Hi,
Arthur,
A few
months ago I tried to figure out what is meant by the term "Armageddon", and the
range of answers was boggling, ranging from a long-ago battle in Palestine, to a
coming all-world cataclysm.
How
are you using the term?
Thanks,
Lawry
In
my more gloomy moments it seems that the Biblical prohecies seem
to be unfolding inexorably. Armageddon.
...
arthur
US
policy is being used for a narrow set of interests: the Christian
evangelicals seem determined to create a clash of religions --
Christianity vs Islam. Oddly, a branch of them, the
Christian-Zionists, have added to the portfolio an Israel-first agenda.
Given the Christian-Zionist belief that all non-Christians will be
destroyed, it seems strange that some elements in Israel have embraced an
alliance with these Christian-Zionists, but then the Israelis probably don't
think that God has that in store for them, so don't much care for the
beliefs and values that lie behind Christian-Zionism, happy to settle for
the political support the Christian-Zionists offer Israel.
In
case any of you missed it, by Christian-Zionist I am referring to people
like Tom DeLay -- see the very interesting speech he gave to the Israeli
Knesset recently.
Right now, the Christian evangelical and Christian-Zionist agenda is
powerfully placed within the Administration: Rove, DeLay, Feith, Perle,
Bolton, Reed...et al. US policy toward the rest of the world generally
and the Arabs and Muslims specifically has been hijacked by these folks, and
is now working against the interests of the country. Sometimes these US
policies are justified by the 'war on terrorism' -- one of the inventions of
the Christian evangelicals -- but the sad fact is that the 'war on
terrorism' is actually aggravating the terror threat, not diminishing it.
This is a pedantic way of saying that Americans will die thanks to these
Christian evangelicals.
As
the rest of the world reacts to what they see as a US out of control, we
will see a broadband resistance to the US take shape. Not only will there be
further terror attacks on US interests, but trade relations will suffer, and
cultural ones. I don't know if you ever had a desire to take your art
overseas, but the chances of that happening have taken a nose-dive in the
last two years. Then, also, we have the trillions of dollars that this
'war on terror is costing us, or rather costing future generations. And the
impact on US civil liberties, e.g. the 'sneak and peek' and unlimited
uncharged detention policies pushed by Ashcroft and the
President.
The Christian evangelicals simply do not care about these costs to
the US and our interests: they give their religious goals precedence over US
interests.
The American public is gullible. How many Americans have ever
traveled to the Muslim or Arab worlds (other than in a tank)? How many
Americans even know Arabs or Muslims who live in this country, as their
neighbors? Hell, how many people even on this
list???
Americans are patriotic. Combined with their gullibility, this leaves
them open to being exploited, to being conned into giving their support, if
only a passive support, for policies that would readily appear inimical to a
populace that was more knowledgeable, thoughtful, and
skeptical.
While the gullibility of Americans is
saddening, the pernicious behavior of those who are willing to exploit
this gullibility is nothing short of criminal.
Could you
speak more about this?
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003
3:17 PM
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Riots in
Riyadh?
Excellent article -- thanks for posting it,
Keith.
If Turki al-Faisal is criticizing US policy and actions openly,
this is indeed serious. I figure it will take the US and UK about two
decades to repair the damage they have done to themselves overseas..
What an unnecessary penalty we have to pay for the ignorance and
narrow-focus agenda of the US administration.
The Shah tried the White Revolution, and found that it led to
greater demands for civil liberties and economic freedom, not fewer.
Then with US advice and advisors, he created SAVAK, an instrument of
secret and not so secret repression. And so he was overthrown and a
counter-revolution swept into power, instead of the moderates who led
the anti-Shah effort. I don't think the Saudis will go this way;
the Saudi populace is more united and coherent than Iran's (and
smaller), and they have the tribal structures of governance, which are
accepted generally by all, to fall back on. Specifically, I am referring
to the diwanniya and succession practices.
There is no intrinsic reason that the US and Saudi Arabia should
not get along. Attacks on Saudi Arabia have been pretty well organized
by those who want generally to poison US relations with the Arab and
Muslim worlds. These same people have orchestrated a series of actions
by the US that is designed, in my opinion, to harm US relations with
these countries, and so to set the US and Arabs/Muslims against each
other long term. Unfortunately, no one in the US government seems ready
to denounce these efforts.
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 >>>>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>, <www.handlo.com>,
<www.property-portraits.co.uk>
|