St. Louis Post – Dispatch
June 11, 1996
The tragic loss of American lives in two terrorist attacks in the Saudi Arabian cities of Dhahran and Riyadh calls for a reassessment of the U.S. Persian Gulf policy based on the social transition taking place in the region.
During three tours in the past five years, I have seen rather dramatic changes in the Saudi political outlook that I did not think possible in such a short time in that extremely conservative society.
In October 1991, a Saudi young man in a “Desert Storm” T-shirt told me in Jeddah that U.S. soldiers had done a “good job, very good job” in the war against Iraq. A year ago, he complained that his country has become “an American colony.”
The presence of the U.S. troops is resented by many Saudis who view them as abettors of repression and a symbol of the monarchy’s subservience to the United States. Five years ago, the Saudis often characterized their king, Fahd, as “wise,” “noble” and “intelligent.” Today many of them, once assured of the confidentiality of the conversation, refer to him as “our playboy king” and “an American puppet.”
The current succession feud among fun-loving princes, the government’s economic belt-tightening measures and democratic reforms in neighboring Yemen, Kuwait and Jordan also have heightened the Saudis’ resentment against their autocratic monarchy. The ailing Fahd has practically abdicated in favor of Crown Prince Abdullah, one of the late King Abdul Aziz’s 45 recorded sons by 22 wives. Abdullah, who so far has had more than 30 wives (though not more than four at a time), is resented by his three half brothers who are in the Cabinet and a fourth who is governor of Riyadh. Younger Saudis, exposed to the outside world, are galled by palace intrigues and the licentiousness of the royal family.
The monarchy’s staunchest critics are the post-oil boom generation. They are usually educated, widely traveled and in tune with the world. They admire Western freedom and democracy and resent being disenfranchised and muzzled. No Saudi talks politics in a public place – unless it is empty. Government spies are more ubiquitous in Saudi Arabia than anywhere in the Middle East.
The Saudis’ yearning for political liberalization is shared in much of the gulf, especially by the youths who make up more than 50 percent of its population. Neighboring Bahrain is reeling from a four-year-long struggle for the restoration of a suspended parliament. The Bahraini monarchy has been trying, so far unsuccessfully, to suppress the movement through arrests, jail terms and torture. On May 30, Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, flew in to announce “the United States’ support for . . . measures taken by the Bahraini government to confront acts of violence and sabotage.”
In other gulf sheikhdoms, sparse population and a tight security apparatus have so far enabled those dynasties to keep a lid on dissent.
If the history of Iran is any indication, U.S. support of repressive regimes would further inflame the public against them and would jeopardize Western interest in the region. On the other hand, the U.S. relations with Pakistan, Turkey, Yemen and Jordan show that this country can have productive relations with participatory Muslim governments.
The Clinton administration should announce its support for gradual liberalization in the gulf political systems and press the monarchies to follow up on the policy. Totally dependent on the U.S. security umbrella, they cannot resist such pressure. By promoting freedom in the gulf, the United States would best serve its own long-term interest in the region.
