The following, by our best foreign reporter, John Simpson,
with a long-time experience in the Middle East, can be read as an adjunct
to my previous posting (Crystal ball gazing on Saudi Arabia) with the
FT's interview with Prince Turki al-Faisal.
There have been reports of small riots in Jeddah and other smaller towns
in Saudi Arabia from time to time, and there have also been small riots
in Riyadh, the capital, using football matches as excuses, but John
Simpson writes here of what seems to be the first serious riots in
Riyadh. If, as I suggested previously, a future riot starts getting out
of hand, then that will give the opportunity for someone to mount a coup
d'etat -- probably someone in the military.
KH
<<<<
SAUDIS FEAR THAT BRITAIN SEES THEM AS THE NEXT IRAN
John Simpson
There was silence among the orderly lines of men sitting cross-legged
down the length of a hall in the King Abd-al Aziz Mosque. Someone looked
at his watch. Another man fiddled with the box of food in front of him,
caught the disapproving looks of his neighbours, and stopped.
Then came the stuttering of a microphone, and expectant movement in the
lines. The instant the muezzin's voice proclaimed the end of the day's
fasting, the hungry men pulled their boxes open and started eating. The
warm evening air was filled with the smell of chicken and saffron rice.
Iftar, the evening feast, had begun.
The holy month of Ramadan is a bad time to visit Saudi Arabia if you want
to do business. This year it is worse then usual: to the irritation of
the Saudi government, the British Foreign Office and the American State
Department have warned people not to come here unless they have
to.
Half a column-inch in the newspapers here hints at the reason: a senior
al-Oaeda figure, Abu Mohammed al-Ablaj, has sent out an e-mail promising
"devastating attacks" during Ramadan. This is presumably part
of the information the British and Americans have based their warnings
on. It looks to me as though al-Ablaj is talking about Iraq, but now that
people have taken to suing their governments for not telling them the
obvious, the State Department and the Foreign Office tend to warn first
and ask questions afterwards.
This has, of course, got up the nose of the Saudis in no small way. The
government here maintains that it has a very firm grip on the security
situation. Six hundred suspects have been arrested since April, and 3,500
Muslim clerics have been sent for "re-education". At Friday
prayers two days ago, the sermon I heard could have been written by the
Ministry of Information, it was so politically correct.
The irritation with Britain and America is widespread throughout
officialdom, from Saudi Arabia's urbane ambassador to London, Prince
Turki al-Faisal, to his relative Prince Sultan, the minister of defence.
Last Thursday, choosing his words carefully. Prince Sultan told a group
of generals who came to offer their Ramadan greetings that there was a
smear campaign against the kingdom. "We are neither terrorists nor
parasites," he said.
In other words, he was responding angrily to accusations in Washington
that Saudi Arabia, the recipient in the past of so much American military
support, is somehow behind the new wave of anti-American
violence.
Here, most people seem to take it for granted that the United States has
shifted decisively away from Saudi Arabia as a result of the September 11
attacks. They see the invasion of Iraq as being America's way of securing
a safe supply of oil for the future, and assume that the shifting of US
military bases from here to Qatar and Iraq symbolises the parting of the
ways.
As for the British attitude, it is a source of annoyance rather than
anger. The Saudis expect a greater sensitivity and understanding from the
British, and feel that they haven't had it. Senior government figures
scan British statements anxiously for any sign that London believes that
Saudi Arabia is going the way of Iran, a generation ago; and they feel
they can spot them.
Having watched the course of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, I think the
similarities are exaggerated -- and yet the danger is clearly there. The
Shah, too, tried to re-educate his clergy, but he did it the hard way and
simply reinforced their anger and willingness to be martyred. In the
teeming slums of Teheran his soldiers shot down the demonstrators, while
he himself vacillated between toughness and conciliation.
The Saudis are aware of the precedent, though they feel that the
experiences of a Shi'ite state have little relevance to them. Perhaps
they are right, but history never repeats itself precisely. Two weeks
ago, hundreds of Saudis demonstrated for economic and political reform in
the streets of Riyadh; since demonstrations are illegal here, the police
dispersed them with tear gas and arrested a hundred or more.
As in Iran in 1978, the opposition comes as much from liberals as from
fundamentalists, and they have a tendency to make a brief, tactical
alliance, though it doesn't last long. Like the Shah, the Saudi
government is experimenting with a little ultra-cautious liberalisation:
press restraints are marginally fewer, and there will be limited
elections next year.
These are nerve-racking times for the Saudi government. It feels
abandoned by its friends and increasingly threatened by its enemies, and
the princes who control most of the ministries cannot agree on the right
way forward. Maybe Ramadan will pass off without the attacks the
Americans and British have warned about; even so, the political choices
here won't be any easier.
John Simpson is the BBC's World Affairs Editor
Sunday Telegraph 2 November
>>>>