"Superstition, idolatry, and hypocrisy have
ample wages, but truth goes a-begging." (Martin Luther)
| Great democrats meet: Abdullah and the Queen |
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
is occupying the headlines of many newspapers. On an official state visit to
the UK, Abdullah has raised
quite a few eyebrows with his claims that Britain
failed to act on intelligence that could have stopped the 7/7 London bombings. Despite the controversy,
today he received a ceremonial
welcome from the Queen, including a state banquet at Buckingham Palace,
where the king and his entourage are staying.
Rather than merely repeating the obvious outrage of the
British media at the king’s claims – which are a real joke, considering that Saudi Arabia is the biggest source of individual
terrorism on earth – we would like to take the opportunity to look a bit closer
at the crucial relationship between the West and Saudi Arabia. For whatever the
diplomatic rows, this four day state visit highlights the stinking hypocrisy
and cynicism with which the major powers – be they British, American or Saudi –
approach politics.
Firstly, let us see
what kind of country and government we are talking about here. The fact is that the Saudi monarchy is one of the
most horrible, corrupt and vicious (in all senses of the word) regimes on this
planet. Apart from the tried and tested methods of torturing political and
religious minorities, the Saudi regime maintains barbaric relics such as public
executions by beheading and stoning. While some are also executed in private by
firing squad, many executions are popular public attractions. Beheading is the
punishment for murderers, rapists, drug traffickers and armed robbers, according
to strict interpretation of Islamic law. According to the Telegraph
newspaper, in 2005 there were 191 executions, in 2006 there were 38 and as of
July 2007 there were already 102.
The situation for Saudi
women is not much better as they are openly regarded as inferior to men. They
face severe discrimination in many aspects of their lives, including education
and employment. Although they make up 70% of those enrolled in universities,
women make up just 5% of the workforce in Saudi Arabia, the lowest proportion
in the world. Male dominated government institutions claim that according to
Sharia law, a woman’s place is in the home caring for her husband and family.
Even driving a car is not permitted for women.
Contrast that to the
decadent behaviour of the Saudi princes, who act like wealthy playboys in their
casinos full of whisky and prostitutes. Underlying this cynical hypocrisy are
the mutual interests of the Saudi monarchy and the official clergy of the
country. Saudi Arabia
is in effect dominated by a powerful religious police in the form of the Wahabi
clergy, the Islamic sect that came to a deal with the monarchy years ago. As
long as the Saudi monarchy was allowed to indulge in their binge drinking,
whoring and gambling, the Wahabi clergy would turn a blind eye to these rather
un-Islamic practices. In return, the Wahabi clergy gained complete control over
religion and education to implement their extreme variant of Islam, and they
received billions from the government to fund their madrasas, those breeding
schools of Islamic fundamentalism.
With a little help from our friends
However, it must be said that these extremists were not
only the product of the Saudi monarchy. During the Cold War, the Islamists were
particularly useful to the United States,
who feared the influence of the Soviet Union, which was particularly strong in Iraq and Syria. In that respect, the Saudis
were very useful in the fight against so-called "communism". The United States in effect promoted the rise of
Islamic fundamentalism as a bulwark against the Soviet
Union. This was the case with the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt, but also in Afghanistan, where they created and
supported a counterrevolutionary insurgency against the progressive governments
in the late 1970s and 1980s. Backward, fanatical peasants were encouraged to
ally themselves with the mullahs, the usurers and the landlords to combat some
of the reforms that had been implemented in Afghanistan. In this process, Osama
bin Laden was recruited by Turki Al Faisal, the Saudi intelligence chief in the
late early 1980s, together with Gulbadin Hekmatyar, the CIA’s favourite and a
puppet of Pakistan’s
Jamaat-e-Islami, one of the main Islamic parties. Bin Laden became the CIA’s
chief organiser of the insurgency against the left-wing government of Afghanistan in
the 1980s. This operation was coordinated through the ISI, the Pakistani secret
service. However, when the Soviet Union
collapsed, the balance of forces had shifted and the Taliban, who were trained
by the CIA, turned against their former allies and got out of control, which in
the end led to the tragic events of 9/11.
Thus, we see that the
recent claims of the Saudi king on his country’s record of combating terrorism
amount to nothing more than hollow phrases. Osama bin Laden is of Saudi origin.
Fifteen of the suicide bombers in the 9/11 bombings were Saudi nationals. Saudi
money is still funding the madrasas, which supply the Taliban with a steady
supply of fanatics willing to blow themselves up.
Strategic interests
The House of Saud was traditionally a British puppet but
with the steady decline of British imperialism and the rise of American
imperialism, it has over the years turned into an even stauncher American ally.
The reason for this dependency is clear. Apart from general strategic
interests, the Americans have in Saudi Arabia a steady supply of
black gold, that is, oil. The country is the second biggest crude oil exporter
to the USA.
Therefore, it is of crucial importance for American imperialism to have a compliant
regime in the region. Any threat to the monarchy in Saudi
Arabia would represent a direct and potentially
devastating blow to oil supplies (and therefore to all other industrial and
financial interests) in the USA,
but would also jeopardise the overall strategic position of American
imperialism, in the Middle East and on a world
scale.
This wealth is not
being used to benefit ordinary Saudi citizens but goes directly in the pockets
of the monarchy, which can afford a disgustingly exuberant lifestyle. In fact,
the living standards of the Saudi masses have been in decline since the 1980s
and are now estimated to be 80% lower than 20 years ago, with unemployment on
the rise again as well. The contrast between the fabulous natural resources and
the poverty of ordinary people, has led to a ferment of discontent in Saudi Arabia.
The tragedy is that as a result of the brutal repression of any dissent, there
is at present no opposition that can form an alternative. The labour movement was
crushed a long time ago, strikes and political parties are not allowed, and
torture is common practice.
As a result of the growing internal opposition, the monarchy became
increasingly dependant on the spiritual Islamic leaders as a means of
legitimising its rule and as an instrument of social control. Paradoxically,
however, for lack of any other organised structures through which opposition
can express itself, it is precisely in the mosques that hostility to the ruling
clique has been organised in the form of Islamic fundamentalism. Increasingly,
the Wahabite priests questioned the legitimacy of the House of Saud, which they
saw as undermining their own credibility and power. In order to maintain their
hold over the population, they tended to distance themselves from the royal family.
As a result of this, the fundamentalists are now out of control in Saudi Arabia
and they could overthrow the rotten monarchy at any time. The regime is
extremely unstable and in the case of an overthrow the ensuing regime would
certainly not be pro-American. This would obviously pose severe problems for US
imperialism’s interests in the region. They already got a bloody nose in Iraq, where all their calculations ended up in a
shambles, but an unfriendly regime in Saudi Arabia would have the potential
to become an even bigger catastrophe for the Americans. Therefore, US imperialism,
together with its British lackey, has no choice but to prop up an extremely
brutal regime that they can nevertheless "do business with". The moral lectures
on democracy by these Christian sycophants disappear very quickly in the face
of naked self-interest indeed! How else can you explain that these ladies and
gentlemen condemn the lack of democracy in Burma
and the abuse of human rights in Zimbabwe, but remain silent when it
comes to the Saudi dictatorship?
Saudi
Arabia is one of the
main bases of US imperialism
in the Middle East together with Israel
and Turkey.
In the language of markets and spheres of influence, that is all that counts.
However, as in Iraq, the United States
could very well be digging their own grave. By so blatantly tying their hands
to a dying regime, they are inevitable being dragged into a conflict from which
there is no elegant way out. Not having learnt any lessons from Vietnam and Iraq, the Americans would in the
event of a collapse of the Saudi monarchy be compelled to intervene directly
and at least occupy the oil fields near the Saudi coast (and leave the camels
and sand to the Saudi people). This would only further destabilise the whole of
the Middle East. As Greg
Oxley and Layla Al Koureychi explained in their article The war in Iraq
and the impending collapse of the Saudi Arabian monarchy:
"It would seem that, as with Afghanistan and as with Iraq, the
"strategists" in the Pentagon have not thought out the situation they
are likely to find themselves in after the initial attack. It should not be
forgotten that this new aggression would be directed against the Muslim Holy Land
– the land of Mecca
and Medina. It
would have an electrifying effect on the peoples of the entire Muslim world,
and would never be accepted. Literally thousands of Muslim fighters would pour
into Saudi Arabia
from all over the world. The pro-American regime in Jordan
could well be faced with immediate overthrow in the event of an invasion of Saudi Arabia.
The regimes in the Lebanon
and in Egypt
would be further destabilised. In Israel, also, the repercussions of
the crisis would lead to further attacks against the living standards of
Israeli workers, forcing them into action against the ruling class. A military
intervention against the land
of Mecca would generate a
worldwide army of self-sacrificing Islamic youth, willing and eager to strike
American targets whenever and wherever possible."
Thus, we see that the
cynical calculations of the people ruling our world are only leading to more
wars and instability. In the end, however, something has to give, and sooner or
later the immense frustration that has accumulated in the Middle
East after years of economic decline, wars, mass unemployment,
national and religious oppression, is bound to result in events that will shake
the whole world. And whether this results in an even more barbarous society or
a society cleansed of oppression, exploitation and religious bigotry, depends
entirely on the leadership and the programme of that movement.
