An Opportunity for a Different Approach to Saudi Arabia

By Ali Alyami

Many Saudis and others, understandably, have greeted King Abdullah’s replacement of some of his government officials on February 14, 2009 with euphoria. Many have thought that removing two of the country’s religious extremists, namely doctor Ibrahim Al-Gaith and Sheik Saleh al-Lihedan, and deputizing a woman to the second post in the ministry of education represent major reform undertakings.

Abdullah’s bold action holds hope for belated and badly needed changes in Saudi Arabia, but it is premature to expect an end to the Saudi royals’ control over every aspect of people’s lives and the decision-making processes. It would also be naïve to expect the imminent eradication of religious intolerance and extremism, marginalization of women, discrimination against religious minorities or the legitimization of other religions, specifically Christianity and Judaism. This level of reform will require a transformation of all Saudi institutions and public participation in the decision-making processes. Prudent and knowledgeable students of the Saudi ruling family should not have been surprised by Abdullah’s move as he has been trying to assert himself for many decades, particularly after he took over the country’s day-to-day operation in 1996.
At personal and authority levels, Abdullah has not been accepted by the exclusive club of the Saudi princes, dubbed the Sudairi Seven (seven brothers named after the tribe of their mother’s origin). This group has ruled the country in one capacity or another for the last seventy years. Their monopoly over power has angered many princes and led some of their brothers to condemn them, mostly privately, but not always.1

In an interview in 2007, Prince Talal, a reformer and confidant of King Abdullah, lashed out at his half brothers, the Sudairi Seven, and accused them of “holding executive power for some 70 years." This is a group which is not only blocking reform, but is also "trying to eliminate others and take everything in its hand," he said. "We, in particular the sons of Abdul-Aziz, should take part, both in expressing opinions and in decision-making."2

Even though Prince Talal is outspoken and the most liberal prince in the family, many Saudis felt Talal could not have attacked his powerful Sudairi brothers without King Abdullah’s acquiescence, if not outright encouragement. Talal is not the only royal who resents the Sudairi brothers for their control of the decision-making processes: King Abdullah’s son, Mitab, the commander of the Saudi National Guard, has complained about lack of support for his father’s programs.

The excluded princes’ acrimonious sentiments and frustration were not directed only at their powerful Sudairi brothers, but toward those who supported them, especially the US. After King Abdullah took over the country’s day-to-day operation in 1996, one of his first pronouncements was, "It is time for the US and Saudi Arabia to look at their separate interests."3

From the outset, Abdullah tried to seek support externally and internally. As an Arab nationalist, he tried to present himself as the new leader of the Arab world. He focused on Syria and Egypt initially, but that did not work. He turned to Muslims and had some success, but not enough to overcome his powerful brothers’ popularity and connections, especially Crown Prince and Defense Minister, Sultan, who is reported to be very ill now. His illness and possible death is said to be a major reason for Abdullah’s action on February 14th. Abdullah also turned to China and India and made headway, especially in trade.

Internally, Abdullah did things that were considered revolutionary by Saudi standards. He encouraged political reformers to petition the government and air their grievances. The reformers did so and met with the King in 2003 and 2004 to demand constitutional monarchy among other things. The meetings with the King and the demands by the reformers infuriated the Sudairi Seven, especially the powerful Minister of Interior Prince Naif. In a direct affront to the King, Naif unleashed his security personnel to round up the reformers and throw them in prison in 2003 and 2004. It is well known that the Sudairis, especially Prince Naif (but also Crown Prince Sultan and Selman, the powerful and ultraconservative governor of the Saudi capital, Riyadh) are opposed to Abdullah’s guarded reform pronouncements and the public support for him. [It is worth noting that Prince Naif is the head of the highly detested and feared religious police who are more loyal to him than to the King. By removing two powerful hardcore religious figures, King Abdullah weakened Prince Naif’s powerbase].4

In addition, Abdullah sought public support for himself personally and for his initiatives, albeit indirectly. During his annual speeches at the Consultative Council (appointed national assembly), Abdullah presented himself as one of the people who is there to save and serve them. Just three days before he decreed the replacement of some officials, he said "I am nothing without my people."5

The recent development in Saudi Arabia is seen by many Saudis as an attempt to consolidate power under Abdullah and to preempt a possible palace revolt over succession to Crown Prince Sultan’s positions. However, King Abdullah understands that in order for him to maintain domestic and global support, some political, religious and educational adjustments have to be explored warily so as not to endanger the continuity of royal family control.

Even though Abdullah, Talal and other princes have an ax to grind against the West, especially the US, because of its support for the Sudairi Seven, these rulers have one overriding item on their agenda – to survive and stay in power. They know that they cannot survive internal and external threats without a superpower’s protection. The Saudi royals may criticize or differ with the US on policies, but when it comes to their protection, they know they can depend on the US.
This is where President Obama and his foreign policy advisers can start a new page with Abdullah, Talal and other princes. The power shift from the Sudairi branch of the royal family to King Abdullah and his royal supporters should not be treated as a strategic setback. On the contrary, this shift could lead to positive political change. The United States can now resume calls for progressive reforms that include public participation in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, only by reforming Saudi institutions can the perils of palace coups and family fratricide be put behind this important country, and all of us affected by its stability, or lack thereof.

1 http://news.bbc.co.uk
2 Gulf States Newsletter, 23 Jan. 2004, page one, issue 726, volume 28
3 WSJ Oct. 29, 2001
4 http://www.alwatan.com.sa
5 http://www.alhayat.com

Saudi Crown Prince and Defense Minister Prince Sultan is reported near death from incurable pancreatic disease

Washington, DC (January 27, 2009). There have been speculative reports about Crown Prince Sultan’s deteriorating health. CDHR has recently received reliable information that Prince Sultan is close to death from advanced pancreatic disease. Prince Sultan, who was appointed Defense Minister in 1962, came to New York on November 23, 2008 to seek treatment. According to credible sources, Prince Sultan was told there was nothing that could be done to save him. He is reported to be resting in Morocco now, but no more information was given out as to why he is in Morocco. Some Saudi eye witnesses reported seeing a large number of Saudi security personnel wandering in the main cemetery in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, a few days ago. Such activities happen only when a senior member of the Royal Family passes away.

CDHR has also received information regarding a fierce competition between Prince Sultan’s sons and one of their uncles, Prince Abdul Rahman, who happens to be a deputy Defense Minister and has been rearranging the ministry to take over even before Sultan passes away.

Prince Sultan has maintained a strong alliance with the United States and is seen by many Saudis as a powerful and decisive figure. His death could create royal crises and a leadership vacuum in an important, but unstable country that is threatened by internal and external forces.

The newly elected U.S. President Obama, the world community, and the people of Saudi Arabia could be facing a very critical succession of power in Saudi Arabia. All those concerned with the welfare of the people of Saudi Arabia hope this succession will be peaceful, and that state affairs will be placed in able and prudent hands. The Royal Family has planned a process, by means of the Allegiance Commission (created in 2006), designed to help this occur. However, the process is supposed to take place after Sultan’s ascent to the throne. His departure before the process takes effect could trigger an unprecedented family feud and could strengthen King Abdullah and his wing of the ruling family, an event many Saudis, including some prominent royals, would like to see happen.

The basic problem is that Saudi Arabia is using an archaic family system for the control of the state, and the succession of power. Under the current plan, the focus of power is reserved for the Royals. If their system falters, the country can falter. The ruling family has banned the evolution of civil society, political parties and political alternatives. A breakdown of the current system could have grave consequences for Saudi Arabia, the world, and the United States because of its close ties to the Saudi monarchy.

However, the Saudi royal family has a habit of keeping senior royals on life support for years, as is the case of former King Fahd, who was struck with a heart attack in 1996 and was kept alive until 2005. This is normally done to allocate the power of the departing family member properly before they let him die.

CDHR promotes the peaceful evolution of more democratic forms of governance, including the spread of free elections which include women, the devolution of responsibilities to elected officials, and openness and public accountability in public affairs. We understand that this can take time, and that the citizens and the Royals would have to grow into their new roles. However, taking this direction, in the long run, will bring stability and peace to Saudi Arabia.

We hope the upcoming succession process will be peaceful, inclusive and productive. We have no favorite or enemy in the succession process. We want the best for the people of Saudi Arabia, but what we are promoting is a better and more participatory system where all citizens share in the decision-making processes.

CDHR Calls for the Suspension of the Saudi Membership in the Olympics

The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia calls on the International Olympics Committee (IOC), President Bush, the U.S. Congress, human rights organizations, and the media to deplore the Saudi government's decision to ban Saudi women from participating in the Olympics, which will commence on August 8, 2008, in Beijing. Denying Saudi women's full citizenship at home and excluding them from participating in international events is not only morally wrong, but in defiance of accepted international norms and declarations on human rights, freedom of movement, and respect for basic liberties.

Saudi Arabia plays a major religious and economic role in the lives of Muslims and non-Muslim because of its oil reserves and historical importance to Islam. As a result, the actions of the Saudi government resonate significantly in Arab and Muslim societies. Barring Saudi women from participating in the Olympic Games is contrary to the I.O.C. rules, which state that "Any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympics Movement." Furthermore, this decision re-enforces and perpetuates the already offensive Muslim systems of segregation and discrimination against Saudi women specifically, and women throughout Muslim and Arab societies.

The Saudi government's manipulations of universal treaties and declarations of human rights, as well as its continued violations of human rights at home, is not only unacceptable behavior in the 21^st century, but ample grounds to declare Saudi Arabia a pariah state and to have its membership in the Olympics suspended until it abides by the rules of the International Olympic Committee. The King of Saudi Arabia initiated and presided over an interfaith dialogue in Spain (June 16^th through the 18^th, 2008) where he emphasized tolerance of differences and respect for all peoples. The king and his family should start to reconcile differences and respect their own citizens, men and women. There is no better chance for the Saudis to change their disdainful and unjust policies toward women than to abide by international norms and let them participate in the Olympics in Beijing, in August 2008. As the birthplace of Islam and host to its holy shrines, Saudi Arabia has an enormous obligation to show that Islam is not a religion of intolerance, extremism, oppression, segregation, and exploitation.

The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia condemns the Saudi government's decision to deny Saudi women the right to be full citizens at home and full members of the international community. The Saudi government is practicing an Apartheid-like system that is similar to that of South Africa a few decades ago, for which it was barred from global events, boycotted, and declared a pariah government. The international community, especially Western democracies, should treat the Saudi government as they treated the segregationist Apartheid government in South Africa.

The Saudi Design on Lebanon

In recent years, Hezbollah has been playing a dangerous game with the Lebanese government. By exploiting multiple pressure points simultaneously, Hezbollah is making remarkable advances in its radical Shia agenda. Earlier this month, Hezbollah seized the mostly-Sunni Muslim West Beirut by force. This ultimately forced the US-backed Lebanese government to join a new unity coalition that gives Hezbollah 11 seats out of 30 in the cabinet, giving them veto power over any decision of the Lebanese government. They were not pressured to disarm in return for this new political power. Additionally, they are allowed to keep their separate telecommunications network and surveillance equipment at Beirut's airport, and are allowed to reinstall the airport security chief linked to the group.
Understandably, Washington has and will continue to bet on its own horse, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. Meanwhile, the West is exacerbating the situation by aiding autocratic Arab regimes outside Lebanon who are playing Washington for a fool.
More so than any other Arab regime, the Saudi ruling family is aware that if Hezbollah takes over Lebanon completely, it could form a united front with Iran, Syria, Hamas and Muqtada Al-Sadr's martyrs against Israel, the US and pro-American autocratic Arab regimes, especially the Saudi-Wahhabi alliance. In the long term, such an alliance poses a tremendous threat to Saudi Arabia and its traditional dominance of the Muslim world. But what would happen if this scenario actually played out, and who would inexorably benefit?
Despite the Saudi monarchy's public criticism of Iran's support for its proxies in Syria and Lebanon, a Hezbollah that controls Lebanon both politically and militarily would further the ideological influence of Saudi Arabia's ruling theocrats. In the short term, the fact that Hezbollah is Shia and the Saudis are Sunni is largely irrelevant. In fact, the Saudi government would prefer to see the democratically elected (mostly Sunni and Christian) Lebanese government deposed and replaced by an Islamic system, modeled perhaps on the Wahhabis in Riyadh, the Alawites in Damascus, or the Mullahs in Tehran.
Granted, it is no secret that the Sunni monarchy in Saudi Arabia would like to see the Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah alliance weakened or dismantled, but their favored method of weakening this alliance makes the Saudis a wild card, not a partner, in America's push for democracy in the Middle East. Specifically, the Saudis know what the Americans fool themselves into ignoring the fact that only by force can extremist regimes and groups be countered.
In Saudi eyes, only after Hezbollah seizes all of Lebanon will the US abandon its fantasies of democratization in favor of military confrontation. The goal, then, is to ensure that such a confrontation between the West and the "Shia Crescent" is both imminent and ferocious. What's more, as long as this battle does not spill over Lebanon's borders, the Saudi royals can stoke and benefit from it without ever lifting a finger.
Given recent events, if Hezbollah uses the political gains made by its new unity government to consolidate a choke-hold over all of Lebanon (the northern half, as well), then the Saudis expect the Israelis (with US support) to react and, unlike in the summer of 2006, to deal Hezbollah and Syria a lasting, crippling defeat. Riyadh hopes to bait one enemy into fighting another, and in the process, the Saudi royals can ensure their security, survival and ideological reach. This became apparent as the Saudi government frankly blamed Hezbollah, announcing that they should "bear the responsibility" for kidnapping two Israeli soldiers, which initiated a military response by Israel in July of 2006. This is an unprecedented move by an Arab government, especially the Saudi government, which has always led the anti-Israeli campaign. The Saudis wanted the Israelis to finish off Hezbollah, but this did not happen.
Now, Hezbollah continues to seek methods with which to overthrow Lebanon's legitimate government. However, if Hezbollah continues making gains through its various military and political tactics, then Israel may be forced once again to shape Lebanon to ensure its security, as it tried to do in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The Saudi royals are hoping that Israel will not make the same mistakes twice and thus eliminate Riyadh's theocratic competition for them in Lebanon and elsewhere.
Either way, no one should be deluded by Saudi statements and public charades if and when Israel launches such an assault on Hezbollah's infrastructure in Lebanon, and Syria takes out Iran's nuclear installations. The Saudi royal family will undoubtedly condemn the "Zionists" and the US for supporting them; Riyadh will certainly call for an urgent meeting of the insignificant Arab League, the UN General Assembly and the European Union to condemn Israel, which they will do given historical precedence. The Saudi ruling family will also send massive shipments of food, medicine, tents, doctors and nurses to Lebanon to aid victims of the war, and ultimately, to steal the glory from Hezbollah's remarkable social service programs.
But the real prize for Riyadh will come only after the dust settles. The Saudi government, directly and through prominent businessmen and Prince Al-Waleed (the financier of Islamic study departments in prominent American and European universities), will heavily invest in the rebuilding of Lebanon's infrastructure. In doing so, the Saudi government will also invest energy in exporting Wahhabism among the Lebanese Sunni population, headed by the Hariri family, to represent Saudi interests in Lebanon. As with Pakistan, Bangladesh, Yemen, Afghanistan, Bosnia and other places, wherever Saudi largess goes, Wahhabism follows.
In the wake of Hezbollah's temporary siege of Beirut, many Sunnis have lost faith in their leaders and are increasingly likely to turn to militant Sunni militias for "protection." To put it lightly, however, the offensive nature of such "protection" is a Saudi specialty, and it seems unlikely that Washington has the same outcome in mind for Lebanon. Either way, the Saudi royal family and its Wahhabi religious extremists must not be trusted if anyone is serious about winning the "War on Terrorism."

Ali Alyami is the Executive Director of the Washington-based Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia. http://www.cdhr.info

Saudi Views on Lebanon

A Hezbollah takeover of Lebanon is a Saudi dream come true at this juncture. The Saudis consider the Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah alliance as a looming threat to their influence, image and security in the region and at home. This is why the Saudi autocratic monarchy and its religious zealots wish to see Hezbollah control Lebanon, despite their overt declarations. Why? Because the Saudis know that if Hezbollah controls all of Lebanon, the Israelis (with encouragement and military help from the United States) will attack Lebanon, strike Syria if it interferes, and take out Iran's nuclear installations. All of this works to the benefit of the Saudi oligarchs. Publicly, the Saudis will condemn the "Zionists," send food and medicine to Iran and Lebanon, and after the dust settles, rebuild Lebanon's infrastructure and attempt to implement Shariah law.

The immediate losers in this debacle would be the defenseless Lebanese Christians, most of which, if not all, would leave the country instead of being enslaved by backward Arab dictators and theocrats. Another loser would be the U.S., as it would be depicted in the new Arab government- controlled media as an anti-Arab and anti-Muslim Israeli puppet. This is a tragedy in the making. In the long run, Israel will not benefit from this scenario either, and U.S. influence will vanish from the region. This is what the Saudis and Iranians are striving for. Until this happens, the Saudis and the Iranians will continue to work together to unite all Muslims against the infidels.

corp.gulfinthemedia.com/gulf_media/view_article_en_print.php?action=print&id=401980

A Saudi blogger in prison

Fouad Alfarhan is a Saudi blogger who has been languishing in a maximum-security prison in Saudi Arabia, without charge, for the past four months. His arrest has generated international condemnation of the Saudi government’s heavy-handed censorship of all forms of free expression, as well as substantial criticism of members of the royal family.

Mr. Alfarhan did not commit any crime other than expressing his desire, shared by millions of Saudi men and women, for more freedom, transparency, accountability, and free press. The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia condemns the arbitrary arrest and lack of any justifiable charges against Mr. Alfarhan. Please watch his young daughter's video, where she tells her father how much she loves and misses him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH7sflcUGj8

A Courageous Saudi Blogger languishes in Saudi Prison

When the courageous and well known Saudi blogger, Fouad Al-Farhan, was arrested on December 11^th, 2007, by Prince Naif’s Ministry of Interior, many Saudis knew it was because he had posted blogs demanding reforms in Saudi Arabia. Another belief is that his arrest was the immediate result of his refusal to retract some of his blog posts criticizing Saudi officials. Although the government denied these allegations, it has become clear that Fouad’s criticism and demands were what led to his unjustified and arbitrary arrest, because no other charges have been brought against him.

The Al-Farhan case is similar to those of other courageous Saudi citizens, who called on and petitioned their government for democratic reforms and political inclusion. Prominent among Saudi reformers who faced the same fate as Al-Farhan are poet and author Al-Doumaini, and doctors Al-Faleh and Al-Hamid. They, too, were rounded and thrown in Saudi penitentiary cells for over a year, and when pardoned by King Abdullah after he inherited the throne in August of 2005, they were forbidden to travel, talk to the media, or find jobs.

Fouad Al Farhan is considered to be the godfather of Saudi blogging. He is widely respected for sharing his views and ideas about certain values that he believes the citizens of Saudi Arabia should be entitled to, like the rest of the world. However, since his arrest, Al Farhan has been subjected to treacherous conditions. Aside from one exception on February 12^th, Al-Farhan’s family has been denied visitations and phone calls for the past three months. This is indicative that Al-Farhan is enduring tortuous interrogation, with the hope that he might confess to false allegations that the government has placed against him, such as spying for the CIA and complying with Zionist agencies and terrorist organizations.

This is the method used by Saudi authorities to silence any critique against them and to terrorize anyone who might be aspiring to make the same demands as Al-Farhan, notably to ask for accountability, transparency, rule of law, an independent judicial system, women’s rights, minority rights, privileges for expatriates, and respect for other people’s beliefs. The international community, especially the United States, has moral and practical obligations to demand that Al-Farhan be released, or at least that an open trial be held in a court of non-religious law, with the presence of a defense attorney. The Saudi-Wahhabi ruling elites should not be allowed to transgress international declarations on human rights, especially when they have signed them.

Source:

http://www.arabnews.com/services/print/print.asp?artid=107122&d=24&m=2&y=2008&hl=Blogger’s%20Family%20Urges%20Authorities%20to%20Allow%20Prison%20Visits

When a Cup of Coffee sets off Religious Oppression

In this day and age, nowhere in the world do government police snatch an innocent educated businesswoman, interrogate her, confiscate her phone, and throw her in a penitentiary for having a cup of coffee with a business colleague in a crowded public coffee shop. Nowhere except for Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and home to the 1.3 billion Muslims' holy shrines. Despite its ubiquity in Saudi Arabia, this kind of behavior is not only morally abhorrent and in utter disrespect for basic human rights, but an insult to the same Muslim faith that Saudis and Muslims worldwide depict and defend as a faith of tolerance, civility, equality and justice. The gender apartheid system in Saudi Arabia is institutionalized and severely enforced by a ferocious government-hired and trained religious police ("Matawaein" or "domesticators"), who are authorized to terrorize, humiliate and treat Saudi citizens and residents with sheer contempt. Though they claim to be defending Islam, the Saudi-Wahhabi families merely use religion as a pretext to justify their appalling treatment of women, religious minorities, and non-Muslims. Humiliating women and denying them the right to drive, work, buy property and travel without being accompanied by a male relative, are state policies and daily occurrences. The unlimited power bestowed upon the institutionalized religious extremists is not only a dire threat to the future and prosperity of the Saudi people—stifled and lagging in social and political development—but also to Muslims worldwide, especially women, and to the international community. Pretending that religious extremism can be washed away by simply ignoring it is a colossal mistake for which the world has paid dearly. It will only get worse from here.

Source:
http://www.arabnews.com/services/print/print.asp?artid=106499&d=5&m=2&y=2008&hl=Coffee%20With%20Colleague%20Lands%20Woman%20in%20Trouble