THE
WAR AGAINST THE SAUDIS
What's behind Washington's split with Riyadh?
Washington
is all atwitter over what appears to be a sea-change on the
foreign policy front: evidence of a
developing rift between the US and Saudi Arabia, its
most loyal Arab ally. Since World War II, Washington and the
House of Saud have enjoyed a lucrative and seemingly
permanent alliance, in which the former provided protection
against enemies at home and abroad, while the latter
provided a steady stream of oil profits for
politically-favored American companies. The US went to war
against Iraq, in 1991, and stationed close to half a million
US troops on the Arabian peninsula, supposedly to protect
Riyadh from a threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Now, it
appears, the events of September 11 have produced a split in
this formerly rock-solid relationship, with talk
of an impending Saudi demand for a US withdrawal. The Washington
Post reports that
"Saudi
Arabia's rulers are increasingly uncomfortable with the U.S.
military presence in their country and may soon ask that it
end
. Senior Saudi rulers believe the United States has
'overstayed its welcome.'"
DEMOCRATS
TAKE THE LEAD
The
response to this has been fierce, and Congressional Democrats
have been particularly bellicose, with Senator Joseph
Lieberman, a putative presidential contender, going so far
as to declare that a "theological
iron curtain" was falling over the Arab world,
including Saudi Arabia. Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan),
powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
took up this "cold war" theme with some particularly
hot rhetoric, saying he had "an uneasy
feeling" that the Saudis were coddling Islamic
terrorists and that American forces were "not
particularly wanted" there:
"They
act as though somehow or another they're doing us a favor.
And I think the war against terrorism has got to be fought
by countries who really realize that it's in everybody's
interest to go after terrorism. I think we may be able to
find a place where we are much more welcome openly, a place
which has not seen significant resources flowing to support
some really extreme, fanatic views."
Levin
and Lieberman were joined by Rep. Ike Skelton, top Democrat
on the House Armed Services Committee, who averred that the
Saudis "need to cleanse the place of potential
terrorist groups."
'FORBIDDEN
TRUTH'
This
fusillade comes as the climax of a furious post-9/11 anti-Saudi
propaganda campaign that has gone into overdrive in
recent weeks. From noting that most of the alleged hijackers
were identified as Saudi nationals to screaming headlines
about a
dispute between a visiting Saudi princess and her maid,
the anti-Saudi jihad has become an intellectual paradigm for
the theoreticians of a new cold war. Neoconservative
ideologues such as Daniel
Pipes and Stephen
Schwartz, see Wahabism as the totalitarian flavor of the
new millennium, just as the varieties of socialism
(Stalinism and Nazism) were the scourge of the twentieth
century. This view has been popularized indeed, one
might say novelized by a new book, written and published
inside of a few weeks, Bin
Laden, The Forbidden Truth, by Jean-Charles Brisard
and Guillaume Dasquie, described
by the Los Angeles Times as
"A
dense, conspiracy-minded portrait of Saudi-dominated banks,
companies and tycoons, all allegedly interconnected, that
they maintain have helped fund Bin Laden's holy war."
THE
APOSTATES
This
Saudi-devil theory, which posits that we ought to have
bombed Riyadh in addition to Kabul, is senseless if we
compare it with the facts. For Bin Laden is an avowed enemy
of the House of Saud, and is pledged to their overthrow. As
Peter L. Bergen points out in Holy
War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World Of Osama bin Laden:
"Bin
Laden also believed the House of al-Saud, the family that
has ruled Arabia for generations, were 'apostates' from
Islam. Apostasy is a grave charge to level against the Saudi
royal family, who style themselves the protectors of the two
holiest places in Islam, Mecca and Medina, and practice the
most traditional form of Sunni Islam."
In
addition Bergen relays the charge of Khaled
al-Fawwaz, an Al Qaeda sympathizer who helped arrange
Bergen's interview with Bin Laden, that "several
assassination attempts have been mounted against [Bin Laden]
by Saudi intelligence services." Al Qaeda's holy war
against the US military presence on the Arabian peninsula
makes a particular target of those who invited the Americans
in the House of Saud.
THE
MARLARKEY FACTOR
Brisard
and Dasquie basically say that the Americans let 9/11 happen
because of a "softness" on the Saudis on account
of the influence of Big Oil in American politics. This is
what supposedly motivated the Bushies to enter into secret
negotiations with Bin Laden prior to September 11. The
popularity of the Brisard-Dasquie book in France is
understandable, as it blames the Americans for the disaster
that befell them, but the lesson really ought to stand for
the Europeans as well, says M. Dasquie:
"The
U.S. is not the only one. The question is why developed
countries need to do commercial deals with Saudi Arabia and
if those commercial deals are why they must close their eyes
about the reality of the Saudi Arabian kingdom. Since the
18th century, Saudi Arabia has been focused on conquering
the world."
Such
an overweening ambition would be difficult to hide, but
isn't it funny how nobody ever noticed it before? And
another thing: this "forbidden truth" theory being
a lot of marlarkey, what, then, is the real reason for the
anti-Saudi propaganda campaign, so ably and relentlessly
conducted by a broad coalition of neoconservatives (the Weekly
Standard, Commentary, the New York Post)
and liberal Democrats (Lieberman, Levin, the New
Republic)?
TARGET:
BUSH I
The
interest of congressional Democrats in the "Forbidden
Truth" thesis is understandable, especially if they can
make the charge of "secret negotiations" stick. If
the Bush administration was not only "soft" on
terrorism but even somehow protected their Saudi allies from
scrutiny by law enforcement agencies, then who benefits? The
Bush family, long tied to the Saudis, is fair game once the
"Forbidden Truth" conspiracy theory becomes the
conventional wisdom: George Herbert Walker Bush, reviled by
some for his pro-"Arabist" policies, is the
particular target of this left-wing hate campaign.
OPPORTUNITY
KNOCKS
The
neocons, no friends of Bush pere, also have much to gain.
They blame the father for not "finishing the job"
and concluding the Gulf war prematurely, even as they exhort
and try to shame the son into a military confrontation not
only with Iraq, but with nearly the entire Islamic world. Weekly
Standard editor Bill Kristol didn't waste much time
after 9/11, quickly mobilizing
a phalanx of intellectuals and other policy wonks
calling for an all-out invasion of a whole list of Arab
nations: not only Iraq, but also Iran and Syria and I'm
sure none of the signers would object to the addition of
Saudi Arabia.
Okay,
so at least two groups of ideologues and I can think of
a few more on the right and the left have some interest
in propagating the "Forbidden Truth" scenario,
but, by themselves, these people are just a bunch of
writers, policy wonks, and political hacks, without the
resources to do anything but bloviate. The real power
that is, the money power behind the anti-Saudi campaign
are the same financial interests that have profited from the
Saudi-US alliance lo these many years: the Rockefeller
family, the controlling factor in the Arabian-American Oil
Co., Aramco.
And therein lies a story
.
THE
ROCKEFELLER CONNECTION
In
return for US aid and support for the House of Saud, King
Ibn Saud granted Aramco a monopoly over the production
of Saudi oil at the end of World War II. Aramco is a
consortium of companies, with Exxon, Mobil, and Socal
all Rockefeller-connected granted 70 percent ownership,
and Texaco granted the rest. A premier example of crony
capitalism, the Rockefeller-Saudi alliance translated into
multi-millions in subsidies through the Export-Import Bank,
so that the King could build his own personal railroad from
his capital to the summer palace. Franklin Roosevelt took
money out of the war budget to prepare the way for
Rockefeller's pipelines. In return, the Saudis granted the
US an airbase at Dharan, conveniently near the oil fields.
Smalltime capitalists hire private security guards to
protect their property, but the big boys or, at least,
some of them have the use of the American military.
AN
ENDURING ALLIANCE
The
Saudi-Aramco relationship has endured a lot. There was a
phony "nationalization" of Aramco in the 1970s,
when Nasserite and Baathist socialism were all the rage on
the Arab "street": the Saudi government took over
Aramco, formally, but then immediately turned around and
granted the Aramco-Rockefeller consortium the exclusive
contract to "manage" the operation. Under this new
deal, the consortium would get the lion's share of Saudi
oil, with the rest going to Petromin, the state-owned
company. As Murray
N. Rothbard succinctly summed it up:
"It
all boils down to a happy case of the 'partnership of
industry and government' happy, that is, for the Saud
family and for the Rockefeller oil interests."
TURNING
ON A DIME
This
was the rock upon which the US-Saudi alliance was founded,
and anyone who questioned the necessity, wisdom, or cost of
this friendship let alone calling for a US withdrawal
was roundly denounced as a foolish
"isolationist." Now, the same people who hailed
the Gulf war and the imperative of defending the Saudi oil
fields, have turned on a dime, and are not only calling the
historic friendship into question, but openly wondering if
the Saudis are enemies.
How
to explain this sudden about-face by the chattering classes,
the political mavens, and now a growing number of mostly
Democratic politicians? I say follow the money!
Oh,
but "everything's changed!," they cry. How can you
be so cynical? Don't you know that skepticism is out
and earnestness is in? Be that as it may, I can only
report the facts as I see them, and what I can tell you is
that everything changed well before September 11, 2001, as
far as the Rockefeller oil interests in Saudi Arabia were
concerned.
TURNING
POINT
The
pivotal event occurred without much public notice, on
September 23, 1998, during Crown Prince Abdullah's visit to
the US, where he met with the presidents of the major US oil
companies, "with whom he exchanged cordial talks and
reviewed issues pertaining to petroleum affairs," as
the Saudi embassy website delicately phrases it. But the
reality lurking beneath the veneer of diplomatic phrases was
a lot rougher: according to widespread reports in the Arab
media, the Prince basically told the Aramco consortium that
their monopolistic state-privileged status was about to be
revoked. A
very interesting piece by Adel
Darwish in the Middle
East Analyst purports to give us the inside scoop on
the Prince's message to this gathering:
"During
a private, hour-long meeting on Saturday 23 September at the
house of Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan in McLean,
Virginia, with senior executives representing seven American
oil companies: The four American oil giants Mobil Corp,
Exxon Corp, Texaco Inc. and Chevron Corp. (which established
the Arabian American Oil Co now known as Saudi Aramco, in
the 1930s) the other three were Atlantic Richfield Co.,
Conoco Inc. and Phillips Petroleum Co.
"According
to sources close to the meeting, [the] Prince [told] the
executives to submit directly to him a study of
'recommendations and suggestions' about the role their
companies could play in the exploration and development of
both existing and new oil gas fields, said one participant
in the meeting. The same source said that the executives
appeared 'shocked' by the major policy reversal. Saudi
Arabia began nationalizing its oil industry in 1973 and has
adamantly excluded foreign oil companies from production
operations ever since."
SHOCKWAVES
Adamantly
excluded but for the Aramco consortium, that is until
now. Abdullah, the heir apparent to the invalid King
Fahd, is a modernizer who has decided that it's time to
throw open the doors of free competition and let the free
market take over. The deal was off. The Rockefeller
stranglehold on Saudi oil production was about to end,
announced the Prince, and this surely sent waves of shock
through his audience. Indeed, the shockwaves are still being
felt today, as the US ponders not only withdrawing its
troops from the Saudi kingdom, but whether our longtime ally
is really our deadly enemy.
ABDULLAH
TO ARAMCO: 'THE PARTY'S OVER'
The
Saudis, usually close-mouthed about business matters and
subtle policy shifts, were more than forthcoming in
broadcasting their declaration of independence. Prince
Abdullah went to the trouble of granting an unusual
interview, in which he said exactly what happened at
that historic meeting:
"In
1998 I had a chance to meet with a number of executives from
major oil companies. We had discussed the investment
opportunities in the Kingdom especially in light of its
stability and the availability of huge oil and gas reserves.
I had indicated to them, at that time, that we welcome, and
we will be willing to look into, any investment ideas that
might be of benefit to both sides."
THE
SAUDIS AND THE 'SILK ROAD'
Abdullah's
vision of a modernized Saudi Arabia is to be financed by a
new arrangement with Western oil companies, and an opening
up of the Saudi economy to competitive foreign investment.
He boasted of receiving proposals "from 18 of the top
oil companies in the world" worth a total exceeding one
hundred billion dollars and ranging from "production,
processing, transporting and distributing of gas to
refining, transporting and marketing of oil and building the
required infrastructure." The Prince went on to
politely but firmly declare his defiance:
"All
this will take us a long way towards the creation of a solid
and integrated economy that realizes the full economic
potentials of the oil and gas industry and will open new and
wide investment opportunities for the Saudi private sector.
And it is important to keep in mind that money invested in
projects in Saudi Arabia means less money available for
investment in competing projects elsewhere."
TWO
CAN PLAY
A
very interesting comment, that last: what are these
"competing projects"? This is none other than the Transcaucasian
"Silk Road" pipeline project, slated to extend
from the Caspian Sea oilfields to Turkey, and perhaps down
through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. This project has
long been on the drawing boards, and the Clinton
administration took it up with alacrity, even going
so far as to set up a special department to facilitate its
creation. If the foreign oil companies were going to try
to go around them, said the Prince in so many words, then
two could play that game:
Q:
"Your Royal Highness what about Saudi Aramco? Will
it assume a new role following the formation of the council
and the invitation of the international oil companies?"
A:
"We are proud of Aramco's achievements through the
years and our dealings with foreign companies will never be
at the expense of Aramco. I believe the presence of these
companies will strengthen Aramco and sharpen its competitive
edge. Aramco, has, I believe, the administrative and
technical expertise and know-how that enable it to compete
effectively with these companies."
FREE
MARKET ECONOMICS 101
With
the price of oil steadily falling, Abdullah is strapped for
cash. Darwish cites Yehya
Sadowski, associate professor of Middle East studies at
Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, who
says the Saudis exhausted their capital assets paying off
the US for the cost of the Gulf War. Faced with the looming
prospect of bankruptcy, and increasing competition in the
oil market from South America and Central Asian states of
the former Soviet Union, Abdullah's choice was made
out of necessity: the alternative is continued
stagnation and the indefinite postponement of modernization.
In
any case, the glee with which the heir presumptive to the
Saudi throne delivered a lecture on free market economics to
the leading capitalists of the West should be shared and
appreciated by free marketeers everywhere.
A
LESSON LEARNED
In
spite of the Prince's reassurances that the Rockefellers
would get their fair share and no more it is
doubtful that the assembled Aramco executives were all that
appreciative of the little lesson in Economics 101. Their
great unhappiness is what is really driving this anti-Saudi
hysteria. Oh, you've got to modernize, say the
globalist policy wonks, you've just got to open your
borders to free trade and open up your markets to free
competition: let the market rule! This is the advice
routinely given, but, when it is finally taken, the reaction
is a concerted campaign of calumny and vilification.
ACCIDENTALLY
ON PURPOSE
After
years of close military cooperation between the two
countries, a female pilot pops up who objects to settled
rules on proper attire while serving in the Saudi kingdom
and becomes
a feminist icon overnight. All of a sudden, we hear from
Andrew Sullivan about the persecution of homosexuals under
the strictures of Sharia law, a cause that somehow
previously escaped his attention. Virtually overnight it is
discovered by all sorts of instant "experts" that
Wahabism, the official state religion of our longstanding
ally, is the equivalent of Nazism if not outright
devil-worship. That this sudden awakening to the alleged
"Saudi threat" occurred in tandem with the
Rockefeller's acrimonious (and costly) break with the House
of Saud is, of course, the purest coincidence.
THE
NEW COLD WAR
A
number of public figures have weighed in on this potentially
explosive issue: Bill
Clinton warned against the withdrawal of US troops from
the region (surely an argument in favor), while Neil
Bush urged the Saudis to make a better case for themselves.
But the momentum is all the other way, and, while the
administration is denying that any withdrawal is being
contemplated, clearly the Bush people are speaking only
for themselves. For if and when Abdullah asks the US to set
a departure date, this is sure to set off a new round of
renewed Saudi-bashing, one
that the new cold warriors look forward to with gusto
and which the rest of us have good reason to fear.
A
GREAT DANGER
The
dissolution of the Rockefeller oil monopoly, and the
creation of a truly independent Saudi Arabia, with freer
markets and without the burden of justifying the presence of
foreign troops on its soil, will strengthen the forces of
modernization and expand the margins of freedom in the
Middle East. That is why the withdrawal of US forces would
be a giant step forward in defeating the Bin Ladens of this
world. It is a divorce that will benefit both: however, all
divorces contain some bitterness, no matter how outwardly
amicable, and it is going to be all too easy for the War
Party to segue straight into an adversarial relationship
with our former ally. And therein lies a great danger.
THIRSTY
FOR BLOOD
With
Max Boot of the War Street Journal complaining
about the paucity of American casualties in Afghanistan,
clearly our bloodthirsty hawks were disappointed in the
brevity of the Afghan campaign, and yearn for more. The
same arguments made by the warhawks of National Review
for an invasion of Iraq could be applied with even more
force to an alleged "threat" from Riyadh. As our
foreign policy tends inexorably toward an all-out assault on
the entire Arab world, the Saudis will take the place of the
Soviets in the demonology of the new cold war at least
that is the hope in certain quarters.
THE
VENTRILOQUISTS
When
Crown Prince Abdullah called off his sweetheart deal with
Aramco, he incurred the wrath of some very powerful people,
and it was only natural that they would seek revenge. Speaking
through Jeff Jacoby in an act of ventriloquism that
no doubt had the dummy-columnist's full cooperation the
Aramco-Rockefeller consortium delivered this
"ultimatum" to their former business partners:
"We
would make it clear to the Saudi princes that we expect
their full cooperation no matter where the war on terrorism
takes us. And if it takes us to a land war in Iraq, Saudi
Arabia will make its military bases available for staging
the invasion.
"Will
the Saudis refuse? Will they protest that complying with our
demands will mean the toppling of their regime? Either way,
our course will be clear: We will seize and secure the oil
fields."
How
convenient.
"But
our purpose would not be plunder."
Oh,
of course not!
"We
would appoint a respected, pro-Western Muslim ally to run
the oil industry in trust for the Muslim world."
I
imagine Aramco has a few suggestions.
"No
longer would the petro-wealth of Arabia be used to advance
Islamist fanaticism and terror or to maintain a decadent
royal family in corrupt opulence. It would be used, rather,
to promote education, health, and democracy throughout the
Middle East."
and to fill the coffers of the Rockefellers and their
corporate allies, who won't allow the prize of oil-rich
Araby to escape their grasp quite so readily.
"The
Gulf's great riches, now a well spring of disorder and
unrest, could be transformed into a force for decency,
stability, and peace."
The
Gulf's great riches, in other words, will stay right where
they are: securely deposited in Armaco's bank account. So
the revenge of the Rockefellers plays itself out on the
world stage: they'll retain their monopoly on the largest
known oil reserves one way or the other.
BUSH
PAYS THE PRICE
So
far, President Bush has made it plain that he does not mean
to wage war on Islam, and for that he is being made to pay a
price. While his State Department is struggling to undo
the damage done by the anti-Saudi media and the
Lieberman-Levine assault in Congress, a grand coalition of
left and right is pushing for World War III in the Middle
East a war that, given the presence of Pakistan and
India (not to mention Israel) in the equation, could quickly
go nuclear.
