Editor’s Note:

SUSRIS readers are very familiar with the insightful, thoughtful and sometimes provocative perspectives shared in these pages by Ambassador Chas Freeman.  He served as America’s top diplomat in Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Storm, among other challenging diplomatic posts in a distinguished career in the U.S. Foreign Service. For those who have followed his many interviews, panel discussions, keynote addresses and articles presented in SUSRIS you now can find many of his public remarks as well as heretofore unpublished materials in his new book, America’s Misadventures in the Middle East. It was published this fall by Just World Books and is available on Amazon.com. Today we are pleased to provide for your consideration a brief conversation we had with Ambassador Freeman a week before the October release of his new book. It is accompanied by, in a separate mailing and posting, an excerpt from “Misadventures” to give you a taste of what’s provided in the book.

***

SUSRIS EXCLUSIVE

“Misadventures”: A Conversation with Ambassador Chas Freeman

[SUSRIS] Congratulations on your new book, “America’s Misadventures in the Middle East.” Tell us about it.

Ambassador Chas Freeman was the opening speaker at the 2010 Arab U.S.-Policymakers Conference and talked about American "misadventures."

[Amb Chas Freeman] This book is something new for me even though I previously published several books. The first was a bilingual English/Chinese book, I was co-author, on how to cook French and Italian cuisine in China with local ingredients. It was a called “Eating Western in China.” Then I published “Arts of Power,” a study of statecraft now widely used in teaching diplomacy around the world. “The Diplomats Dictionary,” which came out in a second revised edition in May was my third book. So other than the book on cuisine I’ve focused on diplomacy in the past.

The idea for this book, “Misadventures,” belongs to the publisher, Helena Cobban of Just World Books. It brings together a collection of my speeches on the Middle East and related matters with some papers that I had written. The new book opens with my views and experiences from the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait, a lengthy paper containing materials that haven’t been seen before. Then it goes to my interpretation of why that war, although it was a military triumph, was not a political success and, in fact, led in time to a second war with Iraq.

There are some speeches and papers of interest to those concerned with developments in Saudi Arabia. None have been published before with the exception of my speech about the end of progress without change from earlier this year. The others describe some of the dilemmas facing Saudi domestic and foreign policymakers. The book is, in other words, entirely about the Middle East. It touches heavily on Saudi Arabia and is both a timeless and a chronological examination of the subjects.

[SUSRIS] Many SUSRIS readers are familiar with your perspectives through the interviews we’ve done with you and from some of your speeches that you’ve permitted us to print here. What is in the book that would be new for them?

[Freeman] The account of the Gulf War will be new and very interesting, particularly to those who lived through that time. There are two rather good accounts of the war as seen from the prospective military commanders on our side, Norman Schwarzkopf and Khalid Bin Sultan. There’s also a very good book by the British Ambassador, Sir Alan Munro [Arab Storm], from his perspective. It’s a broader account and it is quite good.

The title of the article in my book is “In the Eye of the Storm,” being in the eye of Operation Desert Storm, and I think it will be of considerable interest to people. They might learn things they didn’t know about that period.

Otherwise I was very encouraged in a way, discouraged in another way, when I looked back at the various public remarks I had given, to find that I had gotten many things right. I spoke out early against the “misadventure” in Iraq. I spoke out early against the shift of the focus in Afghanistan from Al Qaeda to pacification efforts directed at right-winged Islamic elements in Afghanistan – the Taliban and others – and I was quite a bit ahead of the curve as I look back and see. That gives me the confidence that some of the things I see happening now, I see correctly.

[SUSRIS] You said the Gulf War of 1991 was a military victory but not a political success. How so?

Click on cover for more info and to order

[Freeman] The best thing to do is read the chapter because the argument is reasonably sophisticated, but it has to do with the American way of warfare as it has evolved. Unlike any other country it does not focus in any respect, let alone adequately, on war termination strategy – on how to get the other side to acknowledge its defeat and make the concessions necessary to relieve itself of further pressure. So in the case of the first Gulf War and in a sense the invasion of Iraq as well, the United States did not know what to do once it had won militarily.

In the case of the first Gulf War Saddam Hussein was never forced to confront the reality of his defeat or to acknowledge it politically. He, therefore, was able to turn his continued survival into a point of political strength rather than weakness and to carry on for many more years. It resulted in great suffering for the Iraqi people and eventually led to a war designed primarily to dislodge him from power, which I think was its only accomplishment. So I try to explain that in terms of American war doctrine, which people may find of interest.

[SUSRIS] In one of your speeches you talked about American policy failings in the Middle East and you posed the question “Why not try diplomacy?” What about Washington’s approach in the region led you to that point?

[Freeman] The book does include, as I’ve said, the texts of many of my public remarks. That conversation was from a speech I gave in New Orleans to the University Continuing Education Association. I think the commentary in that speech laid out, in a reasonably consistent way, the mistakes that the United States has made: too much reliance on the use of force, the use of military campaigns as a substitute for strategy, the tendency to go at it alone, the building of coalitions of camp followers rather than serious military and diplomatic partners, and the inability to deal with the regional context of much of what we were doing. That last point lies in part because of our incapacities with respect to Iran, but more broadly our inability to engage, in the case of Iraq, the various countries on the periphery effectively – Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan and Kuwait.

The United States did not put together the regional strategies that the Iraq Working Group called for. So what you have, in effect, is a running commentary in the book on American diplomacy as it unfolded. When remarks were made I discussed what the probable consequences of failure to use diplomacy more effectively might be. More often than not those predictions turned out to be correct.

[SUSRIS] With regard to the Middle East how would you see what we’re witnessing in Washington fit into your prescription of “why not try diplomacy”?

[Freeman] I don’t see this so-called peace process as an example of diplomacy. I think it’s an example of public relations for domestic political effect and an exploitation of the very sincere desire of many in the region, in Israel and among the Palestinians and other Arabs, to see peace without any real strategy for getting there. What I would say is to examine the speech and you’ll find suggestions for a diplomatic approach, beginning with getting behind the Arab Peace Initiative, which of course was a Saudi initiative.

[SUSRIS] What are your thoughts on Tom Friedman’s column suggesting an invitation from Riyadh to Prime Minister Netanyahu to come to the Kingdom for a hand delivered copy of King Abdullah’s peace plan, and former Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher suggesting the two-state solution as having been closed out and needing a new regional context. What is your reaction to those kinds of perspectives?

[Freeman] Well I think with regard to the first one it really makes no sense from any point of view to have a meeting with Mr. Netanyahu in Riyadh to give him the text of that which he can read, and should have read eight years ago. I think myself, and I said this in my Oslo remarks, that the Arab Peace Initiative should be put directly in front of the Israeli public. I think it would be a good idea to buy space in Israeli newspapers to publish the text and appropriate commentary in Hebrew, which I don’t think has been done. I think most Israelis remain essentially ignorant of what was offered at Beirut in 2002. Their views are colored mostly by – not having seen the text for themselves – disparaging commentary in the press by people in Israel who basically are very happy with the status quo, where they can continue land grabs without having to give anything up. So I do think that Friedman is right – this is a serious offer which deserves to be picked up, but, tactically the approach he suggests doesn’t make sense to me.

On Marwan Muasher’s suggestion – I think he’s right on two levels. The two-state solution is now essentially physically impossible without decisions in Israel that are very unlikely to be made. And second, he’s right that the only way a resolution can come about is with the involvement of more of the neighbors of Palestine and Israel. And I think he’s a very thoughtful commentator so I hope he will continue to explore the possibilities of regional diplomacy.

In a sense, in Oslo what I was doing was making the case that no peace process, no peace that was dependent on American politics, or directly subject to them, could actually occur because of the ability of Israel and those associated with Israel to manipulate American politics. What I said in the Oslo speech was, “Only a peace process that is protected from Israel’s ability to manipulate American politics can succeed.”

I think a lot of people have heard speeches by me or they have seen little bits and pieces of them quoted here and there, in places like SUSRIS. One of the merits of the book is it brings the major statements all together in one place and I hope it is good reading as well as thought-provoking.

[SUSRIS] Thank you as always. We appreciate the time you take with us.

***

About Ambassador Chas Freeman

Chas W. Freeman, Jr. – Chairman of the Board, Projects International, Inc., a Washington, DC-based development firm specializing in international joint ventures, acquisitions, and other business operations for its American and foreign clients; former President, Middle East Policy Council; former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs (1993-94), earning the Department of Defense’s highest public service awards for his roles in designing a NATO-centered post-Cold War security system and in reestablishing defense and military relations with China; former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia (during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm); Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during the U.S. mediation of Namibian independence from South Africa and Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola; and author of the newly published America’s Misadventures in the Middle East as well as The Diplomat’s Dictionary (Revised Edition) and Arts of Power: Statecraft and Diplomacy.

***

About Just World Books

Just World Books opened in the spring of 2010 with the aim of expanding the range of discourse on the most important international issues of our day and offering a platform for some of the most overlooked (but smartest) authors writing on these matters .. Just World Books brings these eloquent voices to print so that audiences in the U.S. and elsewhere who understand the gravity of these issues, yet feel under-informed about the true nature and roots of these crises, can have easier access to the wisdom, views, and insights of people with direct experience working on (and often in) these areas.

..more [Link]

***

Related Items:

• Arts of Power: Statecraft and Diplomacy by Chas Freeman
• The Diplomat’s Dictionary by Chas Freeman
• Misadventures: A Conversation with Ambassador Chas Freeman – SUSRIS – Dec 11, 2010
• Book News: “America’s Misadventures in the Middle East” Excerpt – SUSRIS – Dec 11, 2010
• Amb Chas Freeman Opens AUSPC with “Misadventures” Presentation – SUSRIS – oct 25, 2010
• America’s Faltering Search for Mideast Peace – Freeman
• A Conversation with Ambassador Chas Freeman – “An Interesting Moment” – SUSRIS – Exclusive Interview – Mar 22, 2010
• Saudi Arabia: The End of Progress without Change – Chas W. Freeman, Jr. – SUSRIS – Mar 2, 2010
• Arab-U.S. Relations: The Way Forward – Chas. W. Freeman, Jr. – SUSRIS – Oct 29, 2009
• Gestures and Illusions: Assessing Obama’s Riyadh Visit A Conversation with Chas Freeman – SUSRIS – Exclusive Interview – Jul 28, 2009
• Reforms and Relations: Perspectives on the Kingdom – A Conversation with Amb Chas Freeman – SUSRIS – Exclusive Interview – Oct 8, 2008
• Rediscovering Diplomacy: America’s Reputation in the Middle East – Amb. Chas. W. Freeman, Jr. on “Middle East Interviews” - SUSRIS – Oct 3, 2008
• Why Not Try Diplomacy? – Amb. Chas. W. Freeman, Jr. – SUSRIS – Apr 1, 2008
• American Interests, Policies, and Results in the Middle East: Energy, Israel, Access, and the Containment of Muslim Rage – Amb. Chas. W. Freeman, Jr. – SUSRIS IOI – Feb 16, 2008
• Impressions of Arabia, Autumn 2007 – Chas W. Freeman, Jr. – SUSRIS IOI – Nov 26, 2007
• Can American Leadership Be Restored? – Chas W. Freeman, Jr. – SUSRIS IOI – May 31, 2007
• National Security in the Age of Terrorism – Chas W. Freeman, Jr. – SUSRIS IOI – Jan 11, 2007
• The GCC and the Management of Policy Consequences – Chas W Freeman, Jr. – SUSRIS IOI – Nov. 3, 2006
• “American-GCC Relations: An Assessment of Reforms, Elections, Challenges and the Prospects for Regional Peace and Stability” – Chas W. Freeman, Jr., Arab-US Policymakers Conference – Oct. 31, 2006 [Audio/Text]
• Building Understanding: The Role of the MEPC – A Conversation with Chas W. Freeman, Jr. – SUSRIS Interview – Sep 20, 2006
• Strengthening the Relationship: Whose Job? A Conversation with Chas W. Freeman, Jr. – SUSRIS Interview – Aug 14, 2006
• The Arabs Take a Chinese Wife: Sino-Arab Relations in the Decade to Come – Chas W. Freeman, Jr.- SUSRIS IOI – Jun 1, 2006
• How Can the U.S. Re-Open for Business to the Arab World? – MEPC Capitol Hill Forum – Part 1 – Ambassador Chas Freeman – SUSRIS IOI – Apr 14, 2006
• Defining Interests and a Changing Relationship – Ambassador Chas Freeman Interview – Part I – SUSRIS Interview Series – Oct. 29, 2004
• U.S.-Saudi Relations: The Path Ahead – Ambassador Chas Freeman Interview – Part II – SUSRIS Interview Series – Oct. 30, 2004
• The Way Forward: A Diplomat’s Perspective – Remarks by Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. – 13th Arab-U.S. Policymakers Conference -Washington, DC – September 13, 2004

SUSRIS EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

Editor’s Note:

In late October two explosive devices were posted from Yemen by “Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” operatives into the international airborne package delivery system bound for the United States. A coalition of global intelligence and security organizations tracked down and neutralized the bombs based on critical information provided by Saudi Arabian intelligence. As demonstrated by the unusual public acknowledgement of the “tip” by the White House it was a testimony to both the focus on Al Qaeda by the Kingdom’s intelligence service and to the close cooperation between Saudi Arabia and its allies like the United States and the United Kingdom. It was our good fortune then that the timing of an interview SUSRIS had planned with HRH Prince Turki Al-Faisal, a former head of the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate (1977-2001), fell just days after the Al Qaeda bombing plot was thwarted.

In addition to sharing his insights on the decades of intelligence and security cooperation between the United States and Saudi Arabia when we sat down with Prince Turki we were also fortunate to talk about his perspective on current issues in the relationship. He served the Kingdom as Ambassador to the United States (2005-2007) and talked about what he learned in his travels across America and experiences meeting people in many parts of the country. Prince Turki, Chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh, is spending the Fall semester as a distinguished visiting professor at Georgetown University and shared his thoughts on his time in the academic community. We thank Prince Turki Al-Faisal for taking time to share his insights with you here. Prince Turki was interviewed November 2, 2010 (Election Day in the United States), by SUSRIS at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University in Washington. [Video segments of the interview are posted on SUSRIStube.com.]

A Conversation with Prince Turki Al-Faisal

[SUSRIS] Intelligence reporting from Saudi Arabia to her allies has been acknowledged as the critical warning that Al Qaeda was planning attacks in France and elsewhere in Europe last month. In recent days two attacks against aircraft through the use of parcel bombs were thwarted when Saudi Arabia alerted its intelligence partners to the plans. However, the decades long coordination and cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the United States and other countries in the West is mostly understated and not understood by many. Can you describe how the cooperation, in your view, has played out to the benefit of Saudi Arabia and her partners in the West, especially the United States?

Prince Turki Al-Faisal sat down to talk with SUSRIS at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies at Georgetown University.

[PRINCE TURKI AL-FAISAL] The Kingdom has been cooperating with the United States for decades. There was ongoing cooperation before I became Director of Intelligence. During my directorship that cooperation continued. I assume it continues today from what we have seen in the press.

For all intelligence and security organizations information is a primary tool, method and endgame, so the acquisition of information makes your work productive and successful. When the Kingdom and other countries cooperate in information sharing they share the methods and means and the tools of that process.

I have not, in my experience, seen specific examples of what happened recently, of a very precise piece of information passed on from one service to another like that between the Kingdom and the United States vis a vis these parcel bombs. It is an indication of not only the closeness of the cooperation between the two countries on issues like that — indicated by the timeliness of the information and the ability of the U.S. to act upon it successfully — but also of increased sophistication and expertise. And that is not only Saudi Arabia but, I am assuming, the ability of general security and intelligence apparatus throughout the world to be able to identify and to stop such matters before they do harm.

So to me it comes as a culmination of decades of preparation and exchange of information that has come about now at a much higher level of sophistication and expertise. It makes me very happy that my country has reached those levels of expertise and is able to share the benefits from that heightened skill work that it put into the intelligence and information collection efforts.

[SUSRIS] The sensitivity of much of the information that is shared makes it difficult to publicly address specific cases but can you talk about instances where information sharing produced a benefit that people in the West, especially Americans, might not know about, the type of cooperation that informs an understanding of the relationship?

[PRINCE TURKI] I remember when I started work in the ‘70s and continuing into the 80s and 90s until I retired, there were several incidents on both sides where the exchange of information helped in either meeting a specific challenge or overcoming a specific difficulty.

I can’t refer back to the specific details but I can give you general examples of, let’s say, what was happening in Lebanon during the civil war. There would be challenges to meet. At the time, people were working in all directions, so finding a compass on how these things operated was very difficult — assassinations, attacks on positions, arms smuggling, etcetera, etcetera. There was much information exchanged between the Kingdom and other security and information agencies, particularly the CIA at that time. It helped, in some cases, to overcome, or thwart, or prevent incidents from taking place, or avoiding pitfalls that would have affected the Saudi side by receiving that kind of information from the American side or vice versa.

Yemen, which is in the news lately, was a perfect example. Back at the time South Yemen was a Marxist regime under the guidance of the Soviets it was doing harm in North Yemen. In those days there was the exchange of information on both sides that helped in certain instances prevent or overcome or challenge some of the difficulties that were on both sides, whether it was Saudi interests that were being affected, or American interests.

Afghanistan, of course, is a perfect example of cooperation between Saudi and American intelligence agencies. The principal aim was opposing the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and further to prevent the Soviets from invading Pakistan. It seemed that was a likely extension of what had happened in December 1979 with the Soviet attack on Kabul. So helping the Pakistanis thwart that ambition was the main aim of Saudi and American support at that time.

The Mujahideen were helped to engage the Soviets in Afghanistan so they would not come across the border and take over in Pakistan. It was a very successful operation and led to the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan and, in my view, helped very much in the breakdown of the Soviet Union.

That kind of cooperation existed in those days, now I have absolutely no idea what has happened since I left the Intelligence Directorate in the Kingdom but I am sure that expansion of cooperation has taken place.

[SUSRIS] Clearly given the news of recent days the cooperation is continuing. It must be frustrating for those in the intelligence business who cannot speak about the details but who hear the critics, especially in the United States, of the Kingdom, to be unable to refute the criticism with the facts. How do you size up the criticism of the Kingdom in terms of the terrorism and security issues in light of what you know as the realities of these situations?

[PRINCE TURKI] Let me just say as a comment that not taking credit is par for the course in the intelligence business. You don’t want to take credit. You don’t want people to know that you scored successes. Because if you do, then you may reveal sources or methods and things like that and that would be bad for your business. That’s one thing.

As far as the Kingdom is concerned let’s look at the time since September 11th as a measure. If you look at what the Kingdom has done since then – whether it is in combating the perpetrators of that deed, Al Qaeda, or in sharing its experience of that combat against the Al Qaeda cult, as I call it – there should be no question as to whether Saudi Arabia is or is not on whose side.

I read today the New York Times editorial [“Disaster Averted”] about thanking Saudi Arabia for its efforts. The Times didn’t have to do that, but they did and I say thanks to them. But they couched it in terms where they put a question mark, or at least a question mark on previous Saudi cooperation, or lack thereof, vis a vis that issue. There was never any previous lack of either cooperation or effort to prevent or to combat or to meet the challenge of Al Qaeda or groups like it.

So within the media, at least, I think there is a gap of knowledge, if you like, of where the real situation is today and where it came from say thirty years ago. However, in the actual conduct of affairs that gap does not exist. We combated terrorism 35 years ago and continue to combat terrorism since then.

I’m glad that the media has come around now to realize that Saudi Arabia contributes to the welfare of the world community by its own capabilities and skills and that those contributions have an effect. But it’s not the first time that we have done it. That’s my point.

[SUSRIS] I’m mindful of words shared by the Custodian of the Holy Mosques when he was Crown Prince. He shared an Arabic expression, “A friend is someone who will be straightforward with you.” In May and October you were very frank, very straightforward, in public addresses about official American policy in the Middle East and Afghanistan. As someone who has been among those with a seat at the table in very important government-to-government work between Saudi Arabia and the United States for decades, during times that have seen ups and downs between Washington and Riyadh, can you characterize the health of the Saudi-US government relationship given these tensions?

[PRINCE TURKI] I don’t think it is tension. But there are differences of opinion as to how we can go about accomplishing what both of us agree are common aims as I said in my speech the other day.

We have a lot in common on where we want to go, specifically on issues like the Middle East both of us agree on a two-state solution. Both of us agree on the rights of the Palestinians to a nation with defined, contiguous borders, one that is viable, which allows Israel to live in peace and security with the community of the Arab world. Those are the aims of where America and Saudi Arabia are going. How to achieve those aims is another matter and there has been disagreement on that.

What the Kingdom sees as the imperative in achieving that aim is to convince Israel that she has no option but peace. Yet as we continue and especially since the Arab Peace Initiative was promulgated in the Summit in Beirut in 2002, it is an Israel that has continuously thwarted any efforts to bring finality to this issue.

In 2002 the Arab world adopted King Abdullah’s, then Crown Prince Abdullah’s initiative, and made clear to the rest of the world that the Arab strategic choice is peace, but not only peace but peace through negotiation. There was no war mongering, there was no hyperbole or bellicosity attached to the Arab Peace Initiative. It proposed a very equitable quid pro quo for Israel to be brought into the sphere of an Arab world at peace with it.

Israel has to recognize a Palestinian State with the June 4, 1967 borders, withdraw from the Golan Heights, relinquish any lands in Lebanon and reach a mutually acceptable solution to the refugee problem. There is no imposition of anything on Israel, but rather the extension of a hand to the Israelis – asking them to put their hand in our hand to reach amicable solutions to what everybody recognizes are existing problems.

There has not been an acceptance of that offer by the Israelis, not one Israeli government has said, “Yes, I accept this and this is where I want to go.” As I said in my speech, the previous government made some sounds. You know, like this is a positive step by the Arabs. There are some workable ideas there but nothing definitive. This Israeli government has totally ignored the initiative while the rest of the world, including the United States, are defining the Initiative. In the words of Mrs. Clinton it is a central core of reaching peace between the Arabs and Israel. That’s the basic problem that we have here. The Kingdom has brought 22 Arab countries as well as the 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to choose peace as a strategy but the United States has not been able to push Israel to likewise choose peace as a strategy.

[SUSRIS] So the relationship overall, there are differences of opinion in areas such as Middle East peace..

[PRINCE TURKI] How to achieve that peace, not on the peace itself.

[SUSRIS] You also addressed some concerns about Afghanistan but overall the nature of the government-to-government relationship is sound?

[PRINCE TURKI] It is sound. It has been sound for some years. I think the credit goes to Crown Prince Abdullah, now King Abdullah for working to get beyond the sensitivities from what happened after the 2001, September 11th attacks. There was acrimony, distrust and suspicion built up from those attacks. But in April 2002 and 2005, in those two meetings [with President Bush at Crawford] the then Crown Prince got over the difficulties between the governments — the acrimony and the suspicion – that had developed as a result of September 11th.

There was creation of the Strategic Dialogue, a commitment to increase the number of Saudi students in America, removing visa restrictions in the United States, more business engagements on both sides, a joint energy policy. People forget that now, but there was an agreement by both sides to a joint energy policy with the U.S. increasing research and development in finding solutions to the carbon emissions of fossil fuels, building more refineries on U.S. soil so that there won’t be shortages of petroleum products and Saudi Arabia increasing production and increasing refining capacity as well. We stuck to our part of the bargain, the U.S. hasn’t. No new refineries in the United States yet. And as far as research is concerned, most of the research that is going on in America is going to developing energy alternatives, rather than improving oil and gas emissions.

[SUSRIS] Based on your education, professional duties and service as Ambassador to the United States you have special insight into the nature of Washington.

[PRINCE TURKI] I wouldn’t claim that. [Laughter]

[SUSRIS] Special insights into the relationships among the White House, Congress, the media and the American public when it comes to making policies concerning the Middle East. How would you describe what Saudis see when they look at the way the United States – the actors in Washington – determines and conducts affairs important to the Kingdom?

[PRINCE TURKI] I think for me it is still a work in progress. How to understand America? From that context I have a very disturbing concern about these present elections. I don’t know if it is justifiable or not. We saw the Obama election for President, at least I saw it in many ways, as a rejection of the previous Administration’s policies on many issues, and I had hoped particularly the way the Middle East had been treated.

So when Mr. Obama made his initial gestures and made his initial words it seemed to confirm to me the view that the Obama Presidency was going to be different from the Bush Presidency as far as the Middle East was concerned.

I could see a reaction inside the Washington Beltway, as it is described by people here. There was an immediate reaction to President Obama’s new thrust on the Middle East. Among those who had championed Israel’s positions in the past there was a very negative reaction to this new attention and direction that Mr. Obama seemed to be taking.

Alas, there was backtracking on the part of Mr. Obama and his team when it came to the issue of what I prefer to call colonies instead of settlements, and other such issues, without commensurate extension of recognition, if you like, of Arab concerns. Not enough praise, for example, I think, has been given to Mahmoud Abbas. Not enough effort was put on the table to allow him to accomplish things on the ground for his people so that he could take credit for it. Israelis were left to do things according to their devices. It was basically a Palestinian effort on the part of Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad that really built up the institutionalization of the Palestinian Authority’s polity in the West Bank and so forth.

So, today’s election, in my view, depending on how badly the Democrats do is going to have a reflection on the Middle East. If they do extra-badly I think it will be the worst solution, the worst situation for the Middle East. People will say, the pundits will come out and say, “Ah ha, there is a rejection of the Obama rhetoric, if not his substance; and we must go back to our tried and tested positions over the previous Administration.”

[SUSRIS] They would not be looking at it as the Americans view the election as a referendum on the economy?

[PRINCE TURKI] They will interpret it in their own way. You will have newspaper people. You will have think tank people. Experts, between quotation marks. You know, capturing the public ground on that issue and proclaiming that this is the interpretation of the election on that specific issue.

That’s where I think things will get even dicier for us in the Arab World, and more particularly for Palestine. The new Congress will definitely, if it comes with that view in mind, be even less willing to go along with a President Obama who wants to see the final solution if you like, and I’m not using that in historic terms, but rather a description of where we want to reach on the Middle East.

[SUSRIS] When you were Ambassador to the United States one of the things you said was that people should not try to read signals, that they should ask you questions directly, and that the King gave you the mission of engaging Congress. In retrospect, how did that go?

[PRINCE TURKI] I think we had the beginnings of movement. After September 11, 2001 the number of congressional visitors to the Kingdom dropped from a height in the early 90s during the Gulf War, the Liberation of Kuwait. There were some 200 Congressmen and women visiting the Kingdom in one year, actually in those six months of the crisis. In the years 2001-2005, the year I became ambassador, I think it was 12 in total, in five years.

So there was a significant drop in the number of visitors from Congress, not just from Congress but even Congressional staffers, an equally dramatic drop in Congressional staff. I remember urging in my visits to the Congress, for Congressmen and women and their staffers to visit the Kingdom.

Since I left office and went back to the Kingdom I have seen a significant increase in the number of staffers visiting the Kingdom. They call on me at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies. I have seen scores, if not more than that, of Congressional staffers visiting the Kingdom. I still haven’t seen members of Congress, either the Senate or Congress coming in significant numbers. I hope that as time goes by and things happen like this parcel bomb issue, when Saudi Arabia is no longer a radioactive item for Congressional members, and after this election is over people will, at least for a year, year and a half, be comfortable in taking trips to the Kingdom.

[SUSRIS] Saudi Arabia has joined a small group of nations providing leadership on the global stage. It is the only Middle Eastern, Arab and Islamic country in the Group of Twenty, it has made impressive gains in world economic rankings, it plays a central role in the life of Islamic nations and it is a key strategic player in political affairs. How does Saudi Arabia see its position and responsibilities in light of this standing in the region and in the world? Would it be fair to say the Kingdom is becoming more assertive in global affairs?

[PRINCE TURKI] As a citizen of Saudi Arabia, of course, there is a pride as well as gratitude for the fact that the Kingdom is more engaged at such high level plateaus as the G-20 and what comes from there. To me that pride and gratitude is also accompanied by a sense of feeling that we do deserve to be there because of what we do.

In the economic arena the Kingdom, because of its wise policies and how it invested its money and its resources, was one of the countries least affected by the economic downturn of the past few years. So it was able to stand up as an example of what can and should, and should not, be done in circumstances of scarcity of resources.

On another point of husbanding resources – basically what the Kingdom did for the last 50 years since it started accruing foreign reserves through the sale of oil was to buttress its currency. It has a very good track record of doing the right thing and never being swayed by opportunity or opportunism to fiddle with, or be lax in how we consider our financial resources and reserves.

Another part of being on the world stage has been the Kingdom’s humanitarian efforts, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere. There is the issue of poverty in the world. The World Food Program for example is a recipient of Saudi money. On health issues like eradicating malaria the Kingdom is a huge contributor to the Clinton Global Initiatives in that field, and in so many other areas. The Kingdom has a feeling of responsibility toward humanity in general.

Another matter to be proud of and to be grateful for is the King’s outreach to the world’s religions and cultures by his dialogue for religions and cultures that he started in 2008. It went from Mecca first, as a stepping stone by getting all the Muslim sects together under the leadership of the holy place in Mecca and the Kaaba, to reach a common Muslim position on how to deal with other faiths and cultures. Then carrying that on to Madrid where King Juan Carlos played host to the world religions and cultures assembled.

King Abdullah carried that message to the United Nations General Assembly in November 2008. The process is actually putting in place a Secretariat affiliated with the United Nations that will carry on the practical work of how to achieve this dialogue and understanding and approach to other religions and cultures.

This is, in my view, a sign and a symbol of the King’s own commitment to where he sees Saudi Arabia playing a role in service to all of humanity. Going beyond simply one’s own nationality as far as Saudi Arabia is concerned, or religion as far as Islam is concerned, to include the other members of the human race who would benefit from such a common outlook on matters that should bring us together rather than keeping us apart.

[SUSRIS] You were probably the most widely traveled Saudi Ambassador to the United States in terms of American cities visited. In 2006 a SUSRIS article referred to your travels being like the Johnny Cash song, “I’ve Been Everywhere.” In your talks with Americans outside the Beltway when it came to the subject of the Saudi-US relationship, what did you learn?

[PRINCE TURKI] There were two qualities that I found common to all Americans when I visited them in my trips then and in previous trips. One is a tremendous hospitality. People open homes for you and invite their friends and their neighbors, and put on a meal and openly discuss any matter with you. This is gratifying to see total strangers, basically, willing to open themselves up so much to try to bring you in and hug you and shake hands with you and so on.

The other characteristic also which I find very endearing in Americans, and very, very indicative in my view of why America enjoys its predominance in world affairs is their intense curiosity about everything. When you talk to Americans they will ask you everything about your life. Who you are? Where do you come from? How do you live? How big is your family? What is your business? Are you happy? Does this place please you? Are we providing what you need? Questions and questions and questions. Which is also gratifying because I think many people accuse Americans of being insincere by being very facile and easygoing. I found it to be the opposite. Posing these questions and making the issue one of getting to know you better shows interest in you as a person and where you come from and what your culture is, and so on. So it was for me very endearing and very, very much a quality that I found uniquely American. I must say that I’ll add to that it is also uniquely Arab. When you go in the desert and meet with the Bedouin, perhaps because of the impermanent nature of life that they lead, they have to know where you’re from and what you are, immediately, to get over any potential misgivings or risks that they may face from you. So that they are equally inquisitive about you. So that is another example of where we and the American people come from and agree on, on a specific issue like that.

[SUSRIS] Can you talk about your teaching position at Georgetown University? What attracts you to teaching and what have you learned from your work here?

[PRINCE TURKI] I was invited by Doctor DeGioia, the President of Georgetown to be a visiting professor at the Contemporary Arab Studies Center at the University. They have a grand name for it, distinguished visiting professor.

I have benefited from it in that I have engaged with, not just professors and teachers, but also with the students. What I found in this program – mostly post-graduate but I’ve also had undergraduate classes – is that these students come from everywhere. Not just from everywhere in this country but from all over the world. From Asia, from Europe, from Latin America, from Africa, from America, and so forth.

I must note that the quality of scholarship that one of them has to undergo to be admitted. I saw the list of books that they have, to prepare for one of the classes here. In one case before they come they have to read over 20 books over the summer on that specific subject as well as a list of newspaper and magazine articles that are required for them to read.

Then during the course from September to December another number of books and articles that they have to at least acquaint themselves with if not fully read. Add to that the number of papers that they have to write. In one course I think in a three to four months period they had four or five papers to write. Add the quizzes they have to take and so forth. I’d never make it. I remember when I came to Georgetown in the mid-60s one of the most distinguished courses at the time, particularly in the Foreign Service school, was Dr. Quigley’s course, the History of Civilization. And it was Dr. Quigley’s textbook that he wrote about the history of civilization that you had to read and engage in, and you had to listen to him on these things. Of course, you’d have to write a paper at the end of the term and you would have to go to other sources. But it was nowhere near what these students now have to do. So it was a startling realization about how much advancement, in terms of the knowledge level, students have undergone since my days.

A student applying to Georgetown today is much more knowledgeable before he comes here than I was when I left Georgetown. It is extraordinary. And it is so competitive. For a class of maybe a thousand students admitted to a place like Georgetown, there are 5000 or 6000 applicants. So you are really getting the cream of the crop, not just at Georgetown but at other universities. That’s a challenge for someone like me, with my background to be able to engage with this high level of intellectual ability that the students come with to the university. So it has been beneficial to me. I can’t tell you how they benefited. You will have to ask them.

[SUSRIS] It’s probably harder to get into your class than it is to get admitted to Georgetown.

[PRINCE TURKI] I doubt it. For me it has been a benefit and a pleasure.

[SUSRIS] What are your plans for future service in government?

[PRINCE TURKI] Well I am retired, Alhamdulillah. [Praise to God] You know in the Kingdom whatever you do is a matter of service. In government, outside government, in business, in industry, in farming. Anybody who can get up at a certain time and go to a place of work and produce or contribute or whatever and come back and retire to his home, bring up children, or in my case, grandchildren now, I think is of service to the government. So this is how it is.

[SUSRIS] I was hoping we would made some news today.

[PRINCE TURKI] Absolutely not. [Laughter]

Whatever you read in the news is slightly exaggerated.

[SUSRIS] I’m sure SUSRIS will get the first clues

[PRINCE TURKI] No clues to be gotten.

[SUSRIS] Thank you, your Royal Highness, for your time today.

HRH Prince Turki Al Faisal Al Saud

Prince Turki is Chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies and is one of the founders of the King Faisal Foundation. He served as the Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the United States of America from September 13, 2005 until February 2, 2007. He also serves as a member of the Boards of Trustees of the International Crisis Group and the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies and is co-chair of the C100 Group, which has been affiliated with the World Economic Forum since 2003. Prince Turki was appointed an Advisor in the Royal Court in 1973. From 1977 to 2001, he served as Director General of the General Intelligence Directorate (GID), the Kingdom’s main foreign intelligence service. In 2002, he was appointed Ambassador to the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland by then Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd bin Abdulaziz.

Born on February 15, 1945 in Makkah, Saudi Arabia, Prince Turki began his schooling at the Taif Model Elementary and Intermediate School. In 1963, he graduated from the Lawrenceville School in Lawrenceville, New Jersey and subsequently pursued undergraduate studies at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

The King Faisal International Prizes, awarded by the King Faisal Foundation, are presented to “dedicated men and women whose contributions make a positive difference.” These annual prizes, which are awarded in five fields of endeavor – Service to Islam, Islamic Studies, Arabic Language and Literature, Science, and Medicine – have been likened, for the Arab and Islamic worlds, as similar in stature to, and nearly as coveted as, the more renowned and longer established annual Nobel Prizes. The King Faisal International Prizes, in addition to being bestowed upon Arabs and Muslims, have been granted to outstanding achievers from virtually all corners of the world.

For more information: www.kff.com

Related Material:

• Disaster Averted – Editorial – New York Times, Nov 1, 2010
• Turki al Faisal Speech – Addressing U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan and the Middle East – May 15, 2010
• Turki al-Faisal and US performance – Sic Semper Tyrannis blog – May 2010

On SUSRIS

• Turki Al-Faisal on U.S. Middle East, Afghan Policy – SUSRIS – May 15, 2010
• When A Handshake is Not Just a Handshake – SUSRIS – Feb 7, 2010
• Land First, Then Peace – Prince Turki Al-Faisal – SUSRIS – Sep 15, 2009
• “Energy Independence” and Kissing Babies: The Politics of Oil – Prince Turki Al-Faisal – SUSRIS – Aug 27, 2009
• Gulf Forum: US-Gulf Relations Post-Election – Prince Turki al-Faisal Critical of US Gaza Stand – SUSRIS – Jan 7, 2009
• Peace for the Mideast Prince Turki al-Faisal – SUSRIS – Dec 29, 2008
• “What does Mr. Kissinger propose”? – Prince Turki Al Faisal – SUSRIS – Nov 25, 2008
• Saudi Ambassador Abruptly Resigns, Leaves Washington – SUSRIS – Dec 12, 2006
• A Voice of Peace; A Move Towards Stability – Prince Turki al Faisal – SUSRIS IOI – Nov 30, 2006
• Saudi Arabian Constitutional Evolution – Prince Turki al Faisal – SUSRIS IOI – Nov 6, 2006
• A Vision for the Future of Saudi-US Relations – Prince Turki al Faisal – SUSRIS IOI – Nov 4, 2006
• Region in Crisis: A Call for American Leadership and a Lasting Peace – Prince Turki al Faisal – SUSRIS IOI – Aug. 3, 2006
• I Think We Need to Talk – Prince Turki Al-Faisal – SUSRIS – Jun 20, 2006
• Educational Reforms in Saudi Arabia: We’re Trying Hard to Change – Prince Turki al-Faisal – SUSRIS – Jun 8, 2006
• Perspectives on Conflicts, Cooperation and Crises: A Conversation with Saudi Arabia’s New Ambassador to the United States – Part 2 – SUSRIS Exclusive Interview – Mar 14, 2006
• Outreach and Engagement: A Conversation with Saudi Arabia’s New Ambassador to the United States – Part 1 – SUSRIS Exclusive Interview – Mar 9, 2006
• Tackling the Information Gap – Saudi Arabia’s New Ambassador to U.S. Promises Openness and Engagement – Patrick W. Ryan – SUSRIS – Mar 8, 2006
• Prince Turki al-Faisal Talks With Charlie Rose – Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the US Takes His Message to Americans – Part 1 – Relations, Oil – SUSRIS – Feb 18, 2006
• Prince Turki al-Faisal Talks With Charlie Rose – Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the US Takes His Message to Americans – Part 2 – Iraq, Iran, War on Terror – SUSRIS – Feb 18, 2006
• Prince Turki al-Faisal Talks With Charlie Rose – Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the US Takes His Message to Americans – Part 3 – Middle East Peace – SUSRIS – Feb 18, 2006
• Issues of the Day: Saudi Ambassador to the US On Sunday Talk Show – SUSRIS – Feb 6, 2006
• Community and Cooperation – Prince Turki Al-Faisal – SUSRIS – Dec 2, 2005
• The Global Scourge of Terrorism: Ambassador Prince Turki al Faisal Shares His Outlook – SUSRIS – Nov 8, 2005
• Prince Turki Al-Faisal’s Views on Terrorist Attacks and Bin Laden – SUSRIS – Dec 7, 2004
• Biography – Prince Turki al-Faisal – SUSRIS

Saudi-US Intelligence Cooperation and the War on Terror

Editor’s Note:

We last talked with Thomas Lippman from the sidelines of the US-Saudi Business Opportunities Forum in Chicago in April where he reflected on the sense of optimism in the air for American-Saudi business partnerships. The conference, he said, was “an important step for the American business community. They certainly, at least since 9/11
but even before that, have been a bit circumspect on doing business with Saudi Arabia. All that is off the table now. This is certainly very healthy, atmospherically, for both sides.” Lippman, former newsman, Council on Foreign Relations Senior Adjunct Scholar and author of several books on Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, including “Inside the Mirage: America’s Fragile Partnership with Saudi Arabia,” visited the Kingdom in May working on his next book, “Saudi Arabia on the Edge.” We talked with him this summer to get his perspectives on the developments between America and Saudi Arabia for your consideration today.

Policy Vacuums and Rough Territory
A Conversation with Thomas Lippman

SUSRIS: Let’s start with relations at the top. King Abdullah met at the White House with President Obama at the end of June, following his participation in the Group of Twenty summit in Canada. In a preview of the meeting you wrote in the “RaceForIran” blog, “It is hard to imagine that the White House session will produce any game-changing agreements because while the two countries generally share the same strategic objectives, each wants something that the other is unable or unwilling to deliver.” So what did we get?

Lippman: In that article I mentioned there were occasions where there were real deliverables because the situation required it: either they were going to end the oil embargo, or not; either we were going to send troops there for Desert Storm, or not. In this case, there didn’t seem to be any similar urgent decisions to reach.

SUSRIS: What about Iran?

Lippman: The situation has changed, just in the time since the Abdullah-Obama meeting, in ways that we don’t yet fully understand, simply because General David Petraeus is no longer the Commander of U.S. Central Command. I agree with many specialists in this area who are of the opinion that the only person working for President Obama who was doing serious strategic planning for the Gulf was David Petraeus. The problem with that, of course, is that in our system generals are supposed to execute policy, not make it.

With Petraeus’ abrupt move to Afghanistan to replace General McChrystal, there’s a vacuum that hasn’t yet been filled. There’s a nominee for the position of CentCom Commander but it’s not clear who is doing what, if anything, on advancing the policy on the question of Iran.

New sanctions on Iran are in place. There are some indications they have at least a nuisance impact on the Iranians, but the strategic situation doesn’t appear to be moving at all. I don’t know what options are being considered. I don’t believe that the Saudis secretly want the United States or Israel to undertake military action against the Iranians. There are too many downsides from the Saudi perspective. We’ll have to see how it unfolds, how the American policy vacuum is filled.

SUSRIS: We recently spoke with Dr. Anthony Cordesman about Iran [“Nuclear Reality in the Gulf”] and he cautioned that we’re years away from the necessity – if it ever came to it – of a military strike because of the timelines, the questions of when there would be an actual weapon and delivery system capability.

Lippman: That’s correct and I certainly defer to his superior knowledge of the actual military details. However, I don’t think we can believe the Saudis are content to see the sanctions regime play out. There have been some unusual developments in the area of sanctions. Several global banks have stopped providing financing for Iranian gasoline imports and insurance has been hard to come by, for example, but the Russians have said they’re going to continue to do business. There was the bizarre news about the Educational Testing Service pulling out of Iran because it’s illegal for them to get paid by Iranians. The result is that Iranian students can’t take the English as a foreign language exam they need to get into foreign universities. They are just a couple of examples but none of these things will have a deterrent effect on the Iranians if they are committed to going down the nuclear road. That’s why the Saudis won’t be satisfied with sanctions.

In fact Prince Saud al-Faisal said as much, after a meeting with Hillary Clinton in February. But they don’t have an alternative. They are not offering their own plan. It’s the exact opposite of the situation with the so-called peace process in which the Saudis have laid out a specific plan and have worked to market it. There’s no such plan for Iran.

The Saudis have always equated strategy with acquisition and I don’t see anything different happening now. What’s their strategy? Their strategy is to upgrade their aircraft and improve their missile defenses. That’s not a strategy, that’s acquisition.

SUSRIS: There are not a lot of options for Riyadh or for Washington.

Lippman: That’s correct. In the case of Iran, the incentives to avoid trouble overpower the incentives for making trouble. I got a very clear sense when I was in Riyadh in May that the Saudis understand there’s not much they can do about Iran. They have no upside from a military option. They understand that Iran’s potential to make trouble for them far exceeds their potential to make trouble for Iran. It’s essential for the very life of Saudi Arabia to maintain long-term stability in the oil markets, and war in the Persian Gulf is not the key to stability in the oil markets.

SUSRIS: Can we talk about the connections between the U.S. and the Kingdom in the different sectors? You and I were at the U.S. Business Opportunities Forum in Chicago and there was a tremendous sense of optimism about the relationship. But when we look at the government to government connections, at least the public face, beyond kind words at press conferences, does it seem to you that Washington and Riyadh are often out of synch, compared to the state of business to business ties?

Lippman: I think there are reasons for that. One is that the Saudis are, it may sound a little harsh, but I think the Saudis are frustrated at their own inability to deliver. There are numerous examples of this. They failed in their attempt to reunite the Palestinians, and they haven’t accomplished much with the Syrian connection. It’s hard to be optimistic. Meanwhile, despite the supposed freeze, the building of the settlements goes on. And bulldozing of Palestinian houses goes on. So the Saudis are quite frustrated by that. On the American side, I’m sorry to say we’re witnessing a competence vacuum at the upper reaches of the Obama Administration as I already noted. They are swimming around and around in the same teacup and not getting anywhere. They don’t seem to have any new ideas.

SUSRIS: What do you make about a recent press report questioning Saudi stability?

Lippman: I don’t believe it. I have talked to many people in the past year about these things. And that’s a lot of people including people inside and outside the Arab world many who have insights as deep as you can into Saudi Arabia. They all agree that the position of the house of Saud now is stronger than it was seven or eight years ago and not facing any real challenge. King Abdullah has done a remarkable job in shepherding the Kingdom through a lot of rough territory.

One of the phenomena that people now understand is that many of the so-called reforms that have been presented by Abdullah, since going back even before he actually became king, have had the effect of strengthening the regime. Among them are the allegiance law overseeing succession and the demonstration, in many ways, that when decisions have to be made, the al-Saud will make them and not the Ulema.

SUSRIS: A couple of quick points. Relations with Iraq and resumption of air travel from the Kingdom to Iraq?

Lippman: I have not yet discerned the political significance of the resumption of civilian air traffic between Saudi Arabia and Iraq. I’m sure that’s welcome to the Iraqis, I’m sure it’s welcome to the Americans, but it’s not the state airline that did it, and the flight was to Basra not Baghdad. I don’t know what that tells us, if anything. A certain lack of clarity is characteristic about these things.

SUSRIS: Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Lippman: As far as I know everybody here is completely in the dark. But there has to be some Saudi role-playing in this dance that is going on between Pakistan and the Karzai government? The Saudis are profoundly interested in that. But what are they doing? I truly don’t know. That’s going to be a hard one to pick out of the weeds.

SUSRIS: Leadership issues? Always a good parlor game. The Economist recently talked about Saudi Arabia and leadership prospects. They were not upbeat about Second Deputy Prime Minister Prince Nayef.

Lippman: I thought the Economist piece, overall, was an excellent distillation of the conventional wisdom. Regarding Prince Nayef, he is fulfilling the role of an Interior Minister. You can’t necessarily count on that role carrying over to other leadership roles.

As far as leadership in the House of Saud I would say that what was true yesterday, was true last week, and it was true last year: you have elderly men who aren’t going to get younger at the top. There are a certain number of people younger than them, and the list about who might come along always begins with Prince Salman. The subject is less important now than it would have been in the past because Saudi Arabia now has a more functional set of institutions that will manage transitions.

The King is the decider, and the King can get rid of people, and the King can set policy. But I think in some ways it might be more like a transition in the American model now, in the sense that functions of government, policies in place, will play out as they would have otherwise. This or that initiative directed by this or that Inter-ministerial team is going to continue. Nobody is going to cancel things like that. The long-term oil policy has evolved over many years, and is not going to be jettisoned by this or that personality or anybody else.

It may matter to individual Saudi citizens the extent to which the Mutaween are in their face, or to what extent the criminal court system is upgraded. But in terms of regime stability and long-term strategic arrangements, I think it matters less than it might have in the past.

SUSRIS: Tell us about your next book.

Lippman: It tries to examine the future of Saudi Arabia — what is the country going to look like a generation from now? It’s about three quarters done and will be out next year.

About Thomas Lippman

Thomas W. Lippman is a senior adjunct scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. His career in journalism at the Washington Post included four years as the Washington Post’s Middle East bureau chief, three years as the Post’s oil and energy reporter and a decade as the newspaper’s national security and diplomatic correspondent, he traveled extensively to Saudi Arabia. He is the author of “Arabian Knight: Colonel Bill Eddy USMC and the Rise of American Power in the Middle East,” “Inside the Mirage: America’s Fragile Partnership with Saudi Arabia,” ” Madeleine Albright and the New American Diplomacy,” ” Understanding Islam, and Egypt After Nasser”. A writer and journalist specializing in U.S. foreign policy and Middle Eastern affairs, he lives in Washington, DC.

Biography

Related Material:

• Prince Saud Al Faisal and Secretary Hillary Clinton Press Conference
• Turki Al-Faisal on U.S. Middle East, Afghan Policy
• Turki al Faisal Speech – Addressing U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan and the Middle East – May 15, 2010
• Turki al-Faisal and US performance – Sic Semper Tyrannis blog – May 2010
• The False Religion of Mideast Peace
• President Obama and King Abdullah at the White House
• Saudi King Abdullah To Meet President Obama: Iran, Iraq, And Palestine On The Agenda

More on SUSRIS:

• Business Forum Perspectives – Lippman – SUSRIS Exclusive Interview – Apr 28, 2010
• Middle East Peace and the U.S.-Saudi Relationship: A Conversation with Thomas Lippman – SUSRIS Exclusive Interview – March 2, 2009
• Exclusive – Leadership Transitions: A Conversation With Thomas Lippman – January 9, 2009
• Gulf Forum: US-Gulf Relations Post-Election – Prince Turki al-Faisal Critical of US Gaza Stand – SUSRIS IOI – Jan 7, 2009
• Exclusive – Arabian Knight: Colonel Bill Eddy USMC and the Rise of American Power in the Middle East – A Conversation with Thomas Lippman – Sep 15, 2008
• Exclusive – The Proud Heritage of Aramco: A Conversation with Thomas Lippman – SUSRIS Interview – May 30, 2008
• “Good Morning, Mr. President” Thomas Lippman’s Briefing for POTUS – SUSRIS IOI – January 11, 2008
• Exclusive – Political and Economic Developments in Saudi-US Relations – A Conversation With Thomas Lippman – SUSRIS Interview – Sep 29, 2007
• Discovery! The Search for Arabian Oil – Wallace Stegner – Foreword by Thomas Lippman – SUSRIS IOI – Sep 18, 2007
• Exclusive – Determined to Remain Friends – A Conversation with Thomas Lippman – Exclusive – SUSRIS Interview – Aug 7, 2007
• A New Regional Leadership – Thomas W. Lippman – SUSRIS IOI – May 10, 2007
• Exclusive – Region in Crisis: Fine Lines and Consequences – A Conversation with Thomas W. Lippman – SUSRIS Interview – Aug 2, 2006
• Exclusive – Crawford Summit Perspective: A Conversation with Thomas Lippman – SUSRIS Interview – May 9, 2005
• Exclusive – Insight on the Kingdom from the Author of Inside the Mirage — A Conversation with Thomas Lippman – Part One – SUSRIS Interview – March 30, 2005
• Exclusive – Insight on the Kingdom from the Author of Inside the Mirage — A Conversation with Thomas Lippman – Part Two – SUSRIS Interview – Apr 18, 2005
• Exclusive – U.S.-Saudi Relations: A Glass Half Empty, Or Half Full? – An Interview With Thomas Lippman – SUSRIS Interview – Aug 28, 2004
• Thomas Lippman – “Inside The Mirage” – US-Saudi Relations — SAIS Panel – SUSRIS IOI – Dec 16, 2003

Editor’s Note:

There are moments of revelation we all recall. For me one was in a conversation I had in 1995 when someone used the phrase “search engine.” It wasn’t clear in the context of the discussion what it referred to and not wanting to appear “uncool” I didn’t question its meaning but tried to figure it out myself. However it was some time before I discovered the answer. I suppose I could have “Googled” the word but that service wouldn’t become popular until about five years later. So it was with the term “Weblog,” and its offspring “Blog” and “Blogosphere.” The words dribbled out in discussions about the Internet but it took time to discover their meaning and indeed their function and relevance. The word itself, “blog,” appears to have been coined in 1999 by Peter Merholz who rephrased “weblog,” born around 1997, into “we blog.” By 2006 the 50 millionth blog was noted by Technorati, with 175,000 new ones each day. A year later there were 112 million blogs. No one seems to have come up with a solid number since then. We now appreciate the impact bloggers have had in many spheres including shaping social and political developments.

At SUSRIS we are very happy that in 2006 Carol Fleming built a blog, especially that it was about Saudi Arabia. As you will read in this interview with her she wanted to share her personal experiences in the Kingdom with others. We are richer for her having done so. Her blog, called “American Bedu” is one of a number of efforts in English by bloggers based in the Kingdom which have helped many regular visitors and web surfers learn things about Saudi Arabia they would not get from the mainstream media and other sources. In addition to her prolific writing about life there, Carol has attracted a vigorous following of correspondents who, through the “American Bedu” comment sections, exchange perspectives on the issues of the day and the articles posted on the blog.

We were glad to receive Carol’s request for an interview about SUSRIS to share with her “American Bedu” readers. We thought it would be a good idea to swap interviews – Carol’s interview about SUSRIS in exchange for our interview about her blog, “American Bedu.” Both are being published simultaneously today; you can find our answers to Carol’s questions about SUSRIS on www.AmericanBedu.com. Thank you, Carol, for taking the initiative to exchange interviews and for your work bringing us your stories and insights about an “American Bedu.”

The Story of an American Bedu:
A Conversation with Carol Fleming

SUSRIS: Tell us about American Bedu which you began in 2006, back in blogging’s prehistoric times. Yours a blog in the traditional sense but its focus is a very special niche. How would you describe it?

Carol Fleming: Since 2006, American Bedu is a niche blog which focuses on Saudi Arabia. I write daily articles which cover a wide spectrum about the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its culture, customs and traditions. In addition I share my own personal experiences as an expatriate married to a Saudi man and having a large extended Saudi family.

Besides my own experiences there are some particular posts regular readers of my blog look forward to each month. These posts include:

• Monthly Saudi Fun Quiz. (10 trivia questions each month where you can test your knowledge of Saudi Arabia)
• Monthly Saudi Arabic (monthly post introducing useful Arabic words and phrases commonly used in Saudi Arabia)
• Monthly Use Your Saudi Imagination (I will begin a story involving Saudi Arabia or a Saudi and YOU get to provide the ending)
• Monthly Saudi Travel (each month I will showcase a new destination within Saudi Arabia whether it be a city, a village, an Island, a desert. Saudi has many many hidden treasures to discover)
• Monthly Saudi Recipe (each month I’ll identify and provide YOU with step-by-step instructions on how to prepare some of the favorite and traditional dishes of Saudi Arabia)
• Interviews (each month I have 1-2 interviews from expats and Saudis who either are in Saudi Arabia or Saudis who are presently outside of the Kingdom or from followers of my blog to discover more of their interests in Saudi Arabia)

SUSRIS: The name, “American Bedu.” How did that come about?

Fleming: It was an easy and natural decision to name my blog “American Bedu.” After my Saudi husband and I had married, we finally made it to the small village where I had been raised in Northwestern Pennsylvania. On seeing the road sign which said “Village of Espyville Station” my husband quipped, “Only Bedu’s come from the village so that makes you my American Bedu.” The name stayed ever since that memorable day.

SUSRIS: You come to the world of blogging as a former American foreign service officer. Can you give us a snapshot of your 20 years as a diplomat and how is shapes the experiences you share on the blog?

Fleming: I had a dynamic career which I loved that took me to more than 100 different countries. My job and the international travel exposed me to many differing customs, cultures, traditions and foods. It seemed the more I traveled, the more I wanted to get out and see more, learn more. In addition, as a foreign service officer I met many individuals at all levels in life from heads of state, heads of corporations, scientists, academicians and regular people with many of the same common interests and goals of people everywhere.

As a diplomat it was imperative for me to know, learn and understand about the countries in which I traveled, lived and worked. I had to be aware and able to speak knowledgably of the issues of strategic importance within a country and what that also meant vis-à-vis bilateral relations with the United States and other key countries.

However, a diplomat must also be a good and effective communicator; whether in verbal or non-verbal conversations and discussions.

My tenure as a diplomat has helped me as a blogger to write effectively and always choose my words with care. My diverse cultural experiences help me to understand differing cultures, customs and traditions from both an Eastern and a Western perspective. This is important when attempting to bridge rather than divide those who may have opposing views. It is okay to agree to disagree with understanding and grace.

SUSRIS: Did you have a purpose in mind when you started blogging beyond providing a forum for your experiences?

Fleming: American Bedu was originally created as a medium for me to share my experiences of Saudi Arabia with my American family via MySpace. However I quickly changed my mind on keeping the blog closed to a small audience and instead opened it to the world. Saudi Arabia as a country and Saudis as people are often misunderstood by the outside world. The majority of what is found in the mainstream media about Saudi Arabia is negative, rightly or wrongly. Saudi Arabia has many faces and I attempt to share its many faces with the followers of my blog.

SUSRIS: As an American woman who married a Saudi and lived in the Kingdom you obviously have insights into life and culture there, which you have generously shared via American Bedu. What is your reaction when you see Americans who have little firsthand experience in the Kingdom speaking as supposed authorities about Saudi Arabia?

Fleming: I cringe!!! Thankfully I crossed that invisible line between East and West each and every day within the Kingdom due to being an expatriate and married to a Saudi with a large extended family having relatives across the country. Too few expatriates have the intimate firsthand experience of being truly immersed in Saudi culture and life. An expatriate may be able to speak on what it is like to be an expatriate but not have the expertise to speak with authority on Saudi Arabia itself. I consider myself a case in point; I’ve had more than the average experience and interaction with Saudis yet would hesitate to call myself an expert. When I write an article on my blog I make sure to state whether I am sharing personal opinion and if not, follow through with sourcing details.

SUSRIS: On the blog you note that your “posts are reflective of Saudi Arabia which is a land of shifting sands with contrasts and contradictions.” How so, in the case of your posts?

Fleming: For many of the do-not’s about Saudi Arabia, there is usually a do.

Women may be told that they cannot use public transportation such as taxis.
Women may be told that they cannot go out shopping by themselves.
Women may be told that they must always cover their head or their eyes.

All of the above are fallacies. Women can use taxis but with caution. Women can go out shopping by themselves throughout the Kingdom. Unless in the holy cities of Makkah, Medina or an isolated conservative area, (foreign) women are not required to cover their head, let alone their eyes!

There are marriage restrictions in place for Saudis whose positions are in certain categories such as Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Military in that a Saudi cannot marry a foreigner. Yet exceptions can and have been made. My marriage was one such exception.

An expatriate may be told that life in the Kingdom will be dull, boring and limited with few to any Western amenities. Yet in my own view, I believe there are numerous choices of activities in which to engage and many similar to those from the West and others which are more unique.

So in other words, just like a book should not be judged by its cover, Saudi Arabia and its shifting sands should not be automatically wiped away like dust! Dig and look into the sands themselves and other treasures may appear.

SUSRIS: The AmericanBedu blog comments section is a very lively clearinghouse for a variety of topics mostly in the area of relationships and family issues. Do you have a particular philosophical approach to being an American-Saudi “Dear Abby”?

Fleming: As an American-Saudi “Dear Abby” I wish to give the readers of American Bedu a comfortable forum where they can pose specific questions on any aspect of Saudi Arabia. I have promised to always answer candidly and to the best of my knowledge. If I do not know an answer I will ensure to consult with someone who is in a position to answer with knowledge.

SUSRIS: In 2008 Fouad al-Farhan, a popular blogger in the Kingdom, was detained by Saudi authorities for “violating rules not related to state security,” according to the Interior Ministry. Can you talk about the environment for expression there and the ups and downs of blogging in an area where the rules are not always clear-cut?

Fleming: I believe the rules are pretty clear cut. One needs to be very careful if speaking, discussing or writing about the Royal Family and religious issues. The Kingdom is a Monarchy and Islamic (sharia’ah) law prevails. If a blogger is perceived as crossing an invisible line which is damaging or threatening to either the Royal Family or Islam itself, that blogger may find his or her site shut down. A Saudi blogger, such as Fouad al-Farhan, would be detained and questioned. An expatriate blogger could find him or herself in a hot seat with their sponsor. On the other hand, I believe there is greater tolerance for bloggers and others in the Kingdom to express their views on reform and rights, particularly in regards to Saudi women. Terrorism, extremism and root causes of such are allowable topics yet likely monitored. Arabic blogs by Saudis would likely receive more scrutiny than blogs written by expatriates since it would be presumed that an Arabic blog by a Saudi would be more likely to have an internal agenda.

SUSRIS: You have occasionally taken on cultural and social prerogatives in the Kingdom, questioning the status quo. As you put it in one post, “I’m well known for saying exactly what I think.” Were there any issues in particular that struck a chord with you or were there any issues you raised that resulted in serious push back. How well has saying what you think in American Bedu gone over in the Kingdom?

Fleming: I like this question! Saying what I think or saying hard words that need to be said always result in dynamic dialogues in the comments section. Addressing sensitive issues such as the impact of segregation; what is the composition of an extremist and why; interviews with men or women engaged in polygamy; odds of a successful bi-cultural relationship with a Saudi; perception of the disabled in the Kingdom; why must she also wear socks and black gloves too; are among topics which have created much controversy and diverse perspectives. The jury would likely be divided on how well some of my candidness has gone over in the Kingdom. As a result, I try to be fair that with every controversial post, I would likely follow up with a benign yet educating post. If all I were to write were articles which are perceived as bucking the status quo, then my blog could mistakenly be perceived as Saudi-bashing which is not the case nor intent.

SUSRIS: You have openly talked about the loss of your husband in February after his battle with leukemia and we share our condolences with you, as have many of American Bedu’s readers. You also recently talked frankly, especially for the benefit of Saudi women, about your current battle with breast cancer. Your blog postings suggest you were helped through these travails by the words and deeds of some of your readers and by your Saudi family, your in-laws. Can you share with us your reflections?

Fleming: I am passionate in wanting to educate all who will listen about cancer whether as a patient, caregiver or simply someone whose life has been affected or touched by someone battling cancer. There is one guarantee in life. Once born, at some point you will die. Yet when one looks or knows about someone with cancer, that individual, that cancer warrior, may automatically be written off as dead in the mind, as soon as the verdict is delivered. However the simple truth is, none of us know when, where or how we will die. Furthermore, fewer will die if women regularly conduct self-exams and have annual mammograms instead of waiting until it is too late to be treated due to fear or a stigma of being viewed as defective or imperfect. By sharing my story and that of my belated husband, I hoped for it to touch others and help them understand the importance of education, awareness and compassion to reach out. Little did I realize how prophetic that hope would be to me personally! The outpouring of support from family, extended family and friends has helped me tremendously to have faith, courage and strength to keep fighting against this disease. I will never forget how my own Saudi mother-in-law traveled from Makkah to Riyadh when she learned I would require a mastectomy. She insisted on being my caregiver and stayed in the hospital with me looking after me. She does not speak English yet we not only had no difficulties in understanding each other but we created a special bond between us during that period which will not be broken. When I was in Houston as the caregiver for my husband during his battle with leukemia, a regular American Bedu follower from the Netherlands traveled to Houston and helped me out with all I had to manage. She cooked, she cleaned, she did laundry so that I could have those additional precious hours with my husband. Speaking out about my and my husband’s cancer has provided me with ongoing blessings which illustrate the best in people regardless of location, nationality or faith.

SUSRIS: What was the highlight of your American Bedu blogging experience?

Fleming: The first and foremost highlight has been the people who have entered my life thanks to American Bedu.
Individuals come to American Bedu to learn and/or debate! However I also try to present a comfortable atmosphere of sharing. This atmosphere in turn has led to many friendships and bonds.

A group of American Bedu followers on learning that I have been separated from my two cats for the past 18 months due to cancer initiated a project “Bring Carol’s Cats Home.” In three days they raised the necessary funds for me to be reunited with my cats of 13 years!

My blog has raised a greater awareness of the day-to-day realities of everyday life in the Kingdom. As a result, it has changed perceptions of Saudi Arabia in that the Kingdom is not a hotbed of terrorists and every Saudi lives in a tent, rides a camel and has an oil well in the backyard. Readers hear from expatriates and Saudis from all walks of life and learn that there are many more similarities than differences.

The daily highlight for me is the opportunity to share experiences about Saudi Arabia, the land of my beloved husband and my other home. I guess my husband knew exactly what he was talking about when he christened me his ‘American Bedu’ for I felt totally at home from when my feet first curled themselves into the Saudi sand.

Check out American Bedu at: www.AmericanBedu.com

Editor’s Note

We recently talked with Dr. Jean Francois Seznec, Middle East business and finance authority and Georgetown University Visiting Associate Professor, about his last visit to Saudi Arabia. We provided a preview of our conversation with his perspective on Islamic banking, in advance of his role as moderator of last week’s Islamic Finance Forum in Washington. Today we present for your consideration our conversation in its entirety.

Professor Seznec, a frequent visitor to Saudi Arabia, was in the Kingdom in April for two purposes. First, as a member of the Stimson Center’s Board of Directors he participated in a joint meeting at the King Faisal Research Center, tackling the subject of nuclear developments in the Gulf region. Second, as a Board of Advisors member for Georgetown University’s Center for Arab Studies he joined board members from the region for discussions. In our conversation we covered a variety of topics of interest to SUSRIS readers starting with the issue of regional nuclear programs.

Tracking Challenges and Changes:
A Conversation with Dr. Jean Francois Seznec

SUSRIS: What was on the table for the Stimson Center-King Faisal Research Center discussion of Middle East nuclear issues?

Dr. Jean Francois Seznec: There are two issues. One, the Kingdom is very worried about its need for electrical power, that it is increasing to the point where, some say, they will need to use over two and a half million barrels of oil in the near future to cover their needs. That, of course, would take away from oil available for export. They also are concerned about the availability of natural gas. So the Saudis see a future in the Kingdom that includes nuclear energy for power, just as the UAE is doing.

There may be a case for using nuclear power to offset other sources for power but you have to keep in mind the cost of gas in the Kingdom is low. It would be very hard for nuclear to compete with natural gas at seventy-five cents a million BTUs for methane. If natural gas was at the market price, say like in the U.S. at four dollars a million BTUs, then nuclear energy would make more sense. Nevertheless, this would actually be paid by the state, so price is not really so important. But from a purely economic position it would make more sense to increase the price of gas thereby making nuclear energy more feasible in the long-term.

The other nuclear issue, of course, is the question of Iran’s enrichment program and concerns in the Kingdom and elsewhere that its objective is a weapons capability. That worries them but no one is saying that the Kingdom should or would respond to the Iran program by producing its own weapons capability. I didn’t hear any conversation in that direction. Nevertheless developments in Iran are worrisome.

Many Saudis are also very worried that the United States reacting to efforts by groups in Washington, is being pushed into military action against Iran. That prospect may worry them more than the possibility of Iran building a weapon because it would mean retaliation from Iran against the Gulf countries including Saudi Arabia. That would bring the economic miracle to a halt. So there’s a lot of apprehension.

What is clear from discussions of the nuclear weapons question is that the Kingdom is very much in favor of a denuclearized Middle East. Although it’s not official policy, they want to pursue that goal. I imagine King Abdullah pushed the idea when he was in Washington last month. It would involve bringing Israel into the discussion but I think the Saudis see a nuclear free Middle East as the response to these challenges.

SUSRIS: Is there a connection between talks of nuclear programs in the Gulf to meet electrical power generation needs and the specter of a nuclear weapons program in Iran?

Seznec: Well, it is difficult to say one way or the other. But I would note the interest in nuclear power generation programs applies to the entire Gulf, not just Saudi Arabia. It certainly applies to the UAE, and to the discussions happening in Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. All of a sudden there’s great attention to the future need for electricity and the prospects that these countries need to consider nuclear energy. They don’t have enough natural gas to produce electricity efficiently into the future and they don’t want to use oil because it’s not a clean source of energy and it’s not very efficient. So that leaves nuclear power.

Why is it happening now? The same issues could have been discussed ten years ago. It’s happening now because of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Whether Iran is going nuclear just for electricity, or for electricity and weapons, they’re going nuclear. The rest of the Gulf wants to be on par with Iran on these matters. I don’t think one can argue that the Gulf Arabs’ interest in nuclear technology is masking intentions for anything beyond power generation. However, I would say there’s a technological competition part of it. Countries like Saudi Arabia need the electrical power to grow but that’s a separate question from the Iranian weapon program issue.

SUSRIS: So the pursuit of nuclear technology among Gulf Arabs also sends a signal to Iran?

Seznec: Absolutely. In fact, they would want to move faster because, let’s face it, as in the case of the UAE’s program – there’s a contract with a Korean consortium — the first nuclear power plant won’t be operational until about 2017. Iran may be on line with a nuclear power facility by then.

SUSRIS: You mentioned Saudi Arabia seeking a nuclear free Middle East in the context of Israel and Iran. When we talked with Anthony Cordesman last week he said the WMD genie was out of the bottle and a nuclear free region was not feasible, citing Israel’s longstanding nuclear weapons program. Do you think a nuclear free Middle East is a realistic expectation in Riyadh or is it political rhetoric, scoring points about Israeli intransigence? Or is it something else?

Seznec: That’s hard to say for sure but I tend to think there is hope, not just in the region but also in the United States and Europe, about a nuclear-free region. Some in the Kingdom feel sooner or later there will be enough pressure put on Israel to come clean on the facts about their weapons program. This may come to a head next year with the UN nuclear proliferation conference. The United States favors this, and Israel is actually mentioned by name in the document that came out of the non proliferation review conference in May. So some Saudis may believe there’s a deal to be made but it would require American pressure on Israel. That probably wouldn’t happen with the Netanyahu government but things do change in Israel.

SUSRIS: Let’s talk about other highlights of the visit. What did you do at Saudi Aramco?

Seznec: As is always the case at Saudi Aramco we were received extremely well. We toured the command center, which is an absolute technological marvel. Truly amazing. We went to Shaybah, the field in the desert on the northern edge of the Empty Quarter. I had been there before, but they have since expanded production by fifty percent. They now produce 750,000 barrels a day, and they have a third gas separation plant. So it is much larger than when I last saw it. It is very interesting, and it’s still as beautiful a place as ever. Aramco is preparing to export natural gas liquids by pipeline out of the field into the center of Saudi Arabia. There was nothing revolutionary to note but the operation is really quite remarkable. They’re doing very well with their planning and operations. Whatever project they take on it is well done. It’s really an amazingly professional organization.

SUSRIS: What did you notice on your visit that was new?

Seznec: Perhaps most interesting in my two weeks in the country, especially in Riyadh, the presence of women in many more places than I had noticed in my numerous visits to the Kingdom. This time I was struck by their involvement in many things. It’s apparent there’s an enormous effort by the King to bring women into the development of the country, and that is proving to be successful.

In Riyadh I was also struck by the enormous development at the Princess Nora University. It was unbelievable. It is absolutely humongous. The construction is night and day as they’re hoping to finish it very soon. I understand they will have the capacity for about 40,000 women attending the university. The fact that it’s called Princess Nora University is also very interesting to me, because after all Princess Nora was probably the first and most important Saudi feminist in her day. She was sister of the founder of the country King Abdulaziz, and an advisor. She was very highly respected. So I think this new university is pretty exciting.

SUSRIS: After the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology opened last year as a coeducational institution there was much discussion and some dissension over gender mixing.

Seznec: People were talking about the issue and there was a rear guard battle by the more conservative factions. They appeared to have lost that battle, and I think they accepted their lost. I don’t think there will be much more discussion of the issue. What we may see next is discussion of opening up other campuses to both men and women. There was a lot more discussion that I noticed about the mixing of genders in public places so I think it’s moving very much in the right direction. People are becoming more open on these matters.

SUSRIS: What other trends did you notice?

Seznec: There were a couple of developments, small things, I thought were interesting. For the first time I discovered restaurants in Riyadh which specialize in Najdi food, the native food of the region. It was a relatively new concept for me and I have lived in the Kingdom and traveled there over 120 times. In the newer part of Riyadh they’ve established restaurants that are like big villas built in the old style. Everything inside is just like it was in the old houses. And the food is Najdi food. There is a pride of the culture which was much more apparent than before and it’s extremely successful. What I found interesting was most of the patrons were Saudis — mostly Saudi families, women and children running around all. It was really quite interesting and the food was very good, by the way. I think it was a very good sign, a way to preserve tradition.

SUSRIS: As you know there was a very successful event in Chicago about the time you were traveling in the Kingdom, the US-Saudi Business Opportunities Forum. There was a very optimistic atmosphere among the thousand plus people, including over two hundred Saudis who made the trip. Do you get a feeling in the business sector, the business-to-business relationship, that Americans and Saudis are getting more in-sync?

Seznec: Yes, I agree with that. It’s interesting because although I wasn’t at the Forum I talked to a lot of people who were about to go. Its success is consistent with my view that the business-to-business component is really what’s saving the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. I think that business people on both sides are really the true representatives and the true ambassadors of their countries. I’m convinced the Saudis like to deal with American people and they like to deal with American businesses. However they’re absolutely amazed at the government’s relationship and what it is doing about Palestine, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Saudis still like to deal with American companies. The U.S. companies working in Saudi Arabia and the Saudi companies make a perfect match. They like to work together. It is very good that we see more and more American investments in Saudi Arabia.

SUSRIS: There was a large representation at the Chicago Forum from business people who had not previously done work in the Kingdom or with Saudi businesses, who were learning the ropes.

Seznec: The economic slowdown in the U.S. in 2008-2009 and the difficulties companies have to this day have contributed to American businesses wanting to see about doing business with Saudi Arabia. It is, after all, a country not suffering too much from the economic slowdown. So, yes, it was probably convenient for people to be in Chicago to learn about the possibilities. It’s very easy now for Americans to do business in Saudi Arabia. They have made a terrific effort to facilitate doing business in the Kingdom. I believe they are number 13 on the “ease of doing business” list of countries. I think this is really paying dividends for both sides. I think people take a look at the prospects and say let’s try it.

Keep in mind that Saudis have worked very hard to improve the business climate there as reflected by their World Trade Organization accession and inclusion in the Group of Twenty. The G20 role is very important. It gives Saudi Arabia an important role in world affairs. It’s the only Middle Eastern country that’s part of the G20, and I think that’s very important.

SUSRIS: You’ve been asked to moderate a panel of distinguished financial leaders tackling questions about Islamic financing. Can you give us a brief view on how that is working in Saudi Arabia?

Seznec: What’s interesting to me is that over twenty years ago many in the Kingdom were somewhat opposed to Islamic banking. Financial authorities, the central bank, the Ministry of Finance, and so forth, were not really in favor of it. I think many of the civil servants there were wary of using the name of Islam to do banking business, and they may have been afraid money could be placed in the wrong hands.

Over the years, however, not only have they learned to deal with it, they now are somewhat ahead of the curve. There’s a sense among most of the banks that they should be involved in Islamic finances. In fact every Saudi bank today offers Islamic services. For example, National Commercial Bank is doing deposit business on an Islamic basis. Of course the Riyadh-based Al Rajhi Bank is the largest Islamic bank in the world. They have assets in the range of forty-one billion riyals. That’s big.

There is a new bank, called Alinma, created basically by the state. The General Organization and the Public Investment Fund backed it as minority shareholders but they hold a very large chunk of shares. The remainder was made available to the public.

The views in the civil service regarding Islamic finance has evolved to not only support it but to make it into one of the prominent financing systems in the Kingdom. They use Islamic banking features to develop the economy, to lend money — long-term using Sukuks — and so on. So I think it’s now very popular in the Kingdom. It’s become very successful.

SUSRIS: For businesses considering working in the Kingdom what would they have to know about Islamic finance? Should they be concerned about a different system?

Seznec: No. Anyone doing business in the Kingdom can work with a local bank using regular, traditional banking formats, or they can use Islamic banking formats. By the way they are not all that different. They will find that if a bank offers Islamic features it doesn’t necessarily mean that there will be more deposits in the banks, that they will be more liquid, or that they’ll lend more money.

It’s a transformation of banking into a slightly different system where the concept of ethics is more a part in the decision process. Ultimately, however, it’s not that different from the regular banks. It’s not a revolution; it’s an evolution.

SUSRIS: Do you have any last notes from your visit to Saudi Arabia? Were there discussions about leadership issues?

Seznec: King Abdullah is certainly more popular than he’s ever been. People are praying that he can continue what he is doing. And of course in the question of royal succession everybody has a different rumor, and rumor is really news. So rather than go into what the rumors are, because there’d be hundreds of them, I would just comment that people are sitting tight and waiting and see how it develops.

SUSRIS: The Economist recently had an article about the Kingdom that addressed the question of succession. Did you see that? They referred to Second Deputy Prime Minister Prince Nayef as “crustily conservative” who has not endeared himself to reformers.

Seznec: Yes I did. A lot of people say that about Prince Nayef because he is very strong, and his son is very strong, and his department, the Interior Ministry, is really in control of so many things. There probably is some truth to that. But I personally feel that if Nayef eventually ascended to the throne he wouldn’t be much different from King Abdullah. People think he’s very close to the conservatives, but I think that’s because that’s his duty to be close to the conservatives. He could just as well be close to the liberals. It’s a way for each member of the family to have their own constituency but ultimately what the King has to do is develop the country. And whoever is in power will do that.

Related Items:

in the Press

• Korean Team to Build U.A.E. Nuclear Plants – WSJ – Dec 28, 2009
• NPT Conference to Discuss Iran, Mideast Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone
• Egypt seeks U.N. pressure on Israel over nuclear arms
• Israel rejects U.N. conference resolution on non-proliferation
• Princess Nora Bint Abdulrahman University in Riyadh
• The Saudi succession - When kings and princes grow old

Jean-Francois Seznec

• Why Saudi Arabia Does Not Support Iran Strike – Seznec – SUSRIS – Mar 11, 2010
• Saudi Arabia’s Role in Global Economic Leadership: The G20 Summit – A Conversation with Jean Francois Seznec – SUSRIS – Nov 9, 2009
• President Obama’s Visit to the Kingdom – Setting the Scene: A Conversation with Jean-François Seznec – SUSRIS – Jun 3, 2009
• Leadership in the Kingdom: Prince Nayef Named 2d Dep PM – A Conversation with Jean-François Seznec – SUSRIS – Apr 9, 2009
• Consequences of the Oil Price Crash Jean-Francois Seznec – SUSRIS – Dec 21, 2008
• The Rule of King Abdullah: A New Paradigm – A Conversation with Jean-Francois Seznec – SUSRIS – Aug 1, 2008

Dr. Jean-Francois Seznec

Jean-Francois Seznec is Visiting Associate Professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies. His research centers on the influence of the Arab-Persian Gulf political and social variables on the financial and oil markets in the region. He is focusing on the industrialization of the Gulf and in particular the growth of the petrochemical industry. He is Senior Advisor to PFC Energy in Washington, DC. He holds a MIA from Columbia University [1973], a MA and his Ph.D. from Yale University [1994]. He has published and lectured extensively on Petrochemicals and energy based industries in the Gulf and their importance in world trade. He is interviewed regularly on national TV, radio and newspapers, as well as by the foreign media.

Dr. Seznec has 25 years experience in international banking and finance of which ten years were spent in the Middle East, including two years in Riyadh at SIDF and six years in Bahrain covering Saudi Arabia. Dr. Seznec is a founding member and Managing Partner of the Lafayette Group LLC, a US based private investment company. He uses his knowledge of business in the Middle East and the United States to further his analysis of the Arab-Persian Gulf.

Editor’s Note:

This week we had a chance to chat with Professor Jean Francois Seznec of Georgetown University and the Lafayette Group, about his recent visit to Saudi Arabia and developments in the business relationships between America and the Kingdom. We have been fortunate in the past to benefit from his decades of experience in international banking and finance for SUSRIS articles and interviews, and, most recently, a Wilson Center panel on China and the Gulf, added to the video gallery at SUSRIStube.com this month. In the latest SUSRIS exclusive with Dr. Seznec we’ll cover his recent meetings in the Kingdom and his perspective on business developments between Americans and Saudis.

In advance of the full interview, which will appear Monday, we want to share a portion of our conversation to introduce an event set for next week in Washington. Dr. Seznec will moderate a panel on Islamic finance in an event organized by the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, the U.S.-Qatar Business Council and the Arab Bankers Association of North America.

The Islamic Finance Forum next Wednesday will provide a platform for top Shariah scholars and leaders in the industry to discuss Islamic finance and its potential to affect domestic and global financial markets and economic growth. Topics to be addressed at the forum include: defining Islamic Law; Shariah financial regulation and practice; how the rise of Gulf capital is affecting financial markets and how it should be regulated; compatibility of Shariah Institutions with U.S. law and regulation; objections by Shariah scholars challenging the permissibility of derivatives under Islamic Law; Islamic Venture Capital; and Dispute Resolution – law, regulation and practice; among other topics. Participants in the Forum will also have opportunities to ask questions of top experts in Islamic finance.

For your consideration today we offer Dr. Seznec’s remarks to us about Islamic finance, with the focus on the Kingdom, as the scope of Wednesday’s forum will be much broader than we can cover here today.

Islamic Finance in Saudi Arabia: A Conversation with Jean Francois Seznec

SUSRIS: Next week you’ll be moderating a panel of distinguished financial leaders tackling questions about Islamic financing. Can you give us a brief view on how that is working in Saudi Arabia?

Professor Jean Francois Seznec: What’s interesting to me is that over twenty years ago many in the Kingdom were somewhat opposed to Islamic banking. Financial authorities, the central bank, the Ministry of Finance, and so forth, were not really in favor of it. I think many of the civil servants there were wary of using the name of Islam to do banking business, and they may have been afraid money could be placed in the wrong hands.

Over the years, however, not only have they learned to deal with it, they now are somewhat ahead of the curve. There’s a sense among most of the banks that they should be involved in Islamic finances. In fact every Saudi bank today offers Islamic services. For example, National Commercial Bank is doing deposit business on an Islamic basis. Of course the Riyadh-based Al Rajhi Bank is the largest Islamic bank in the world. They have assets in the range of forty-one billion riyals. That’s big.

There is a new bank, called Alinma, created basically by the state. The General Organization of Social Insurance and the Public Investment Fund backed as minority shareholders but they hold a very large chunk of shares. The remainder was made available to the public.

The views in the civil service regarding Islamic finance has evolved to not only support it but to make it into one of the prominent financing systems in the Kingdom. They use Islamic banking features to develop the economy, to lend money — long-term using Sukuks — and so on. So I think it’s now very popular in the Kingdom. It’s become very successful.

SUSRIS: For businesses considering working in the Kingdom what would they have to know about Islamic finance? Should they be concerned about a different system?

Seznec: No. Anyone doing business in the Kingdom can work with a local bank using regular, traditional banking formats, or they can use Islamic banking formats. By the way they are not all that different. They will find that if a bank offers Islamic features it doesn’t necessarily mean that there will be more deposits in the banks, that they will be more liquid, or that they’ll lend more money.

It’s a transformation of banking into a slightly different system where the concept of ethics is more a part in the decision process. Ultimately, however, it’s not that different from the regular banks. It’s not a revolution; it’s an evolution.

Related:

• General Organization for Social Insurance (GOSI)
• Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund
• Alinma Bank

Jean-Francois Seznec is Visiting Associate Professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies. His research centers on the influence of the Arab-Persian Gulf political and social variables on the financial and oil markets in the region. He is focusing on the industrialization of the Gulf and in particular the growth of the petrochemical industry. He is Senior Advisor to PFC Energy in Washington, DC. He holds a MIA from Columbia University [1973], a MA and his Ph.D. from Yale University [1994]. He has published and lectured extensively on Petrochemicals and energy based industries in the Gulf and their importance in world trade. He is interviewed regularly on national TV, radio and newspapers, as well as by the foreign media.

Dr. Seznec has 25 years experience in international banking and finance of which ten years were spent in the Middle East, including two years in Riyadh at SIDF and six years in Bahrain covering Saudi Arabia. Dr. Seznec is a founding member and Managing Partner of the Lafayette Group LLC, a US based private investment company. He uses his knowledge of business in the Middle East and the United States to further his analysis of the Arab-Persian Gulf.

About the Islamic Finance Forum

Wednesday, July 28, 2010
9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

The George Washington University Law School
Jacob Burns Moot Court Room, Suite L101
2000 H Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.

For details and registration information:

National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations: www.ncusar.org

Editor’s Note:

The U.S.-Saudi Business Opportunities Forum, a major event bringing together over one thousand Americans and Saudis to advance their mutual business interests through panel discussions and networking, was recently convened in Chicago. The Forum was organized by the Committee for International Trade (CIT) of the Saudi Council of Chambers of Commerce in Riyadh and the U.S.-Saudi Business Council in Washington. At the forum SUSRIS had a chance to talk with CIT Chairman Abdulaziz Al Fahad about the significance of an important business event like the forum for U.S.-Saudi relations and prospects for further business cooperation.

Renewed Efforts to Seize Business Opportunities:
A Conversation with CIT Chairman Abdulaziz H. Al Fahad

SUSRIS: What are your impressions of the U.S.-Saudi Business Opportunities Forum?

Fahad: This is probably the most significant event in which our organization, the Committee for International Trade, has been involved. The idea that we’ve managed to bring together more than a thousand business people and policymakers in a two-day conference dedicated exclusively to Saudi-American relations, especially economic and commercial relations, is a significant achievement. The Forum is like events CIT has done in the past, but never on this scale in the United States.

We’re grateful that so many Americans and Saudis were enthusiastic about the opportunities and came to participate. As you can see, it’s not only the number of people attending that is important but also the subject matters being discussed. These are major issues that are attracting the level of attention we believe they deserve. In that sense, milestone might be hyperbole, but I would say the Business Opportunities Forum has been an important contribution to U.S.-Saudi relations.

SUSRIS: The organization you lead as chairman, the Committee for International Trade in the Saudi Council of Chambers of Commerce, has been involved in building bridges for many years including a period where it was difficult to see the common ground. What is the significance of events like the Business Opportunities Forum given the recent history of the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia?

Fahad: In many ways it’s a reflection of the rebounding of the relationship in both economic and political spheres. The fact that we are able to organize a conference in this fashion, the fact that it attracts so much interest, and the fact that the focus of this is bilateral ties in the wider sense makes us all hopeful about the health of the relationship. The success of the Forum is an indication that while some of the difficulties we have faced in the past may still be in the background, they are not really the core issues anymore. One of the core issues going forward is how can both countries and societies find mutual benefit from the opportunities they present to each other. That’s what we are exploring here in Chicago, and again, it’s something that the 1,100 participants in the Forum are enthusiastic about.

SUSRIS: As a promoter of international business in Saudi Arabia, are you satisfied that American businesses have taken advantage of the opportunities in the Kingdom?

Fahad: One of the things we noticed in the last decade is that Americans are not willing to dedicate themselves to being competitive in our part of the world as much as some others have been. We think the Europeans, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Japanese, even the Indians, devoted more energy to exploring markets in Saudi Arabia more thoroughly than the Americans have. We are hopeful that will change especially after the economic difficulties of the last few years. We sense a shift in American interest, in taking advantage of the opportunities in our part of the world. Perhaps that’s a reflection of President Obama’s goal to double American exports worldwide within the next five years. We believe the Middle East will be a major destination for many of those exports, and I suspect that’s part of the reason for interest in Saudi business opportunities for many of the American attendees here.

SUSRIS: U.S. exports to the Kingdom have rebounded and Obama’s 2015 goal will bolster future growth but in terms of market share, do you see the U.S. slipping or are American efforts gaining traction against the competition?

Fahad: I think America will always be a dominant economic force in the region. The question is will it always be number one, or will it be one of the top three or four? America’s presence in the Middle East, commercial and otherwise , will always be there. American success depends on how much energy the American companies and authorities want to dedicate to maintaining its dominance. What we see now is a renewed effort to enhance American presence, and for American companies to seize the opportunities that they were not so enthusiastic about in the past.

SUSRIS: What is the message from the Saudi Committee for International Trade to American business people here?

Fahad: I would tell them Saudi Arabia is a dynamic country. It’s a dynamic economy. The opportunities are multitudinous and they range from mega projects worth tens of billions of dollars to many smaller ones. We are certain each company in the United States interested in exploring that dynamic market will find appropriate opportunities in terms of executing projects, exporting products, and investing in the Kingdom. The opportunities are not just in the oil business. There are multiple sectors in Saudi Arabia that are open to foreign investment where liberalization of laws is finally paying off. We hope the American companies that might have been shy about international business before will have the courage and interest to come and explore the opportunities in Saudi Arabia and take advantage of them.

SUSRIS: What do you think of the reception here in Chicago for this Forum?

Fahad: Everyone at CIT is very grateful for the exceptional welcome we have received in Chicago from Mayor Daley and his staff and from the many organizations that have made the Forum and the outreach programs possible. They have all been extremely helpful in organizing the events and in serving as a magnet to attract a tremendous level of participation from both Saudi and American participants. Their efforts and hospitality will always be appreciated.

Abdulaziz Al Fahad is Chairman of the Committee for International Trade for the Council of Saudi Chambers of Commerce and Industry.

Mr. Al Fahad is also Principal of the Law Office of Abdulaziz H. Fahad in Riyadh. He practices in the areas of corporate, banking, litigation, intellectual property, international transactions, and arbitration. A member of several public, joint-stock and private corporate boards, Mr. Al Fahad also writes and delivers lectures on Middle Eastern law, politics, and economics. He was a Member of the Advisory Commission for the Supreme Economic Council from 1999-2003. Mr. Al Fahad has a B.A. in Economics from Michigan State University. He received a M.A. in International Relations in 1981 from the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and a law degree in 1984 from Yale University. He was a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and Research at Harvard Law School.

Related:

• U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium
Conference Transcripts — Session 1 – Introduction
• From Exclusivism to Accommodation: Doctrinal and Legal Evolution of Wahhabism – Abdulaziz H. Al-Fahad – SUSRIS
• Part 1 (HTML)
• Part 2 (HTML)
• Part 3 (HTML)
• Complete essay (PDF)

Photo Credit: Ron Gould Studio, Chicago

Editor’s Note:

SUSRIS was recently in Chicago to cover the US-Saudi Business Opportunities Forum, a major event bringing together over one thousand Americans and Saudis to advance their mutual business interests through panel discussions and networking. The Forum was organized by the Committee for International Trade (CIT) of the Saudi Council of Chambers of Commerce in Riyadh and the U.S.-Saudi Business Council in Washington. At the forum SUSRIS had a chance to talk with Mr. Amr Khashoggi, Vice President of Corporate Affairs for the Zahid group of companies. In April we were pleased to share with you the story of Zahid’s 60-year partnership with Caterpillar Corporation of Peoria, Illinois, a model of cooperation between U.S. and Saudi businesses.

In 2006 Mr. Khashoggi wrote an “open letter from a Saudi businessman to Americans” which was shared with you here. In it he recounted his personal commitment to healthy Saudi-US ties and addressed the post 9/11 challenges to the relationship. He said the “US-Saudi relationship must not be based solely on economic interests, but on mutual benefit for both of our nations. It will take the full cooperation of everyone from all sections of both societies including the academia, the media, the religious and business communities, the government, the congress, the senior citizens, the youth, and the public at large for this to succeed.” A year later SUSRIS talked with Mr. Khashoggi and asked if he saw progress in repairing the relationship. He said it was unclear if progress was being made, that there were some positive efforts being made through information and outreach programs, but he remained concerned about media campaigns and poor communication on both sides of the relationship, “We are still faced with a serious case of misunderstanding, misconception and deep ignorance and lack of awareness of the situation. We still have a lot to do to bridge the chasm created by extremists on both sides and their cohorts. When we stiffen our positions and dig our heals in the ground and shut our ears to honest, transparent and civil dialogue between our two nations, then the chasm will get bigger and we cannot build on our common values nor can we be in a position to respect our legitimate differences.”

With that context in mind as well as Mr. Khashoggi’s deep commitment to and concerns about the ties between Saudis and Americans we asked him for his assessment of the forum as a barometer on the relationship.

Working Together to Improve People’s Lives
A Conversation with Amr Khashoggi

SUSRIS: We’re here in Chicago with over 1,100 Americans and Saudis talking about business and, one of your favorite topics, building bridges between the countries. What is your reaction to the success of this conference?

Amr Khashoggi: Nothing could make my heart flutter as much as seeing so many Saudis and Americans talking business in a very amiable, trusting, and warm way. The discussions here are very professional and show the prospects and intentions for concrete steps to building business like my company, Zahid Group, has enjoyed with Caterpillar. Today we are celebrating sixty years. There are many others. We just listened to the Boeing CEO, and their partnership goes back to 1945 with the Kingdom and others here go back to the 1930s.

These relationships have endured for a very long time and if I can share just one message it would be Saudis and Americans must never again ever allow a bunch of misfits to drive a wedge between our two nations.

SUSRIS: You were among those who challenged Saudis and Americans to work to restore the health of the relationship after 9/11, calling for each side to address its own shortcomings. How would you assess the progress made since your “Open Letter” four years ago that was among the alarm bells?

Khashoggi: If there was a silver lining in the dark clouds that were looming over our two nations it was that we had the opportunity to take a realistic look at the relationship, to make sure that it’s not a relationship based only on oil interests, but that it’s a relationship that covers many different facets. We had to rediscover the breadth of the commercial and industrial component. We had to rediscover the educational, social and cultural components.

These can only be achieved if you have links of trust and transparency between the two nations. Of course the first rule of transparency is to be transparent with oneself, for each of us to look at our own mistakes and to try to fix them. This is what both nations have done over the past five or six years. The self-examination that occurred opened the door to mutual understanding. For example it allowed Americans to understand Saudis more, and it allowed Saudis to understand Americans more. I believe that greater understanding has gone a long way in rebuilding bridges of friendship that will last for many, many more years.

SUSRIS: Talk about the business opportunities that the U.S.-Saudi Business Forum represents.

Khashoggi: From my perspective with the Zahid Group, we have several business areas that enjoy partnerships with American companies. Of course, the most famous of them is Caterpillar. But we’re also looking at other opportunities. As the population of Saudi Arabia grows – as you know sixty percent of the population is under the age of twenty – we are going to put tremendous demand on energy resources, currently through fossil fuels. However, as with other parts of the world Saudi Arabia is moving towards alternative energy, renewable energy.

One thing we have a lot of in Saudi Arabia, besides oil, is sunshine. So, solar energy is an area where we will see a lot of growth. This is an area Zahid Group is looking at very seriously as investors, as operators, and as partners. We are speaking to U.S. companies – at this forum and elsewhere – who are involved in renewable energy, recycling, and so forth.

There are tremendous opportunities for Saudi and American businesses working together to improve people’s lives, focusing on clean energy, focusing on education. There is a great need to educate all of the young men and women of Saudi Arabia. Education goes hand in hand with job creation, and job creation goes hand in hand with building a sustainable economy. We can benefit from the great systems of education the United States has and can share with Saudi Arabia, and the United States will benefit from the future solid relations with Saudi Arabia.

SUSRIS: Thank you very much, Mr. Khashoggi, for taking time during this busy conference to share your perspectives on these important questions.

About Amr Khashoggi

Amr M. Khashoggi is VP, corporate affairs at Zahid Group of Companies. Mr. Khashoggi is a member of the Committee for the Development of International Trade (CIT) in the Saudi Chambers of Commerce and Industry. He holds a B.Sc. from Menlo College and an M.B.A. from Yale University School of Management. Email: akhashoggi@zahid.com

Related:

• Building Bridges in the Saudi-US Business Relationship: The Case of the Zahid-Caterpillar Partnership – SUSRIS – Apr 13, 2010
• The Importance of Volunteering – Amr Khashoggi – SUSRIS – Jan 14, 2010
• An “Open Letter” from a Saudi Businessman – Revisited: A Conversation with Amr Khashoggi – SUSRIS Exclusive Interview – Oct 24, 2007
• An Open Letter from a Saudi Businessman: Amr Khashoggi

Exclusive

Editor’s Note:

The U.S.-Saudi Business Opportunities Forum, held in Chicago, Illinois on April 28-29, 2010, was an unparalleled gathering of ministers and cabinet secretaries, government officials and corporate and civic leaders from Saudi Arabia and the United States designed to increase understanding and business interchange between the two nations. The one thousand plus participants including over two hundred from Saudi Arabia participated in many well organized panels and breakout sessions covering a broad range of high interest topics.  Among them was a panel examining Saudi Arabia’s educational system which included the Kingdom’s Minister of Education, Princess Loulwa al Faisal, vice chair of Effat College, a women’s institution, in Jeddah. The panel was moderated by Steve Clemons, Director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation in Washington. Clemons was a principal organizer of a very successful US-Saudi relations conference in Washington last year ["US-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium"] hosted by the Committee for International Trade and the New America Foundation. In this exclusive interview SUSRIS asked Clemons to comment on the dynamics of this Chicago Saudi-US business forum and his impressions of the relationship. [Check the SUSRIS Special Section - US-Saudi Business Opportunities Forum - Chicago for more information on this event.]

Steve Clemons (L) shown with Senator Chuck Hagel and Prince Turki Al-Faisal, moderated at the 2009 US-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium forum.

***

Shining a Light on a Significant Strategic Alliance: A Conversation with Steve Clemons

[SUSRIS] We’re with Steve Clemons from the New America Foundation, he leads the American Strategy Program there, at the sidelines of the US-Saudi Business Opportunities conference in Chicago. Steve, what are your impressions of this conference given that there are a thousand people here talking about Saudi business opportunities including about two hundred Saudis who came over.

[Clemons] Well, I think that anyone who sees this would say this conference is fantastic both in the scale, the size, the number of people you have here and the quality of conversations. Yesterday I had the privilege of moderating a panel on education. We had people working in K-12 as well as upper end education. We had Princess Loulwah al-Faisal, who is vice chairman of a major women’s university, which isn’t well known by many Americans – Effat University in Jeddah. And the quality of the conversation we had was excellent, and the excitement here. I would love to see more nationally done. What we saw in Chicago, the ever present, in and out presence of the Mayor, Richard Daley and his brother, Bill Daley, were both here. The embrace of Chicago of US-Saudi ‘stuff’ writ large – business, discussions of political affairs, discussions of cultural affairs as we say last night – has all been really impressive.

[SUSRIS] You led a conference last year in Washington on US-Saudi relations. How would you characterize where we are in recovering from a great deal of friction after 9-11?

[Clemons] Well last year when we had this, we had about 400 people at a conference. The reason that I held that conference – it was very exciting, hugely successful – was to drag a key strategic relationship of the United States, out of the closet and have a discussion about it much more in public. I think we see the second year, you get outside of DC, there’s huge interest, business and whatnot. It’s time for Washington to catch up and realize there’s more maturity in being able to handle the good aspects of the relationship as well as the warts of the relationship in a much better way. I think Washington has come a bit further, a step further. We see a return at visa levels and the numbers of Saudis studying in the United States to much higher levels than were the case before 9-11. So in a lot of ways a lot of the damage that was done we are back to even. We are now seeing consolidation, the ability to move beyond some of the old wounds.

[SUSRIS] There are still a lot of stereotypes associated with Saudi Arabia and you’ve become more familiar over the years. What would you tell Americans who may not have the same depth of understanding of Saudi Arabia that you do? What Saudis are really about? What you have found out about Saudi Arabia?

[Clemons] Well I think that Saudi Arabia is.. first of all it’s a complex country. I went over and I was mentioning in the program on education yesterday. I really was surprised to see the scale and level of investment that Saudi Arabia is making in very advanced technology. Nanotechnology. Equipping some of their cities with real world-class talent. They brought in the former President of the national university of Singapore to lead one of their major new economic city universities called KAUST [King Abdullah University of Science and Technology]. I think the issue is that there is a complexity, a diversity, more liberalism than I expected inside Saudi Arabia. We had the U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia who made that case much more compelling. I probably would have been more cautious than he was last night. But you clearly see stuff that moves way, way beyond the biases that we are inculcated with here in the United States. And I think it’s open to.. keep an open mind. The Saudis are very pragmatic. And what also is not known about them is that they are fundamentally a significant strategic ally of the United States. They are helping us behind the scenes in Pakistan, helping us behind the scenes in many places of the world, helping to affect the calculations that other world leaders are making in what they do with us. So they are a real partner and I’m not afraid to say that. I think a lot more people should be embracing that reality as well.

[SUSRIS] Thanks, so much.

[Clemons] Thank you.

***

• US-Saudi Business Opportunities Forum – Chicago – 2010 – SUSRIS Special Section
• Steve Clemons on US-Saudi Relations – SUSRIStube.com – Apr 29, 2010

***

• “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – SUSRIS – Apr 18, 2009
• U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium – Session Introduction – SUSRIS – May 8, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel I: A Forward Projection of What the Saudi-U.S. Relationship Should Look Like and Needs to Achieve
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Peter Robertson – SUSRIS – May 8, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel I: A Forward Projection of What the Saudi-U.S. Relationship Should Look Like and Needs to Achieve
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Senator Chuck Hagel – SUSRIS – May 8, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel I: A Forward Projection of What the Saudi-U.S. Relationship Should Look Like and Needs to Achieve
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski – SUSRIS – May 8, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel I: A Forward Projection of What the Saudi-U.S. Relationship Should Look Like and Needs to Achieve
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Prince Turki Al Faisal – SUSRIS – May 8, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel I: A Forward Projection of What the Saudi-U.S. Relationship Should Look Like and Needs to Achieve
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Dr. Rita E. Hauser – SUSRIS – May 8, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel I: A Forward Projection of What the Saudi-U.S. Relationship Should Look Like and Needs to Achieve
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Abdullah Alireza – SUSRIS – May 8, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel I: A Forward Projection of What the Saudi-U.S. Relationship Should Look Like and Needs to Achieve
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Questions and Answers – SUSRIS – May 8, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel I: A Forward Projection of What the Saudi-U.S. Relationship Should Look Like and Needs to Achieve
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – William J. Burns – SUSRIS – May 14, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Introduction – Jane Sasseen – SUSRIS – May 15, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel II: Economics as a National Security Imperative: Challenges for Saudi Arabia and the United States
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Ibrahim Al-Assaf – SUSRIS – May 15, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel II: Economics as a National Security Imperative: Challenges for Saudi Arabia and the United States
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Heidi Crebo-Rediker – SUSRIS – May 15, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel II: Economics as a National Security Imperative: Challenges for Saudi Arabia and the United States
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Brad Bourland – SUSRIS – May 15, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel II: Economics as a National Security Imperative: Challenges for Saudi Arabia and the United States
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Muhammad Al-Jasser – SUSRIS – May 15, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel II: Economics as a National Security Imperative: Challenges for Saudi Arabia and the United States
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Flynt Leverett – SUSRIS – May 15, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel II: Economics as a National Security Imperative: Challenges for Saudi Arabia and the United States
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Question and Answer – SUSRIS – May 15, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel II: Economics as a National Security Imperative: Challenges for Saudi Arabia and the United States
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Anne-Marie Slaughter – SUSRIS – May 18, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel III: Through Saudi Arabia’s Window and Other Lenses: Middle East Dynamics and Stakeholder Challenges
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Edward Luce – SUSRIS – May 18, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel III: Through Saudi Arabia’s Window and Other Lenses: Middle East Dynamics and Stakeholder Challenges
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Neil Compton – SUSRIS – May 18, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel III: Through Saudi Arabia’s Window and Other Lenses: Middle East Dynamics and Stakeholder Challenges
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Wyche Fowler – SUSRIS – May 18, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel III: Through Saudi Arabia’s Window and Other Lenses: Middle East Dynamics and Stakeholder Challenges
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Joseph McMillan – SUSRIS – May 18, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel III: Through Saudi Arabia’s Window and Other Lenses: Middle East Dynamics and Stakeholder Challenges
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Pierre Vimont – SUSRIS – May 18, 2009 – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel III: Through Saudi Arabia’s Window and Other Lenses: Middle East Dynamics and Stakeholder Challenges
• U.S.-Saudi Relations – Abdulrahman Al-Saeed – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum – Panel III: Through Saudi Arabia’s Window and Other Lenses: Middle East Dynamics and Stakeholder Challenges
• Big Stuff Is Up – Clemons – “U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium” – National Policy Forum

***

ABOUT THE COMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE (CIT)

The Committee for International Trade (CIT) – Founded in 1983, The Committee for International Trade (CIT) within the Council of Saudi Chambers of Commerce is comprised of leading Saudi businessmen and businesswomen working to expand and improve Saudi Arabia’s external trade relationships.

A private-sector initiative, CIT recognizes that Saudi Arabia’s global economic, financial and commercial partnerships are also influenced by social and political considerations; that the ample and accurate flow of information combined with ongoing and candid dialogue are intrinsic to building durable trade and investment ties with the United States as well as other nations.

In support of strong and sustained trade relations, CIT seeks to:

• Engage with key institutions of civil society;
• Create an environment for productive and positive dialogue on political, economic and cultural matters critical to Saudi Arabia;
• Promote Saudi Arabia’s economic growth and diversification both domestically and abroad;
• Affirm Saudi Arabia’s commitment to being a responsible and constructive member of the global community.

In keeping with its mission, CIT often partners with other public and private institutions in the United States and elsewhere.

For more: www.SUSRIS.com/cit

***

ABOUT THE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION

The New America Foundation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institute that invests in new thinkers and new ideas to address the next generation of challenges facing the United States.

New America emphasizes work that is responsive to the changing conditions and problems of our 21st Century information-age economy — an era shaped by transforming innovation and wealth creation, but also by shortened job tenures, longer life spans, mobile capital, financial imbalances and rising inequality.

The foundation’s mission is animated by the American ideal that each generation will live better than the last. That ideal is today under strain. Our education and health care systems are struggling with problems of quality, cost and access. The country requires creative means to address its fiscal challenges and pay for needed public, social and environmental investments. Abroad, the United States has yet to fashion sustainable foreign and defense policies that will protect its citizens and interests in a rapidly integrating world.

Too often, these challenges have proven impervious to conventional party politics and incremental proposals. With an emphasis on big ideas, impartial analysis and pragmatic solutions, New America invests in outstanding individuals whose ability to communicate to wide and influential audiences can change the country’s policy discourse in critical areas, bringing promising new ideas and debates to the fore.

Launched in 1999, the foundation was guided through a period of rapid growth by founding president Ted Halstead. The institute is now led by President Steve Coll and an outstanding Board of Directors, chaired by Eric Schmidt. New America is headquartered in Washington D.C. and also has a significant presence in California, the nation’s largest laboratory of democracy.

For more: www.NewAmerica.net

Editor’s Note:

It has been several years since SUSRIS has caught up with His Excellency Usamah Al-Kurdi, who has been one of the most thoughtful and insightful observers of the state of the U.S.-Saudi relationship we have had the opportunity to interview for you. [You can read his perspectives on the various elements of the relationship in the pages of SUSRIS through his many interviews and articles [HERE].]

Today we were very pleased to have time with him on the sidelines of the US-Saudi Business Opportunities Forum in Chicago. Usamah Al-Kurdi has been a distinguished businessman in Saudi Arabia and today serves as a member of the Kingdom’s Consultative Council, the Majlis Ash Shura, and as Chairman of the U.S.-Saudi Congressional Friendship Committee.

U.S.-Saudi Business Opportunities Forum
On the Sidelines with H.E. Usamah Al-Kurdi

SUSRIS: What does it mean to you in the scope of your history of building bridges in the relationship to see an event like this with over one thousand Americans and Saudis together to talk about business opportunities and also about the relationship?

Usamah Al-Kurdi

Usamah Al-Kurdi: I will confidently call this the ultimate gathering of Saudi and American businesses. It shows it without any doubt, not only in terms of the number of people present, but also in the issues being discussed and the networking that is taking place. It is the ultimate grouping in terms of showing the serious interest the business people in these two countries have in each other.

It also shows a heightened level of understanding among the American business community of what Saudi Arabia has to offer. What Saudi Arabia has to offer is something that the American business community knew for many, many years. But what is unique now is what Saudi Arabia has gone through in the past few years, which continues, in terms of reforming the economy and opening new business opportunities especially to foreign investors. Things like reducing the taxation on foreign investors in Saudi Arabia and the ability of foreigners to own 100% of their operations in Saudi Arabia along with the formation of so many private sector supporting organizations.

Of course the long list of projects – approaching one trillion Saudi Riyals – has attracted the attention of the American business community. We hope that as a result of this there will be much more interest by American businesses in Saudi Arabia. Mind you, the rest of the world has already done that. The rest of the world has realized the potential Saudi Arabia has – Asia, Europe, Australia, the Americas. They are coming to Saudi Arabia in droves. I have never seen such an interest in Saudi Arabia as I see now. It is especially noteworthy as it comes in the wake of the financial crisis.

I have often said that the American business community may have missed the boat but I have regained my confidence with this conference.

***

By and About Usamah Al-Kurdi on SUSRIS:

• Business Forum Perspectives: A Conversation with Usamah Al-Kurdi – SUSRIS Exclusive – Apr 28, 2010
• Developments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (MEI) – SUSRIS – Jul 11, 2008
• The View from a Majlis Ash-Shura Member: A Conversation with Usamah al-Kurdi – SUSRIS Exclusive – Dec 31, 2006
• On Relations and Reforms: A Conversation with Usamah al-Kurdi – SUSRIS Exclusive – May 30, 2006 (Reprint)
• On Relations and Reforms: A Conversation with Usamah al Kurdi – SUSRIS Exclusive – Sep 30, 2005
• Political, Social and Economic Reform in Saudi Arabia: Interview with Usamah Al-Kurdi – Part 2 – SUSRIS Exclusive – Dec 15, 2004
• A Strong Relationship is the Only Path: Interview with Usamah Al-Kurdi – Part 1 – SUSRIS Exclusive – Dec 9, 2004
• The Dynamics of Economic and Commercial Reform: Near-Term Prognoses – Usamah Al-Kurdi – SUSRIS – Sep 27, 2004
• How to Reform Saudi Arabia Without Handing It to Extremists – Part 2 – SUSRIS
• How to Reform Saudi Arabia Without Handing It to Extremists – Part 1 – SUSRIS
• Economic Reform in Saudi Arabia – Summary of Remarks by Usamah Al-Kurdi – June 4, 2004

Editor’s Note:

On the sidelines of the US-Saudi Business Opportunities Forum in Chicago today we talked with Thomas Lippman, former newsman, scholar and author of several books on Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, including “Inside the Mirage: America’s Fragile Partnership with Saudi Arabia.” We asked him to comment on the opening day of the conference especially the implications of an event that has attracted such a large number of distinguished business people and government officials.

U.S.-Saudi Business Opportunities Forum
On the Sidelines with Thomas Lippman

SUSRIS: Is this a milestone event in the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia?

Lippman: It’s hard for me to know what kind of business conversations are going to go on other than the formal presentations. It made it possible to set up conditions for Americans and Saudis to interact and talk about opportunities and they may well be doing that. It’s really hard to know in the short term.

I was interested in the comments from the Saudi panelists including the oil minister and the director of the Capital Markets Authority, that they’re not seeing even now, enough investment in the new Saudi Arabia, and all the things going on in Saudi Arabia. We’ve been hearing this for a couple of years now and I think that’s part of the Saudi motivation for participating in this event at such a high level.

For individual Americans who are in business, they’re not here to do business with the oil minister or the commerce minister. There area a lot of Saudi business people here and there is an opportunity if you want to avail yourself of it to talk with them about what lines of investment or partnerships you might want to pursue. It’s a very good opportunity.

SUSRIS: How would you characterize an event like this – a thousand plus participants, a couple of hundred Saudis – in terms of its meaning to the overall relationship?

LIPPMAN: To me what is interesting about this is that, although you have to sign up to register, this is actually a very public event. There’s press coverage. It’s open to the media. There is no secret about it. The journalists are here. For me that’s an important step for the American business community, including existing members of the US-Saudi Arabian Business Council. They certainly, at least since 9/11
but even before that, have been a bit circumspect on doing business with Saudi Arabia. All that is off the table now. This is certainly very healthy atmospherically for both sides.

SUSRIS: Is this a new normal in the relationship?

Lippman: I hope not. This sort of conference should not be necessary.

SUSRIS: Things should just be happening?

Lippman: People should just be doing business.

Editor’s Note:

SUSRIS is in Chicago this week to cover the US-Saudi Business Opportunities Forum, a major event bringing together over one thousand Americans and Saudis to advance their mutual business interests through panel discussions and networking. The Forum was organized by the Committee for International Trade (CIT) of the Saudi Council of Chambers of Commerce in Riyadh and the U.S.-Saudi Business Council in Washington. Today SUSRIS had a chance to catch up with Mr. Omar Bahlaiwa, Secretary General of CIT, in Chicago to talk about the Forum.

U.S.-Saudi Business Opportunities Forum Perspectives
Omar Bahlaiwa, Secretary General, Committee for International Trade
April 25, 2010

SUSRIS: Congratulations to you and the Committee for International Trade for orchestrating such an important conference – the U.S.-Saudi Business Opportunities Forum. With over 1000 participants expected how does this rank in terms of bilateral conferences?

Mr. Omar Bahlaiwa: Thank you. We believe this is the largest event of its kind in the over 70-year history of the U.S.-Saudi business relationship.

SUSRIS: Tell us about the vision and objectives for the forum.

Secretary General Omar Bahlaiwa, Committee for International Trade (CIT)

The mission of the forum is to help connect the opportunities that exist in Saudi Arabia with American businesses and not just for the large corporations. We are interested in helping the small- and medium businesses discover these opportunities as well.

We also want to focus our efforts on America’s Midwest. So we came to the largest economy in the Midwest – the region around Chicago. And we have found terrific hospitality from the people of the city starting with Mayor Richard Daley and the former Secretary of Commerce William Daley, Chairman of the forum steering committee. The Chicagoland Chamber and many other organizations we have worked with have been especially welcoming.

Of course I should mention the hard work of the Saudi-US Trade Group and the U.S.-Saudi Business Council. Both did a great job in organizing the forum, and the Committee for International Trade has enjoyed working with all of the groups involved.

SUSRIS: There are a number of events this week that aren’t normally associated with conferences, such as cultural and educational outreach opportunities in the community for many of the 200 Saudi Arabians coming to Chicago. Tell us about the purpose and scope of the outreach program.

Bahlaiwa: One of the goals of CIT and the U.S.-Saudi Business Council in designing this forum was to be more than a business conference. We wanted to expand the bridges between Americans and Saudis and to leave a legacy of this event.

There are three pillars to the forum. The first, obviously, is to develop business-to-business connections, a very important component of our bilateral relationship. The second is the political element where we must have an understanding of our mutual interests. The third is cultural, which includes all forms of connections among people.

Cultural relations, building new bridges at the people to people level, was an important component of the forum and that’s what motivated the week-long outreach agenda. These visits, programs and dialogues are too numerous to detail here but they include many of the Saudi men and women, all distinguished professionals in a variety of fields, who have traveled to Chicago for this purpose.

Let me give you some examples. On Monday a group will visit the Lindblom School where a local classroom is connecting through the Internet to a classroom in Saudi Arabia for Arabic language training. Her Royal Highness Princess Loulwa Al-Faisal will be leading a delegation of Saudi women to a number of interactions throughout the week with Chicago business groups and educators. Saudi delegates will be meeting with Chicago groups like the Board of Trade, international student groups and participants at an interfaith dialogue symposia. Like many conferences that people attend the discussions at panels may fade in memory over time but the 200-plus Saudis who came to Chicago will be very busy this week creating relationships – not just at the forum sessions, but through outreach as well – that will leave a legacy from the forum with our friends in Chicago and the Midwest.

SUSRIS: The Saudi Arabian Minister of Commerce and Industry, Mr. Alireza, commented that the forum marked a view to the future. How do you interpret that concept?

Bahlaiwa: We value highly the history of the relationship, the bonds that we have had for the last seven decades and the work Americans and Saudis have done together. However, Saudi Arabia is a young country and still has much work ahead to reach its goals for the future. We are looking for partners as we work toward the future we see for Saudi Arabia and we couldn’t find a better partner than the United States.

Saudi Arabia is a country with a very large youth component. It is a country that is generating tremendous business opportunities. It is a country that is stable and has a solid environment for sustaining economic growth. It is a country that wants partners to share the future opportunities with. We see the United States as one of the best strategic partners to share in that future.

ABOUT OMAR BAHLAIWA

Omar Bahlaiwa is the Secretary General for the Saudi Committee for the Development of International Trade (CIT) of the Council of Saudi Chambers of Commerce and Industry in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Prior to this position, Mr. Bahlaiwa was the Assistant Secretary General for Foreign Affairs for the Council of Saudi Chambers of Commerce and Industry. From 1997 to 1999, he was a general manager of the Saudi company for manufacturing carpet materials (Mattex) and prior to this worked as the Vice President of Sales and Marketing at the Saudi Industrial Export Company. From 1983 to 1989, Mr. Bahlaiwa worked with the Saudi Industrial Development Fund as a technical analyst in the Project and Portfolios and Electric Utilities Departments.

Mr. Bahlaiwa holds a B.S. in Electric Engineering from the King Saud University.

Related Material

• On Doing Business: A Conversation with Omar Bahlaiwa -Trade Mission 2005

Dr. Jon Alterman
SUSRIS Exclusive Interview

Regional Challenges for U.S. and Saudi Policymakers

Editor’s Note:

The vote-rigging charges that followed the June 2009 Iranian presidential election spawned violent clashes and a government crackdown. It came at a time when Tehran’s neighbors and the West were facing security challenges from Iran, especially their nuclear program developments. To help understand the implications of political strife in Iran for the United States and Saudi Arabia we turned to Dr. Jon Alterman, Director of the Middle East Program at the Center for International Studies in Washington, for his perspective in an exclusive SUSRIS interview. His insights then remain an important context for understanding current developments:

“There’s an underlying difference in how Iran is perceived by Saudis and Americans. The Saudis, and many of their Arab allies in the Gulf, see Iran as a long-term threat, regardless of who’s in power in Tehran. This isn’t about the Islamic Republic. It’s about traditional Persian ambitions, as they see it, on the southern shores of the Gulf. 

By contrast the United States continues to try to fix its relationship with Iran. The Americans have the sense that this is a solvable problem if the United States and its allies are only able to do the right thing. But many of Iran’s neighbors don’t see this as solvable — it’s a problem that needs to be managed. So between the Gulf Arab desire to manage the problem and the American impatience to solve it, there are sometimes tensions between the two sides.”

The rhetoric and posturing over the Iranian nuclear program is heating up on both sides of the issue and the United States is shifting its policy to a “pressure phase” so we again asked Dr. Alterman for his perspective on this important challenge in the Gulf. We also wanted to know what he thought about the fallout from the U.S.-Israeli discord on the question of settlements in the occupied territories and American credibility in the region.

We talked with Dr. Alterman by phone from Amman, one stop on his journey to the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Jordan to learn more about the national security challenges posed by water shortages in the Middle East. We look forward to the results of this research but today, we are pleased to share his perspective on U.S.-Saudi challenges in the Gulf in this exclusive interview.  We also suggest you read yesterday’s SUSRIS exclusive interview with Ambassador Chas Freeman. ["The United States, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran and Israel - "An Interesting Moment" - A Conversation with Ambassador Chas Freeman"]

Regional Challenges for U.S. and Saudi Policymakers
A Conversation with Dr. Jon Alterman

SUSRIS: The signals from Riyadh, those in the public domain, are confusing about what Saudi Arabia believes should be done to staunch the Iranian nuclear challenge – no military action, sanctions are too long term, immediate action is needed. What would Saudi Arabia have the United States do about Iran?

Dr. Jon Alterman: First, there’s not a single Saudi view; there’s a range of Saudi views. There’s much more of a consensus on what the outcome should be than how to get it, and that’s not true only of the Saudis.

In conversations I’ve had with members of the Majlis Ash Shoura, the Saudi Consultative Council, about Iran they’ve backed away from saying anything specific. They say this is up to the government. There is not a broad, informed public debate in the Kingdom about the government’s position.

The most important consideration for Riyadh is that while there are short-term issues, Iran is not a short-term problem for Saudi Arabia. A major Saudi concern is that the United States might act in a short-term way and leave Saudi Arabia to deal with the long-term consequences.

It’s easy to imagine any number of things that would make the situation markedly worse. It’s hard to imagine anything that’s guaranteed to make the situation markedly better. The desire among Saudis would be for the United States not to do anything that will make the situation worse and hope that the United States can do some things that would make it better.

There is no unified Saudi view as to whether an Israeli strike would be a good thing or a bad thing. On the U.S. side, though, my discussions with both Israeli and American officials suggest that the scope and timing of any potential Israeli strike is something very much beyond the control of the U.S. government.

SUSRIS: Last week U.S. Defense Secretary Gates was in Saudi Arabia for consultations, characterized in a Pentagon press report as seeking help, ostensibly help to gain Chinese support for tougher sanctions on Iran. Talk about the nature of the US-Saudi relationship that has the Defense Secretary seeking help and specifically the involvement of Riyadh in gaining Chinese support vis-a-vis Iran.

Alterman: The United States shares a broad number of interests with Saudi Arabia. One of many is Gulf security, and Saudi Arabia plays a leadership role in the GCC.

Regarding China and UN sanctions on Iran, consider that Saudi Arabia is the number one oil exporter to China, sending about 40% more oil to China than Iran does. While there is a concern that it will be hard to get Chinese acquiescence to Security Council sanctions against Iran for its proliferation activities, consider that the Saudi-Chinese trade relationship is important to China, just as the U.S.-Chinese trade relationship is important. That may help the Chinese put its Iranian relationship in context.

For all of the talk of Sino-Iranian ties, it is important to remember this context. China is Iran’s largest trading partner, but Iran is not China’s largest trading partner. In fact, despite all the oil Iran sends to China, China has ten times more trade with the U.S., more trade with Saudi Arabia, more trade with Europe. And for most of the international community, Iranian actions are not only irresponsible, they are deeply threatening.

In this case, I believe the U.S. approach is not to tell the Saudis to squeeze the Chinese. Rather the U.S. desire is to coordinate broadly on common interests, one of which is to move forward on international action to change Iranian behavior.

SUSRIS: When Secretary Gates talked about China having been discussed with the Saudis, Riyadh quickly denied it was on the agenda. Is there some sensitivity among the Saudis about their relationship to China, a subject you explored in your book “The Vital Triangle,” in regard to security issues?

Alterman: The Saudis are mindful that that there will be a long term Saudi-Chinese trade relationship. China is one of the few growing, large oil markets in the world. The United States demand is flat. Europe is declining. When Saudi Arabia looks toward expanding markets, China is the most significant expanding oil market in the world. So that relationship has been growing and will continue to grow.

The Saudis are not about to order the Chinese around about how they should behave. However, the Saudis can and will underline a shared interest in Gulf security, the shared interest in non proliferation, the shared interest in the security of supply, which requires different behavior from Tehran than we have seen for the last several years.

SUSRIS: What’s your general assessment of the Iranian nuclear challenge for the United States and Saudi Arabia?

Alterman: When I speak to the leadership in the Gulf, there is a broader sense that their concerns with Iran are not short-term. They did not begin and will not end with the nuclear program. The challenges will have to be managed far into the future – a concern about the longer-term Iranian role in regional security. With respect to the nuclear issue, I am convinced that if America’s Gulf allies were presented with the choice between a nuclear Iran with the U.S. playing a deterrent role in the Gulf, or a non-nuclear Iran where the US pulls out of the Gulf, they would prefer the former. The Gulf states are not only trying to shape what the Iranians do in the long term, they are also trying to shape what the United States will do in the long term.

The cold hard reality is that no country or combination of countries can guarantee the security of the Gulf in the way the United States has done and will continue to do.

SUSRIS: The U.S.-Israeli relationship has colored America’s standing in the Arab and Muslim world but now there’s a report, by Mark Perry of Foreign Policy, that U.S. military leaders like General Petraeus of CENTCOM are surfacing concerns that “Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region .. and could cost American lives.” That question and the dispute between Washington and Tel Aviv over settlements suggest the game is changing. Is it and how does that play among America’s Arab allies, especially Saudi Arabia?

Alterman: There’s no question that the Arab-Israeli conflict is not only an irritant in the region, but an irritant in the U.S. relationships with governments and people throughout the Middle East.

That’s not new. What is new is what I sense to be an emerging divergence of strategy among some Americans and Israelis. There are Israelis who say military operations like the ones against South Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2008 and 2009 are necessary military engagements that need to be carried out to deter and defeat hostile forces among its neighbors in perpetuity.

Some Israelis refer to it as “mowing the grass.” It is not something one likes to do but it is something that has to be done every few years. I don’t sense this is acceptable to many Americans. If there is an Israeli strategy of carrying out limited military operations every few years, resulting in the deaths of thousands – rather than an embrace of an ongoing diplomatic process the United States has been pressing for years to resolve the conflict – it will have a profound effect on the U.S.-Israeli strategic relationship.

It hasn’t happened yet, but I think what we have been seeing is more than a mere personality clash. We are starting to see a divergence in strategy about how Israel should respond to its neighbors.

SUSRIS: How do you think America’s Arab allies, like Saudi Arabia, view the current tension between the Obama Administration and the Israeli government?

Alterman: On this trip in the Middle East I have yet to hear anyone claiming any satisfaction about what is happening between the leaderships. There’s a lot of disappointment in what people see as the unfulfilled promises of the Cairo speech. There’s a lot of alarm in what people see as the policies of the Netanyahu government.

I don’t see an appreciation for the Obama Administration’s efforts, but I do sense that the mood for change – that accompanied Obama’s election – still lingers. While the euphoria of the Cairo speech has started to dwindle, we are still at a very different point than we were in 2008 when there was active hostility to what people saw as American heavy-handedness in the region.

SUSRIS: Can you talk about your current visit to the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Jordan for research on the connection between security and water scarcity?

Alterman: Over the next twenty years, the most likely source of political and social instability in the Middle East will not come from armies crossing borders or revolutionary plots, but will from populations in countries that have simply run out of water. The governments will not be able to provide for their agriculture and their populations. That’s a profound change in the way people see national security in the Middle East, and a marked shift from policies developed in the 1970s to provide food security. In many ways, efforts to develop security have laid the seeds of insecurity. A lot of it has to do with the use of water for agriculture. It is simply unsustainable in many places.

SUSRIS: You’re exploring the potential for conflict?

Alterman: Yes. What I’m looking at isn’t the possibility of interstate conflict so much as intrastate conflict—the possibility of depopulating capital cities, massive refugee flows, and epidemic diseases. It’s not a case of fighting over the water, it’s a case of simply running out. It has profound prospects for dislocations to happen and change the landscape of the region.

SUSRIS: Thank you for sharing your perspectives on these issues with us today and we look forward to learning more about your new research work.

About Jon B. Alterman

Jon Alterman is director and senior fellow of the CSIS Middle East Program. Prior to joining CSIS, he served as a member of the Policy Planning Staff at the U.S. Department of State and as a special assistant to the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs. He served as an expert adviser to the Iraq Study Group (also known as the Baker-Hamilton Commission) and is a professorial lecturer at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

Before entering government, he was a scholar at the U.S. Institute of Peace and at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. From 1993 to 1997, Alterman was an award-winning teacher at Harvard University, where he received his Ph.D. in history. He also worked as a legislative aide to Senator Daniel P. Moynihan (D-NY), responsible for foreign policy and defense. Alterman has lectured in more than 20 countries on subjects related to the Middle East and U.S. policy toward the region.

He is the author or coauthor of three books on the Middle East and the editor of a fourth. In addition to his academic work, he is a frequent commentator in print, on radio, and on television. His opinion pieces have appeared in the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Asharq al-Awsat, and other major publications. He is a member of the editorial boards of the Middle East Journal and Transnational Broadcasting Studies and is a former International Affairs Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

CSIS Profile – Jon B. Alterman

About CSIS

CSIS provides strategic insights and policy solutions to decision makers in government, international institutions, the private sector, and civil society.

At a time of new global opportunities and challenges, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and policy solutions to decisionmakers in government, international institutions, the private sector, and civil society. A bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, DC, CSIS conducts research and analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change.

More About CSIS

Related Material:

• The United States, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran and Israel – “An Interesting Moment” – A Conversation with Ambassador Chas Freeman – SUSRIS Exclusive Interview – Mar 22, 2010
• Middle East Notes and Comment: Dangerous Brinkmanship – Jon B. Alterman – CSIS – Mar 16, 2010
• Connecting Mideast Peace Dots to America’s Regional Standing – SUSRISBlog – Mar 16, 2010
• U.S. Seeks Saudi Help for U.N. Iran Sanctions – SUSRIS IOI – Mar 13, 2010
• Defense Secretary Gates in Riyadh – SUSRIS Blog – Mar 10, 2010
• Why Saudi Arabia Does Not Support Iran Strike – Seznec – SUSRIS IOI – Mar 11, 2010

Editor’s Note:

“Something new” and “significant” is how Ambassador Charles Freeman, Jr., described some of the recent developments in the Middle East affecting the United States and its relationships in the region. In our exclusive interview with Freeman, a distinguished career diplomat who served in America’s Foreign Service during Desert Storm as U.S.Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and former President of the Middle East Policy Council, we asked about the critical issues including US-Saudi cooperation in dealing with the Iranian nuclear program, high level U.S. officials’ visits to the Kingdom, relations with China including questions about its position on UN sanctions, American credibility in the region and the fallout in the Middle East from American-Israeli discord over continuing construction of settlements in occupied territories and the peace process impasse.

In reviewing the last of those items, the Obama Administration’s condemnation of continued settlement building, we were reminded of our previous exclusive interview with Ambassador Freeman in July 2009 when we talked about Saudi rejection of an American request for “reciprocal gestures” to earn an Israeli settlement freeze.  ["Gestures and Illusions: Assessing Obama's Riyadh Visit - A Conversation with Amb. Chas Freeman"]  At the time he said, “None of the gestures that have been made, including the very important one of the Arab League’s Beirut Declaration of 2002 — the so-called Arab Peace Initiative — has resulted in any positive response from the Israelis. They have been content to pocket whatever has been offered and to do nothing in return.” He added, “The matter at issue is much less than Israel pulling settlements out of the Occupied Territories. The United States is now simply asking Israel to stop their expansion. While that would be a very useful first step in getting back into a dialogue or process that could lead to peace, in itself it doesn’t produce peace. It doesn’t undo the damage that Israel has done to the prospects for peace by building settlements all over the place.” Freeman noted, “The biggest point of delusion, if you will, on the American side is that somehow or other if Israel could be persuaded to stop doing the self-destructive things that it has been doing – among them settlement building — that this should evoke an Arab, particularly a Saudi, gesture intended to make it worth Israel’s while. This is simply not reasonable from the perspective of the Arabs.. ..I would say the Netanyahu government has not just zero credibility on this in the region and more broadly in the international community, but it has actually less than zero credibility. That’s because almost everybody believes it is acting insincerely and in a deceptive fashion. So in this context to ask the Arabs to do something for Israel just seems quite unrealistic.”

We are pleased to offer Ambassador Freeman’s insights and perspectives on these issues to you for your consideration and thank him for sharing them here.

The United States, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran and Israel – “An Interesting Moment”

A Conversation with Ambassador Chas Freeman

SUSRIS: Thank you for your time and insights on developments in the U.S.-Saudi relationship and the current challenges in the Middle East. Let’s start with the approaches being taken by Washington and Riyadh in dealing with the Iranian nuclear program. There have been a number of high level visits recently by American officials to Riyadh including Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates. Can you talk about the U.S. and Saudi Arabian approaches on the this issue?

Ambassador Charles Freeman: There is a disconnect, not so much a contradiction as a disconnect, between the Americans’ concern and the Saudis’ concern about Iran. The United States has been very much stimulated by and fed by Israeli apprehensions about Iran’s nuclear weapons program, if it indeed has one, as I tend to think it does.

The Saudi concern is more about Iranian political inroads into the Arab East, the Mashriq, in particular its dominant political role in Iraq, its alliance with Syria, the ascendancy of its ally Hezbollah in Lebanese politics and the embrace of Iran by Hamas. The Saudis tend to see the nuclear weapons issue as yet another building block in Iranian prestige and potential influence throughout the region. All of this comes at a time when Baghdad has been flattened, Cairo is obsessed with its own domestic issues of succession and the Muslim Brotherhood’s growing strength, and Damascus is largely sidelined. Riyadh is the only significant Arab player on security issues in the Mashriq vis a vis Iran. So we start from somewhat different concerns, ours being military, theirs being political.

Meanwhile there is an interesting development with the American military expressing concern about the impact of the Israel-Palestine conflict on U.S. interests, that is similar to longstanding Saudi views. That conflict is the main force radicalizing politics in the region and the view coming forward from the military is that the Israel-Palestine issue harms U.S. interests and thus threatens the lives of our troops. This is close to the Saudi view that the unresolved Israel-Palestine conflict offers a predatory power like Iran too many opportunities to extend its influence.

General Petraeus, the CENTCOM Commander, is now saying, in effect, that he sees the merits in what the Saudis and Foreign Minister Prince Saud al Faisal, in particular, have been saying for a very long time. That is, the path to dealing effectively with challenges like those posed by Iran begins with a focus on resolving the Israel-Palestine issue. So that is something new and it is something that I think is quite significant.

SUSRIS: Are you referring to Mark Perry’s report on FP.com last week that discussed the American military’s heightened concern about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being a major source of radicalism in the region and possibly contributing to the loss of American military personnel?

Freeman: There was also General Petraeus’ testimony on the Hill. Those statements are among the arguments Prince Saud and others in Saudi Arabia have been making for years and they have now found official acknowledgement, if not perhaps full endorsement, in the United States. That is new.

No one who has seriously looked at the difficulties that the U.S. confronts in the Arab and Muslim worlds does not understand the connection to this central issue of injustice and humiliation of Muslims at the hands of a Western sponsored country in the region.

SUSRIS: A day after his recent meeting with Saudi leaders Secretary Gates mentioned in public that the discussion included the possibility of Riyadh’s aid to get China onboard UN sanctions against Iran. The Saudis disputed his account. What is your impression of the state of play among the U.S., Saudi Arabia and China in dealing with Iran? What can we expect to see develop as a result of these consultations and the respective interests of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia?

Freeman: I’m not holding my breath for much of a result. Again there are very different perspectives. In the case of the denial, I fear that that as all so often is the case, American visitors to Riyadh may not have correctly parsed what the Saudis had to say. They may have come away having heard what they wanted to hear rather than the very nuanced statements that the Saudis typically make. The Saudis are exquisitely polite — to a fault — and by and large not prone to blunt disagreement with visitors. I suspect there may have been some honest confusion, for which there is ample precedent, for the different accounts as to what happened.

With respect to China, from the Saudi perspective, there are a number of relevant factors. First, there has apparently been a request for the Saudis to displace Iran as a supplier of oil to the Chinese. That is, that they make up, or offer to make up, to the Chinese oil supplies that they would lose as a result of joining an international effort to isolate Iran and cut it off from international trade through sanctions.

The first problem with that proposition is the OPEC context. Saudi Arabia would be in a very difficult position if it were to unilaterally assert it could displace the market of another OPEC member without concern for the overall quota. In fact Saudi Arabia has been vigorously attempting to persuade other countries to return to compliance with the quotas. For the Saudis themselves to suddenly set aside the whole OPEC context and act unilaterally would be difficult and would also be out of character.

The second issue is the notion that sanctions could bring about a major policy change in Iran – sufficient to derail nuclear ambitions. That is highly questionable. Certainly the Chinese don’t believe that it could. The Saudis believe if sanctions could be effective that would take a very long time. In the meantime Iran would continue the inroads that it has been making with Arab peopleS around Saudi Arabia, including other countries on the Arabian Peninsula. So from the Saudi perspective a slow roll approach to Iran represented by sanctions isn’t going to accomplish much and isn’t responsive to the problem. That is why Prince Saud Al Faisal continually refers to the need to address the Israel-Palestine issue as the one area where you could get an immediate sea change in the political basis for dealing with Iran.

China for its part, one must recall, has a long history of being subject to sanctions, and not just any sanctions. They were UN sponsored, U.S. enforced. They were global and comprehensive. They were directed at regime change in China and they were part of the containment strategy that was intended to hold China down. It didn’t produce regime change. It did produce a hardening, not a softening of Chinese policy. Ironically it wasn’t until those sanctions were removed that China began to change in positive ways and to become part of the Western originated world order, which it now is.

So the Chinese have a view of sanctions, based on their own experience, which is very negative. They also don’t like the philosophy that sanctions represent: a coercive diplomacy, by very large powers, in this case the United States, against smaller and weaker powers, that is Iran. Again, their own experience with coercive diplomacy at our hands probably informs this view. But they don’t relish the prospect of a world order where the strong bully the weak, as they see it, through sanctions or by any other means.

There is also the general question of Chinese policy in the Middle East, which has several elements. One of them is to develop stable trading relationships that provide a reliable flow of energy to China’s growing economy. Iran is very much a part of that with about 15% of China’s oil imports coming from Iran at present. Why in the broader sense would China see it in its interest to agree to narrow the sources of supply by excluding any country from those willing to export oil to it? So there is that rather selfish but understandable national interest as well.

Finally, there is the Chinese policy in the Middle East of avoiding involvement in other people’s fights and in not taking sides. China has good relations with Israel and it has good relations with the Arab countries. It has good relations with Iran and it doesn’t want to get into the middle of battles – in which its stake is not clear – where the possible fallout, the consequences for China, could be rather large.

For Saudi Arabia there is a desire to be part of the emerging Chinese network of relations, to have a stable relationship with it and to retain and develop China as a major market for downstream oil industry activities. China, along with India, is the market of the future, where major growth in energy consumption is likely in coming decades. Even if the Saudis felt they could exert pressure on China they would be very disinclined to do so, especially to achieve something they have their own doubts can be achieved by sanctions.

SUSRIS: If tougher sanctions are not put in place or prove not effective in altering Tehran’s behavior that raises the issue of a preemptive military strike against Iran, either by the United States or by Israel, which some believe may act without American approval. What are your views about a military response?

Freeman: The premise there is that the United States is powerless to influence or control the actions of a country, in this case Israel, that it heavily subsidizes and whose weapons mostly come from it rather than from within their own production capabilities. So we start off by saying the United States is powerless in this case.

It isn’t a very appealing argument for sanctions that the alternative is a strike by Israel on Iran. To begin with it’s not very credible. I don’t think others would find that Israel would act in such a way because the only motivation to do so would be to draw in the United States. They would hope to provoke Iran into doing something against the United States that would require the United States to attack Iran.

An Israeli attack on Iran, or even worse an American attack, would have dire consequences for many U.S. interests. They are so dire the Chinese would have to believe that we were completely insane to seriously contemplate them and they don’t believe we’re insane. What are the consequences? Let me outline just some of them.

First, Iran would almost certainly act against the smaller Gulf states in the region, perhaps attempting to overthrow the governments of Qatar – where the U.S. has use of an airbase from which we control the airwars in both Iraq and Afghanistan; and Bahrain where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is headquartered.

They would probably act on the ground through proxies in Iraq and possibly Kuwait as has been suggested. They certainly have the capacity to carry out major disruptions in the UAE if it supported, or was complicit in any way in a U.S. attack on them. Similarly they could do grave damage in Oman.

It is very likely, under these circumstances, that we would lose the use of those air and naval bases thereby greatly impeding if not rendering impossible the ability to conduct operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Then there is the question of whether the Saudis would continue to permit U.S. overflight of the Kingdom in connection with a U.S. war on Iran. That would make them complicit and would justify Iranian countermeasures against them. Nobody in the region wants this.

Just look at the military logistical issues involved. If you couldn’t get to Iraq over Saudi Arabia and through the smaller Gulf emirates you would be supporting US forces either through Turkey – which is not likely to be supportive in this context either – or from Diego Garcia, which given the distance involved is essentially impossible. You are looking at a replay of the retreat of Xenophon’s Ten Thousand. This time it would be 50,000 American troops and extracting forces from Iraq would be a very nasty task in the midst of combat with Iran.

In Afghanistan the air war and other military operations depend on, respectively, aerial refueling support staged out of the Gulf and ON truck transport through Pakistan, which comes in through Pakistani ports. If the U.S. attacked Iran the Pakistani public would be outraged. The government in Islamabad, given its association with us, might not survive. Even if it did survive we’d be hard pressed to continue supplying our forces in Afghanistan through Pakistan.

Without the support from the Gulf airbases we would be dependent on a route across Russia, and what would the Russian attitude be toward a unilateral attack on Iran? Would they take the opportunity to advance their interests in the broader Islamic world at our expense? These are just a few of many of the downsides of a military operation against Iran.

SUSRIS: You suggested that Iranian pursuit of a nuclear weapon would be viewed by Riyadh as one more building block in Iranian influence and prestige in the region. If Tehran cannot be prevented from becoming a nuclear weapon state what would Saudi Arabia’s reaction be in your opinion?

Freeman: Saudi Arabia has lived for over four decades with an Israeli nuclear arsenal. In many ways it’s far more menacing to Arabs than the arsenal the Iranians might eventually develop. I believe Iran probably does have a weapons program, because everything they are doing seems to me to parallel steps taken by David Ben Gurion and other Israeli leaders at a comparable stage in their clandestine program. The Iranians probably read the Israeli playbook. I give a lot of credence to the Israeli judgment that Iran has a nuclear program. The Israelis see that in Iran’s reenactment of Israel’s own evasion of non-proliferation controls.

So I believe Iran is in the process of developing nuclear weapons. I am very pessimistic that it can be prevented from doing so and I think the Saudis and others will have to learn to live with that as they have done in the case of the Israeli nuclear arsenal. There is no doubt that THIS will make life less secure for the Saudis. They could, in the circumstance where Iran gets a nuclear weapon, turn to Pakistan for a nuclear umbrella either in the form of a commitment or in the form of a nuclear garrison on Saudi soil. It would replicate U.S. nuclear deployments in South Korea and Germany during the Cold War.

So I think the Saudis would not be unconcerned but they have already been living in the shadow of a nuclear-armed enemy. They know how to cope with this.

SUSRIS: Let’s talk about America’s standing in the region. The positive reaction to President Obama’s Cairo speech to the Muslim world seems to have disappeared, largely as a result of America’s failure to energize the peace process primarily through achieving a settlement freeze in the Occupied Territories. Israel’s announcement of more construction in East Jerusalem during Vice President Biden’s visit led to American condemnation of Israel over the settlements and a straining of that relationship, characterized by Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. as at the lowest point in 35 years. How are these developments likely to be viewed by America’s Arab allies?

Freeman: The current confrontation with the Netanyahu government over settlements comes in the context that hopes raised in the Obama Cairo speech have long since evaporated and the United States has no credibility to speak of on this issue. It’s too early to say whether the Administration is in fact serious about pressing for a two-state solution. Let’s not be misled. This is not about the timing of an announcement by the Shas Party component in the Netanyahu Cabinet. It’s not about — at least from an American perspective, as opposed to a perspective of Israeli voters — whether Netanyahu controls his Cabinet effectively. It’s about whether the process of annexing Arab land and colonizing it – in areas that under international law do not belong to Israel and where such activities are expressly forbidden – is going to continue. Ultimately it’s about whether the two-state solution, which is almost impossible to imagine now, becomes completely impossible to imagine because it has become physically impossible to implement. That’s what it’s about.

Most people in the region understand this very well. Perhaps it raises some hope of a willingness on the part of the Obama Administration to speak out against settlement building. I would note the Quartet has appeared to have done the same in its Moscow meeting and has demanded a freeze on settlements in Jerusalem. However, it does not do more than raise a glimmer of hope. It does not restore credibility. That can only come when there is actual progress. At this point nobody wants a peace process; they want peace. They’re not going to be swayed or assuaged, nor will they be persuaded that the United States is serious until there are results. The prospects at this point are very uncertain to say the least.

President Obama’s speech at Cairo demonstrated conclusively that he understands the centrality of the Israel-Palestine dispute to the difficulties we have in dealing with the Arab world and the Islamic world more generally. That is, it is that dispute which radicalizes Muslim populations throughout the world, but particularly in the Arab core of Islam. It is that dispute which makes it difficult, as General Petraeus has just said, for governments to cooperate with the United States or for populations in the Arab world to support such cooperation. Finally there is the radicalization and antipathy to the United States that ultimately generates a threat to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, throughout the theater of operations that General Petraeus commands.

The President clearly understands this and General Petraeus cannot be saying anything that Mr. Obama did not understand long before. There can be no doubt about his understanding and his sincerity but at this point there is virtually no confidence in his ability to deliver.

As I have said, I believe Israel’s concerns about Iran are real. I don’t for a minute question the sincerity of those concerns and I don’t think they are without basis. I don’t happen to believe they are as grave as the Israelis think but still they are serious concerns. Yet to a great extent the Iran issue has been used by Israel as a diplomatic diversion to take attention away from its activities closer to home and focus the United States on a threat that’s relatively far away and still conjectural. That attempt at diversion of attention has been dealt quite a blow by the ineptitude of the Netanyahu government. He has insulted the Vice President of the United States and provoked a confrontation with the United States on the issue of settlements and peace with the Palestinians.

SUSRIS: What final observations on developments would like to share with SUSRIS readers?

Freeman: I would say that the challenges we have been discussing are taking new directions. For the first time we have open discussion of what has long been discussed only “off-mic,” namely the damage the Israeli pursuit of settlements and disregard for international law does to our own national security interests in the region. For the first time we have an Administration that has been willing to join with others in condemning Israeli colonization of Arab lands. For the first time we have recognition that Jerusalem has not been legally annexed by Israel and is not different from other occupied territories — according to the Quartet’s Moscow declaration to which I referred.

Perhaps the Israelis, who are smart people, will be put in a position where they can calculate rationally that it’s not in their interest to complete the colonization of Palestinian lands at Palestinian expense. Otherwise, if there’s no consequence to their doing so they will, of course, go ahead and do it. The question then is whether the international community and the United States are finally prepared to impose consequences. I don’t know the answer to that. But it is an interesting moment.

SUSRIS: Thank you Ambassador Freeman for sharing your perspectives on these important questions with us today.

Related Material:

• U.S. Seeks Saudi Help for U.N. Iran Sanctions – SUSRIS IOI – Mar 13, 2010
• Defense Secretary Gates in Riyadh – SUSRIS Blog – Mar 10, 2010
• Why Saudi Arabia Does Not Support Iran Strike – Seznec – SUSRIS IOI – Mar 11, 2010
• Gestures and Illusions: Assessing Obama’s Riyadh Visit – A Conversation with Chas Freeman – SUSRIS Exclusive Interview – Jul 28, 2009
• President Barack Obama’s Visit to Saudi Arabia – SUSRIS Special Section

Editor’s Note:

When “Raiders of the Lost Ark” star Harrison Ford met Captain Joe Grant at last summer’s Oshkosh air show he called him the “real Indiana Jones” reflecting on his pioneering role in the birth of civil aviation in the Kingdom. Joe, 101 years old, delivered a DC-3/Dakota airplane, a gift from President Franklin Roosevelt, to King Abdulaziz, to Saudi Arabia and stayed on as his pilot in the 1940s. Now this adventure is being told through a book by Michael Saba in “King Abdulaziz: His Plane and His Pilot,” which had a national launch at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, in November.

This month is the 65th anniversary of the meeting between FDR and King Abdulaziz aboard the USS Quincy in the Great Bitter Lake segment of the Suez Canal. The wartime meeting of American and Saudi leaders marked the beginning of the official high-level relationship between the United States and the Kingdom. A side story to the shipboard summit was the gift of an airplane from Roosevelt to the Saudi King, the airplane that Joe Grant delivered to the King. SUSRIS is pleased today to introduce you to a book chronicling this fascinating story of the early days of US-Saudi relations in words and photographs, many not previously published, through our conversation with the author.

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

King Abdulaziz: His Plane and His Pilot
A Conversation with Michael Saba

SUSRIS: Thank you, Doctor Saba for joining us to talk about your book, “King Abdulaziz: His Plane and His Pilot.” How did the book come about?

Michael Saba: It came about as a result of getting together with the Navy crews of the USS Quincy and USS Murphy, at the 2005 anniversary of the February 14, 1945 meeting at sea between President Roosevelt and King Abdulaziz. The Quincy carried Roosevelt from the Yalta Conference, with Churchill and Stalin, and the Murphy transported the King from Jeddah to the rendezvous in the Suez Canal for talks that were the first of their kind between these countries.

I was part of a group that put together a reunion of men from those ships in Miami along with relatives of the principal players – King Abdul Aziz, Franklin Roosevelt and Colonel Bill Eddy. At the reunion were Delano Roosevelt, a grandson of the President; Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah, a son of the King; and Jake Eddy, a nephew of Colonel Eddy, who was a very important figure in the early official relationship.

We assembled a good bit of background information for the reunion and found the Quincy meeting to be a fascinating turning point in history. One of the more interesting aspects was that Roosevelt and the Saudi leader seemed to have developed a great rapport and the American President gave Abdulaziz some gifts. First was a wheelchair. Roosevelt had two with him on the ship and noticed the difficulty the King had in moving about. Second, and much more importantly, was a DC-3 airplane – at the time a state of the art workhorse of aviation.

Further research about the gifted DC-3 showed it had flown as the first aircraft in the Saudi Arabian Airlines system and was in service until the late 1970s when it was mothballed. We also learned it was still around. It had been found in an airplane junkyard in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s and put back together by Boeing. It was restored to flying condition for the commemoration of King Abdulaziz’ 100th birthday and flown over to Africa and some of the old routes. Afterwards it ended up in a museum in Riyadh operated by the Ministry of Defense and Aviation.

We talked with people at the Riyadh museum about the DC-3 – there had been thoughts about bringing it to the United States for airshows – and we discovered that the original pilot who delivered the plane was still alive. And that’s Joe Grant, the subject of the book.

Joe was at that time, this would have been 2005, Joe was about 96, and he was an active businessman, still going to work everyday in Stamford, Connecticut. He had retired as a TWA pilot in 1968 at the age of 60. I contacted Joe and found that he had all these wonderful stories about delivering the plane, about being the King’s pilot, some fascinating stories. And he had hundreds of photos that were sitting in his basement. So with all that incredible history waiting to be shared I decided to put together a book to tell that story.

SUSRIS: The President Roosevelt and King Abdulaziz meeting was the first summit for the countries. What was its significance?

Saba: A good friend, Hassan Yassin, the son of King Abdulaziz’ foreign affairs advisor, Yousef Yassin, told me that when the King was asked about a meeting with Roosevelt, he asked to know more about America. Of course, at that time the British and Churchill were pursuing the Saudis quite heavily. They were getting oil out of Persia, Bahrain and Kuwait but were not really into Saudi Arabia in those days. Still, Churchill had always seen the Kingdom as in the British sphere of interest.

In any case, the King asked Yousef two questions. First, do the Americans believe in God? The answer was yes of course. Second, do the Americans have colonies? And the answer was no. The King then said he wanted to meet him. The meeting was a tremendous surprise to Churchill who scrambled to have a meeting right after that with the King. They met on a British cruiser in the Suez Canal after the Roosevelt meeting.

Roosevelt was described to me by crewmembers of the Quincy and Murphy who saw the way he related to the King. Churchill, famously, was a cigar smoker and he smoked in front of Abdulaziz. When Roosevelt, a chain smoker, wanted a cigarette he’d excuse himself and go have a cigarette privately. Roosevelt liked an afternoon cocktail but he didn’t drink at all with the King present. Churchill took a glass of liquor while the King was there. Abdulaziz noticed that. Churchill also gave a gift to the King and it was a brand new Rolls Royce automobile, thinking he’d out-do Roosevelt’s gift of a DC-3. The Rolls Royce, however, had the driver seat on the right side, which was where the King customarily sat. So he chose not to use the car which is now in a museum, never having been used. The DC-3, by contrast was used by the King – with Joe Grant as its pilot. It eventually became the first plane in the Saudi Arabian Airlines fleet along with three more DC-3s that were brought in while Joe was there. So the upshot of the meeting with Roosevelt, and by contrast the following meeting with Churchill, was that the Saudi King was left with very good feelings over a relationship with the Americans.

SUSRIS: What did you learn about the results for the American delegation?

Saba: One of the more interesting outcomes of the meeting was that Roosevelt was very impressed with the King. He returned to Washington from the Yalta Conference, and his meeting with Abdulaziz, to share comments like he learned more in five minutes with the Saudi King about the Middle East than in all his years from all his advisors.

The King had talked with him about many things, about the new relations with the United States in the future, etcetera. He also talked extensively about Palestine and the issues of the day that the President should consider very seriously before he made any decisions. I think he had a great effect on Roosevelt’s attitude about the Palestine question. Of course, Roosevelt died less than two months after meeting Abdulaziz. So these issues were left to President Truman.

SUSRIS: That’s where this story shifts to pilot Joe Grant in Saudi Arabia.

Saba: Yes, Joe Grant was the pilot picked to deliver the plane, the gift from Roosevelt. He had been a TWA pilot since before the war and was quite experienced, unlike a lot of the younger pilots that we hear about — the 20 year old “boy wonders.” He was already in his 30s when World War II started. Joe was assigned to transport troops across the Atlantic. He was based in Cairo in 1945 and was told, “Joe you’re the guy to deliver this plane. “

Prince Faisal, later King Faisal, came to Cairo to facilitate the plane delivery. Joe, with the Prince onboard flew the plane in to the Kingdom, into Jeddah on the Red Sea coast. At the time there was an airstrip in Jeddah and another one in Dhahran in the Eastern Province, but there were no airfields at all in the rest of the Kingdom.

SUSRIS: Getting the DC-3 to Jeddah wasn’t the end of the story?

Saba: Not at all. After they reached Jeddah Prince Faisal told Joe, “Now you have to deliver the plane to my father in Riyadh.” Joe headed to the capital across a country with no navigation aids, not even a road to follow. He told me he used the sun to keep his course to Riyadh until he saw the palace. Joe circled and, since there was no airstrip, he just landed in the desert. He showed up and said here’s your plane.

The King was enthralled with the whole process and he asked Joe to stay with him as the pilot for his new airplane. The war was still on but Joe got the assignment to stay with Abdulaziz where he served as the King’s personal pilot for the next two years.

SUSRIS: What was Joe’s flying routine?

Saba: Most of the flying he did in those two years was just hops from one piece of the desert to the next. He took the King on many hunting trips. He took the King and his people around to meet various people like tribal leaders around the country. Joe would land in the desert and take out a bunch of stones and line them up which often became the location for airports in places like Taif and Tabuk and other parts of Saudi Arabia. The original airport was where Joe landed and put out a bunch of rocks and a tent.

SUSRIS: What did he learn about King Abdulaziz?

SABA: Joe told me he was fascinated with the King, in the sense of how insightful a person he was. Abdulaziz had only been outside Saudi Arabia once, and that was when he went to the Suez Canal in 1945 to meet President Roosevelt, but he was a very smart man even if not a world traveler.

The King had the view that in the West, the United States in particular, had been settled with railroads and roads and other infrastructure but he had the view that the Kingdom could develop quickly through the use of aviation. Airplanes would get people around the country, to communicate throughout the Kingdom, to deliver people on the Hajj. So one of the earliest routes that Joe helped to develop was a route from Damascus and Haifa down to Saudi Arabia for the Hajj.

SUSRIS: When did Joe leave the Kingdom?

Saba: He left in 1947. He said he regrets that to this day. He was there on loan from TWA, which eventually became the consulting group to set up Saudi Arabian Airlines. Many of the TWA pilots and administrators from that era have very fond memories of Saudi Arabia and vice versa. Joe left in 1947 and didn’t go back until he went with a group of us in 2006 when he got to get back inside his DC-3. There was a second trip to the Kingdom with Joe, early last year.

SUSRIS: Can you tell us about that visit to the Kingdom?

Saba: We talk about Joe’s 2009 visit in the last part of the book. That’s when he met the King and other senior members of the Royal Family. They all had fond memories of Joe flying them around Saudi Arabia as young men and boys.

It was quite an amazing visit. We met King Abdullah at his Janandriya farm, where he hosted President Obama last year. The respect the King showed Joe was incredible. We spent about four hours with King Abdullah and the senior princes who came to that meeting which was really a Majlis of sorts – although it was much more informal than those I had seen in the past. We watched television, some soccer matches together. It was great fun.

Other senior princes would come in to visit with Joe and say things like, “Joe do you remember the time when..?” There were some great stories. For example, Prince Badar, who is almost as old as King Abdullah, said, “Joe do you remember when I was a young man and my mother was in a small village and we flew from Riyadh to pick her up because she was sick? We had to fly her back to Riyadh. Do you remember that?” Joe answered he did a lot of that and couldn’t recall that particular flight. The Prince pressed him on the story. He said, “We took off for the village, we landed in the desert, we picked up my mother and she was so ill. We took off for Riyadh. We circled. And only one wheel of the airplane would come down. Then you tried everything to get the other wheel down and it wouldn’t come down. So you said well there’s only one procedure I can do. It was to come down, bounce off the desert with the one wheel, hope that that would push the other wheel down, which in fact it did, then circle and then land. You saved our lives, Joe.” And Joe said it was just his job. There were many other great stories like that. They all had wonderful memories of Joe and great respect for him.

SUSRIS: You mentioned having access to so many great photographs of civil aviation in the Kingdom and the culture and traditions of Saudi Arabia from that early era. Is “King Abdulaziz: His Plane and His Pilot” a book of photography?

Saba: It’s much more readable than a coffee table book. We’re looking at a second edition that would include many, many more of the photos from Joe’s collection. We’re also looking at an Arabic edition that would include notable Saudi personalities, who were not as relevant for the first edition. It is what we called the “Oshkosh” edition which, in addition to telling Joe’s story and showing some of his pictures, also traces the history of civil aviation in Saudi Arabia. How it all got started. How it became the largest fleet in the Middle East, 20th largest in the world. And it all started with Joe Grant, sort of the uncle to the whole thing, starting with his time as pilot to the King of Saudi Arabia.

Let me say a little more about the Oshkosh air show, besides what a fantastic event it is every summer. Last year Joe was the honored guest at the event and he will be honored again there this summer. There will be a fleet of privately owned DC-3 Dakotas at the show, possibly with Joe leading the formation. We are working to get the DC-3 that was President Roosevelt gave to King Abdulaziz for Oskhosh, the original aircraft flown to Saudi Arabia in 1945 by Joe.

SUSRIS: How is this story relevant to the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States?

Saba: There’s just a great reservoir of love and concern about America that remains based on what people like Joe Grant and the people at Aramco and other Americans did for the people of Saudi Arabia. Those warm feelings remain and are reciprocated through the wonderful hospitality and respect that is shown.

If you recall what I mentioned about King Abdulaziz questioning his advisors about America, about whether the United States had colonies and do the people believe in God? Great respect was given to that. I think it is relevant even today, when people are questioning whether the relationship is strong or worthwhile. It’s good to know there’s that kind of feeling about it.

I would also mention that Joe is a very astute businessman. He is the world’s largest manufacturer of puzzle rings. They were originally developed in the Middle East and he brought them to America and now he’s the world’s largest distributor – under his trade name Jose Grant. In any case, the business opportunities he sees in the Kingdom are tremendous. He sees what is happening on the business front and has decided he wants to get into manufacturing in the Kingdom and building an operation there, so that’s what he’s doing, and he’s almost 102 years old. I think that’s symbolic of another part of the relationship, the business opportunities. They exist and are waiting for Americans, not only for guys like Joe but for other Americans who are saying, “Business is hurting these days, I wonder where I should go?” Well, what about Saudi Arabia. If a 101 year old guy can figure it out and say I’m going to get this done and it’s going to be in my family’s legacy, then I think a lot of other people should be able to figure it out too.

SUSRIS: Thank you so much for sharing this exciting story.

About Michael Saba, PhD

With over 40 years of experience in Middle East relations, Michael Saba PhD also lived in Saudi Arabia and consulted businesses there for over three decades. As the former president of GulfAmerica, an international business and health services company, Dr. Saba facilitated trade between the United States and the Arab Gulf.

Dr. Saba also served as Manager of Middle East Public Affairs for the Mobil Oil Corporation and assisted in the development of the book, “The Genius of Arab Civilization,” which was produced by the Mobil Oil Corporation.

Saba has traveled extensively and served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Malaysia as well as a Peace Corps trainer in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Saba also served as Vice President International for St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital/ALSAC in Memphis, Tennessee. He speaks six languages and serves on many international committees, which promote cross-cultural and international relations.

Note: The book, “King Abdulaziz: His Plane and His Pilot,” can be ordered through the www.GulfAmerica.com Web site. A portion of the proceeds from book sales there goes to the Disabled Children in Aviation fund.

Related Information:

• Book Home Page and Ordering Information – “King Abdulaziz: His Plane and His Pilot” by Michael Saba
• A Perspective on Saudi Aviation – Book Foreword – Prince Sultan bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud
• Bear in the Air – Joe Grant, DC-3 Pilot for Saudi King – Feb 4, 2010
• 101-year-old pilot to give first-hand account of the beginnings of U.S.-Saudi relationship – General Aviation News
• At 101, King Abdul Aziz’s pilot has no plans to slow down – Arab News – Mar 23, 2009
• King Abdullah receives U.S. pilot Joseph Grant – SaudiEmbassy Press Release – May 21, 2009
• King Abdulaziz Medal Awarded to Joseph Grant – SaudiEmbassy Press Release – Jan 28, 2009
• Captain Joe Grant honored with Hart Award – SUSRIS IOI – Mar 26, 2007
• Joe Grant at the 2009 Oshkosh AirVenture
• Captain Joe Grant Barnstorms Oshkosh Air Show
• The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques receives Joe Grant
• Jose Grant Home Page
• Debut of the book “King Abdulaziz: His Plane and His Pilot” – Saudi Commission for Tourism and Antiquities

Editor’s Note:

Today Dr. Rob Sobhani launched his new book, “King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia: A Leader of Consequence,” in Washington at a new book event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In this exclusive SUSRIS interview we talk with him about the objectives and scope of the book, and the insights he gained about the Saudi ruler. His research took him to the Kingdom six times in the last two and a half years to talk with Saudis and others from all walks of life, to gain perspective on King Abdullah’s impact on the important issues of the day in the Kingdom. We are pleased to share Dr. Sobhani’s perspectives on the rule of King Abdullah and to provide information about this book that adds an important chapter to the dialogue on U.S.-Saudi relations.

“King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia: A Leader of Consequence”
A Conversation with S. Rob Sobhani

SUSRIS: What led you to focus on King Abdullah for a book length project?

S. Rob Sobhani: There was a vacuum of strategic thinking as it concerns U.S.-Saudi relations that needed to be addressed. I felt it was important to highlight the role that King Abdullah could play in this bilateral strategic relationship but also the connections to the broader global issues we face, such as global warming, the war on terrorism, financial instability and so forth. So, the impetus was to fill in that strategic vacuum – between Saudi Arabia and the United States, and globally.

SUSRIS: What is it about King Abdullah that led you to name him a “Leader of Consequence” in your book’s title?

Sobhani: I chose the title “Leader of Consequence” because out of the four top leaders in the world, the first three being those of the United States, China and Russia, the leader of Saudi Arabia is truly a leader of consequence because his actions matter very much to the world.

If King Abdullah decides tomorrow to shut the Kingdom’s oil spigots because he doesn’t like U.S. policy, the price of oil would go through the roof. If the King decides he doesn’t like Dutch cartoonists caricaturing Prophet Muhammad he could have millions of Arabs in the streets chanting “Death to America” or “Death to the West.” But he is doing the exact opposite of those things. That is why he is a leader of consequence. His actions matter and they matter right now.

SUSRIS: What has been the King’s focus?

Sobhani: First and foremost, in my opinion, he has created a free zone of dialogue within the Kingdom. Issues that were taboo before are no longer taboo. He is standing up to terrorism, domestic and external terrorism, not only through guns – although if necessary he does and will — but also through rehabilitation. He is actually using the Koran as a weapon against extremists.

One of his accomplishments that concern the United States and the U.S. public is his action at the Opec Summit a few years ago to support the U.S. Dollar. King Abdullah stood up against some of the more radical elements of Opec who wanted to move the currency basket of the organization away from the Dollar and to the Euro.

These are a few of the things I believe make this King different. But I wrote the book because I believe the United States has an honest partner that it can work with to solve some of the pressing problems that we face whether it is terrorism, whether it is the Arab-Israeli conflict, whether it is global warming. King Abdullah is a partner. If the United States extends a hand to King Abdullah, he will be more than glad to shake that hand and sit across the table and start solving these problems. I believe that the U.S. needs to understand that this is a window of opportunity that will probably not come back again soon if it is allowed to close. So we need to grab this opportunity while it exists and solve some of these problems to our mutual benefit.

SUSRIS: Is your book about the man or the relationship?

Sobhani: The focus is on the man. The focus is on what he has accomplished, what his vision is, the effects and consequences of his actions. The man himself. Who are we talking about? Who are we dealing with? It was not a five-year endeavor to write a book about King Abdullah. It’s a profile rather than a biography. This is really a profile of a statesman, the purpose of which was to get Washington to open its eyes and to realize that we have a partner we can work with. That’s the book.

SUSRIS: What has King Abdullah brought to the table in his time on the throne?

Sobhani: The number one development in my opinion is the National Dialogue he instituted, giving the country a forum to discuss formerly taboo issues. Whether it was Shia-Sunni dialogue, whether it was women’s issues, whether it was extremism and terrorism. The National Dialogue has been a major contribution.

Second was to put Saudi Arabia’s economic house in order – getting it into the World Trade Organization and making the economy and financial environment more attractive. If you look at the figures, Saudi Arabia is now the number one destination for foreign direct investment in the Middle East in part because King Abdullah demanded and achieved transparency from the bureaucracy.

The third area was the institutionalization of Saudi political culture. Consider, for example, the changing of the education system. He made Prince Faisal, a Western educated guy, responsible to look at the entire curriculum program and to institutionalize educational reform. The institutionalization of the succession – he has put together the succession council, which oversee selection of future rulers.

In the area of foreign policy, King Abdullah has shown enormous wisdom in oil pricing making sure there is a fair return for producers but also being aware that consumers could be hurt by too high oil prices.

There is his philanthropy. This is a guy who watches TV. He sees something on TV and it affects him. Whether it’s in Lebanon or Gaza, or Haiti he has been extending his philanthropy to all parts of the world. His generosity has reached the United States. He has funded programs for under privileged kids here in the Washington- Baltimore area and elsewhere in America. So this is a man whose philanthropy is driven by what he sees and he acts from the heart.

SUSRIS: What about challenges he faces? Robert Lacey, author of “Inside the Kingdom,” recently talked to SUSRIS about the push back from conservatives over the newly launched King Abdullah University of Science and Technology campus being coed. There’s competition, friction, between progressive and conservative elements in the Kingdom. How has he done in this regard?

Sobhani: I think you touched upon it really. The challenge is to move forward yet move at a pace that doesn’t create a violent backlash from conservative elements, and the only person who can do it is King Abdullah. He is pious. He is religious. People like him because of his piety, because of his religiosity, and that’s why he can push these issues.

When a radical imam gets up and says satellites are “haram,” or forbidden, Abdullah can take a stand and say, “You know what, it’s not.” Yes, a major challenge he faces is the extreme conservative, violent elements of Saudi society that, in my opinion, are no different from extremists in other parts of the Muslim world. It all boils down to power. The radical elements want people to be ignorant and that is why education becomes so important. They do not want modernity, because modernity means taking away their power. The extreme sheikhs and imams in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere thrive on ignorance. To the extent the population is ignorant means the ignorant population goes to the imam and sheikhs for answers. That is why King Abdullah’s reforms in education are so crucially important.

Of course there are some imams who don’t act that way. There are those who believe the Koran is the blueprint for enlightenment. They point to the Golden Age of Muslim thinking, when Islam, the Muslim world was light years ahead of Europe. They point out the need for jihad, or “struggle,” for building airplanes instead of the jihad of taking airplanes into buildings.

SUSRIS: Look ahead. You talked about King Abdullah as a global leader but there are problems in every corner of his region. Challenges from Iran, the Middle East peace process, what’s happening in Iraq, what’s happening in Yemen. How does he approach all these challenges?

Sobhani: In Yemen I think he is making progress. I think he has gotten the President of Yemen to realize there must be good governance. Part of the reason Yemen is moving toward failed state status is the lack of good governance, so I think Abdullah has a good approach there. The Houthis, the rebels in the north of Yemen, have been told to listen, to either shape up or the Saudis are coming in – and they have gone in.

The biggest challenge to the region and to Saudi Arabia remains Iran. It is the warehouse of bad ideas, the warehouse of destruction. But King Abdullah is torn, and I say this because I’ve talked to his people. He’s torn because he sees so much potential in the Iranian people. He feels Iran is a rich country with a lot of culture and history but does not like the policies of the Iranian government. Iran is his biggest challenge.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is often times stoked by Iran’s involvement in funding terrorist groups like Hizballah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad and not allowing the peace process to go forward. For King Abdullah the Palestinian situation is the most important issue. For him to be able to walk in Jerusalem one day, is a dream and that is why he wants this it resolved.

SUSRIS: What should Americans know about King Abdullah as a man. His background. What brought him to be the man that he is today?

Sobhani: I think it may sound like an exaggeration but consider that King Abdullah is a hybrid of – shares some characteristics of – American Presidents Washington, Jefferson and Eisenhower, in the sense that he is very well liked, he has vision, he is not reluctant to make difficult decisions, and when he makes a decision he moves forward confidently. The American public and policymakers need to know that King Abdullah is a partner that we can work with. We should take advantage of his willingness to work with us because this window of opportunity may not present itself again, since we do not know who will replace King Abdullah when he is gone.

If President Obama wants to tackle global warming why don’t we marry American technology and King Abdullah’s desire to solve it. If you want to tackle radicalism in Yemen or Pakistan why not do a major rehabilitation project throughout these countries. Learn from the Saudi experience. If we want to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, well King Abdullah already has a plan. Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders and the Arabs will normalize relations. He’s serious. He means it. Why not bring all the parties together. Not in front of cameras. Behind close doors and resolve this. King Abdullah is serious, he is sincere and he can deliver the Arab world.

SUSRIS: Have you gained any perspective on what the period after King Abdullah might look like.

Sobhani: It would be a few years of, not confusion, but soul-searching. Saudi Arabia will use that period to figure out its identity. That identity will be driven by the next ruler but also by factors outside Saudi Arabia. What will Iran look like? What will Yemen look like? What will Iraq look like? Is the Arab-Israeli question resolved? The post-Abdullah period in Saudi Arabia will be a period, in my opinion, of soul-searching and trying to find an identity.

SUSRIS: Last thoughts on your book on King Abdullah?

Sobhani: It was a labor of respect. It was my own initiative that I hope will serve as a bridge between Saudi Arabia and the United States, a bridge of understanding between our two countries. That’s really what I’m hoping will come out of it.

About S. Rob Sobhani

Dr. S. Rob Sobhani is the President and founder of Caspian Energy Consulting. Dr. Sobhani is a business consultant, with an academic background, who specializes in corporate and government relations.

Dr. Sobhani founded Caspian Energy Consulting (CEC) in 1991 to specialize in negotiating projects for clients with business interests in the Middle East and former Soviet Union. As a means to achieving a company’s goal, CEC puts together a comprehensive strategy that includes country risk analysis, public relations, lobbying the host government on behalf of the project, and maintaining the image of the client as a corporate citizen in the host country.

Until 2005, Dr. Sobhani was an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University where he taught courses on U.S. foreign policy and energy security. He is a frequent contributor to op-ed pages of major U.S. newspapers and has appeared on domestic and international television and radio programs discussing U.S. foreign policy and energy markets. Dr. Sobhani is also a guest lecturer at major conferences dealing with international energy security.

In addition to his professional and academic background, Dr. Sobhani sits on the Board of or is otherwise affiliated with a number of organizations. He sits on the Board of Mohawk Innovative Technologies in Albany, New York. He is Deputy Chairman of Washington Capital Partners. Dr. Sobhani also serves on the Board of Directors of c5I Corporation and General Magnetic Sciences. Dr. Sobhani is also a member of the bi-partisan Committee on the Present Danger.

Source: Caspian Energy Consulting

About “King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia: A Leader of Consequence”

Date of Release: February 24, 2010
Ordering Information: Email Dr. Sobhani < ceccyrus@aol.com >

Related Information:
Caspian Energy Consulting Home Page

Editor’s Note:

Yesterday SUSRIS began a week-long observance of the 65th anniversary of the historic meeting between President Franklin Roosevelt and King Abdulaziz on February 14, 1945.  It launched the official relationship between Washington and Riyadh that has been one of America’s longest-standing strategic partnerships and set the building blocks in place for the cooperation that has endured over 65 years.

Today we are pleased to share our exclusive SUSRIS interview with foreign policy specialist and author Rachel Bronson describing the historic significance of the FDR/Abdulaziz meeting.  Dr. Bronson was interviewed on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Great Bitter Lake meeting.  At the time she was a senior fellow and Director of Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, and was completing work on her book “Thicker than Oil: The United States and Saudi Arabia.”  It is a book we recommend to you to understand the complex and important connections between these strategic partners.  In 2007 Bronson became Vice President of Programs and Studies at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

FROM MARCH 17, 2005

SUSRIS EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW

President Roosevelt and King Abdulaziz – The Meeting at Great Bitter Lake: A Conversation with Rachel Bronson

Introduction:

Sixty years ago Allied forces were closing in on Nazi Germany and victory in Europe was just months away. For a week in early February, U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt met Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin at Yalta in the Crimea to discuss the shape of post-war Europe. The summit ended on February 11, 1945 and FDR departed for a rendezvous at the Great Bitter Lake, a waypoint along the Suez Canal in Egypt, with Saudi Arabia’s King Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman Al-Saud. The King, known as Ibn Saud, sailed from Jeddah aboard an American warship to the meeting with FDR. The two leaders’ focus was shaping the future relationship between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Rachel Bronson, Director of Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of the forthcoming book, “Thicker than Oil: The United States and Saudi Arabia,” recently spoke with SUSRIS about the meeting. In this conversation she provided the historical context of the meeting and perspective on the relationship that resulted from FDR’s and Ibn Saud’s rendezvous at Great Bitter Lake.

The Meeting at Great Bitter Lake

SUSRIS: Thank you, Doctor Bronson for talking with us today about the early days of the official relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Tell us about your research and about the 1945 meeting at Great Bitter Lake.

Rachel Bronson: I’ve been working on a book called, “Thicker than Oil: The US and Saudi Arabia,” that examines the political relationship, the diplomatic history if you will, between the two countries from 1945 to the present. It looks at how the relationship has evolved over time and what has kept the two countries so closely together.

SUSRIS: Why did the leaders of the United States and Saudi Arabia meet, especially when America was still engaged in fighting the war in Europe and the Pacific?

Rachel Bronson: What brought FDR to the Great Bitter Lake? Officially he went to Great Bitter Lake because of oil. He was sailing back from his meeting at Yalta. It was a very dangerous time for him to be deviating from his path. We were still in the thick of World War II and ships were very vulnerable. He decided while he was out there he was going to meet three leaders. Abdulaziz was one of them. While he was there he met King Farouk and he met the Ethiopian king.

The meeting seemed to be a last minute thing. Two weeks before he went to Great Bitter Lake he sent a memo to the king saying he would like to talk about oil; although oil is not the main part of the conversation as far as I can tell. It’s hard to believe they didn’t speak about it, but they spoke about other things as well.

When Churchill learned FDR was going he was beside himself since the British and the Americans were competing for influence in the peninsula. So Churchill decided he wanted to meet Abdulaziz and King Farouk as well. So FDR sailed in and Churchill came in behind.

Getting back to why does he go? Well, FDR had actually said in a previous trip he had taken to Tehran [1943] that he really did want to stop and meet the Saudi monarch. He wrote a letter to Abdulaziz saying he was sorry he was not able to stop to meet him but if there were future trips to the region he would very much like to.

There are a number of reasons he was interested. First of all, what became very clear was that both Abdulaziz and FDR were very curious about the charismatic leadership of the other. I think it was Harry Hopkins, adviser to FDR, who was skeptical of the meeting. He felt Roosevelt just wanted to go out and meet the monarchs in the region. It’s in part true. They were both very much taken by the other. Each had the other described to him in larger than life terms and wanted to meet the other.

There were other reasons to meet. Oil was obviously very important – its importance had been clearly shown throughout World War II. But King Abdulaziz, who had been essentially neutral throughout the war, was tending toward the Allied side. He had allowed the Allies to use Saudi Arabian airspace and made it easy for them to operate in the region. That was of considerable importance. In 1945 the United States was working to get permission to help build a base at Dhahran, which was going to be incredibly important for moving troops from Europe to the Pacific theater. In the end it wasn’t needed because the war was ending. But Abdulaziz’s leaning toward the Allies was important to the United States and that was another important reason to meet him.

SUSRIS: What did they discuss?

Rachel Bronson: There were not many details reported about the meeting — they talked about development, and agriculture among other things. The big issue they talked about was Palestine. FDR realized that Palestine was an emerging problem and he wanted King Abdulaziz’s help.

As far as the results of those discussions, if you go back and look at a letter that Eleanor Roosevelt wrote to her friend Joseph Lash she reported that FDR was a bit disappointed that he could not get more from the king on the Arab Israeli conflict. Mrs. Roosevelt was really behind the Jewish cause, but her take on the meeting was that FDR didn’t get any solution, which he would have liked. However it was an important, very symbolic meeting.

One of the striking results, on a personal level, was the story about the wheelchair. FDR and Abdulaziz met on the USS Quincy and Abdulaziz was lumbering toward FDR who is sitting in his wheelchair, sort of the old statesman. King Abdulaziz says something to the effect, “Aren’t you lucky you have something like that to move you around?” Roosevelt had an extra wheelchair and gave it to Abdulaziz. It became one of the king’s most prized possessions. It was a symbol of their friendliness and the appreciation one had of the other.

SUSRIS: What other gifts were exchanged?

Rachel Bronson: The Americans gave an aircraft and the British gave a car. Churchill met with King Abdulaziz after the Great Bitter Lake meeting with FDR but it just didn’t go as well.

For instance, on one hand FDR, a smoker, was determined not to smoke in Abdulaziz’s presence. He could have but he wanted to be respectful. There are stories of FDR finding a room and smoking in a stairwell quickly before he would meet with Abdulaziz.

Winston Churchill, on the other hand, was a smoker and he was going to smoke. He had a drink and a smoke and all that was fine, but Abdulaziz was really taken with the respect shown by FDR.

It extended to the exchange of gifts as well. FDR gave King Abdulaziz an airplane, as I mentioned. Churchill sent a car, but the steering wheel, of course, is on the right hand side because it’s British. It turned out that the position of respect is on the right hand side of the vehicle. So if the King was driven in it, and he wanted to sit in the front, he would have to ride on the driver’s left. So apparently he never drove in it. It suggested to the King a lack of cultural sensitivity on the part of the British.

In the case of FDR’s gift of the aircraft, it was actually very useful. The Americans also supplied an American crew for the plane. The British car ended up sitting in a garage.

SUSRIS: The different approaches of the respective FDR and Churchill meetings with Ibn Saud are interesting — the smoking, the gifts and so forth — but what were the other dynamics at play in the Saudi’s differing views of Americans and British.

Rachel Bronson: I think the King was certainly familiar with the motivations of each side. It goes back to 1933 and awarding the oil concessions to the Americans. The Americans were interested in the business arrangement and were not interested in culturally rearranging the country the way the British were known to do. They were not a colonial power. That meant an awful lot to Abdulaziz, one of the only rulers in the area not colonized. He trusted the Americans in that they were unlike the British who were more meddlesome.

King Abdulaziz clearly had a good grasp of geopolitics. He understood that the Americans were the up and coming international actors. He was more comfortable working with them in large part because of their lack of a colonial past. For those reasons he allowed the United States to build a base whereas the British had a much harder time getting access to the kingdom. So there were the geopolitical reasons, and he was culturally more at ease with Americans and had less to fear from them.

SUSRIS: How did concerns for the post-war balance of power vis-a-vis the Soviet Union enter into FDR’s approach to the relationship with Saudi Arabia?

Rachel Bronson: The concern for the Soviets came later. I’m sure it was in the back of his mind, but it didn’t appear as an issue that was front and center. The purpose of a US base at Dhahran was really to help get troops to the Pacific theater of war. So their focus was on the war itself.

Later there were concerns about how you protect the oilfields from a possible Soviet invasion south, especially when they saw the Soviet provocations concerning Iran. There was a concern that emerged on the US side of, “Whoa, wait a minute, the Soviets are coming.” But in terms of building the relationship in 1945, I think it was mostly the competition between the British and the Americans. How do you secure the position there for the United States — oil, industrial and development interests?

SUSRIS: When observers talk about the scope of the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia they often refer to the Great Bitter Lake meeting. How would you characterize the meeting in terms of the longer historic relationship?

Rachel Bronson: They do because it was the first time the President visited that part of the region and it was the first time American and Saudi leaders met. I see it as the beginning of official relations between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Up to that point there were some shared interests in oil — the concessions in 1933 — but it was February 14, 1945 that marks the beginning of official US-Saudi relations.

SUSRIS: In his book “Inside the Mirage,” Thomas Lippman talked about Colonel William Eddy, the Naval Attaché in Egypt, as the “impresario” of the Great Bitter Lake meeting. Can you talk about the part he played?

Rachel Bronson: At the time the United States did not have ambassadorial representation in Jeddah and a lot of what we were doing was out of Egypt. Bill Eddy was one of the best “Arabists.” He had grown up in Lebanon and he was one of the best that America had in the region. So it made perfect sense that he was the interpreter. That he was the interpreter for both sides was also very rare.

SUSRIS: Eddy recorded his observations in a monograph called, “FDR meets Ibn Saud.” Can you talk about his perspectives?

Rachel Bronson: Yes. It talks about the promises that were made. My book is going to discuss these issues. There is the letter from Eleanor Roosevelt, that I already mentioned, to suggest that the results might not have been so neat and clean as Eddy suggests.

SUSRIS: Thomas Lippman, again in “Inside the Mirage,” relying on Eddy’s account, said the Saudis came away from the meeting believing the Americans would not move on the Palestine question without prior consultation with the Arabs. How did this commitment play out?

Rachel Bronson: It is the question of consultation that is the key. FDR wouldn’t have made promises about what he would do in the future but he apparently agreed to consult with them. That was what became a big issue. They felt that Truman never consulted with them, except just before something happened.

For example, at the UN, Faisal, Abdulaziz’s second son, was blindsided by the United States move forward for a Jewish state. It wasn’t an active negotiation process. It wasn’t even an active dialogue. They didn’t feel they were consulted. Truman’s response was, “Of course you were consulted. I was never unclear about what I was going to do.”

In fact, Truman was unclear about what he was going to do. Truman heard arguments from both sides and wasn’t really sure until three days before he decides on the recognition of Israel. That’s the part the Arabs felt that FDR had promised them. If nothing else they would be consulted on how to proceed and it turned out they were not.

SUSRIS: Other than the discussion of Palestine how did the Saudis view the outcome of the Great Bitter Lake meeting?

Rachel Bronson: It was a huge success. There’s a stream of letters exchanged after the meeting about their excitement to meet each other. There were statements that FDR was a great man and it was confirmed by the meeting. There were very warm feelings between the old physically challenged leaders.

The king had taken risks about going. There was some worry that when he was away there would be domestic unrest at home, but he took those risks to meet the President. Even going on the ship was a challenge. He had only been on a ship once before.

The gift of the wheelchair was very symbolic. It became very cherished. Visitors would be shown the wheelchair. The airplane was used. It was a very, very warm meeting and set the tone of the relationship.

About Rachel Bronson

[Updated in 2010 from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs]

Rachel Bronson is a senior fellow and Director of Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations where she is concluding research on her forthcoming book Thicker than Oil: The United States and Saudi Arabia, a History, under contract with Oxford University Press (2005). She co-directed the January 2003 report “Guiding Principles for US Post-Conflict Policy in Iraq,” co-sponsored by CFR and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. She has testified before Congress’ Joint Economic Committee on the topic of Iraq’s reconstruction, and the President’s 9-11 Commission on whether or not the US is involved in a “Clash of Civilizations.”

Dr. Bronson is the recipient of the Carnegie Corporation’s 2003 Carnegie Scholars award. She has served as a consultant to the Center for Naval Analyses, as a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., and as a Fellow at Harvard’s Center for Science and International Affairs. Her writing has appeared in publications such as Foreign Affairs, Survival, The New York Times and The International Herald Tribune. She has commented extensively in the media including CNN, BBC, NPR, Washingtonpost.com and al-Jazeera and is a consultant for NBC news. She received her doctorate from Columbia University in Political Science in 1997.

Related Material:

• Arabian Knight: Col. Bill Eddy USMC and the Rise of American Power in the Middle East – Introduction Excerpt by Thomas Lippman – SUSRIS IOI – Sep 19, 2008
• 65th Anniversary of Key Saudi-US Meeting – Excerpt from “Inside the Mirage” by Thomas Lippman
• Sailor was a piper to history – 60th Anniversary of Historic Meeting between King Abdulaziz and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt – SUSRIS IOI – Feb 13, 2005
• “The Day FDR Met Saudi Arabia’s Ibn Saud,” by William A. Eddy, Colonel, U.S. Marine Corps, Retired, First U.S. Minister Plenipotentiary to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1944-1946)
• “F.D.R. Meets Ibn Saud,” by William A. Eddy