Saudi monarchy could well
lead to the installation of an anti- Western fundamentalist theocracy like
that in Iran. Nor can America and its allies abruptly close the Saudi oil
spigot. Still, reforms are possible. The royal family has a self-interest
in making Saudi Arabia more democratic to ease political pressures that
now drive some Saudis to extremist groups and could eventually destabilize
the kingdom itself. The monarchy should crack down on its own corruption
and do a better job of distributing the nation's wealth so that economic
inequities do not generate new legions of terrorists. Saudi temporizing
on matters like freezing the assets of terrorist groups and their supporters
must end immediately.
Washington's evasions need to cease
as well. Pretending that Saudi Arabia is not a source of support for terrorism
only invites further trouble. Muting criticism of corruption and political
repression in the kingdom simply encourages these destructive habits. Over
the longer term, the United States should be trying to develop alternative,
environmentally sound sources of energy so that Western reliance on Saudi
oil is reduced.
Decades of equivocation and Hobbesian
calculations have left American relations with Saudi Arabia in an untenable
and unreliable state. The deformities must be honestly addressed before
they do further damage to both nations.
