Saudi Arabia-6: al-Dar as-Sa'ud 3.0

August 6, 2005

US nationals held as hostages in Iran

I only point this out because the initial intrusion of the Saudis into US politics occurred in a way that was not, certainly at first, an unpopular event. The Kingdom had many of the same reasons Westerners did for dreading the Revolution, plus some others of its own. It would be highly misleading to imply that the Saudis subverted American democracy with ready cash for the Iraqi War; the US State Department had many high officials eager to see the most powerful Soviet ally tied down in a war with an ostensibly Fanonist regime. Nonetheless, and this is extremely important, the manchinery of the Republic is so contrived to resist adopting evil as a temporary expedient; this is why laws are made to conform to universal principles, and why the constitution stands apart from the sundry acts that congress may pass in a single session. And so it was that only the conditions of utter disregard for the law, stimulated in the ways I explain below, corrupted the Republic and made it a slave to transitory "expedients."

King Fahd was admired for making himself indispensible to the centers of power, investing shrewdly, bargaining sharply, and matching Reagan in Cold War adventurism. Many observed he was jeopardizing the nation making making the same enemies as the USA, without the means to fight back that the USA enjoys. In fact, he was a crucial part of the trans-European project (TEP) of professionalized imperial trusteeship. The flow of financial capital into the USA from European nations reflects satisfaction by investors in US policies, and the reluctance of EU member governments to interfere in this flow (in fact, their assistance through official eurodollar reserve accumulation) demonstrates that even famously dissenting leaders don't dissent very much. I would argue the division of opinion between leaders of EU member states from those of the USA, are more a division of labor: there's no need for them to endorse unpopular policies German or French voters would reject anyway. Saudi Arabia offers the USA, for its part, the merchant banking services of imperialism: the ready cash that allows the president to urinate on the legislature.

When a principled stand becomes pointless, people are likely to abandon it. This occurred to me as an explanation for Ahmadinejad's victory in Iran's recent presidential elections: the reformists were tired of taking risks that got them only token victories, or only a stalemate. Going to the mat for someone like Rafsanjani was a joke. The other voters, the bazaris and the peasants and urban proletariats, would as soon have voted for Anatoly Chubais as Rafsanjani. Americans of the antiwar movement, American feminists, Americans of color, or Americans in labor movements, were tired of principled stands that only increased their taxes or made them feel guilty. Sure, the 55-year old veteran of marches to protect a woman's right to choose would prefer a candidate that was pro-choice; but she doesn't want to spend money sending someone else's children to failing schools. And if her neighbors, including younger women who are sexually active, don't care, why should she? The union member may resent the way the suits treat workers, but his position is secure, and he's tired of the coddling of thugs, drug addicts, and illegal immigrants. Once upon a time he agreed these were social problems that required a social solution; now he ridicules the idea it would ever happen. And when a legislator wakes up to discover a principled stand against violations of international law accomplishes nothing, and is costly, he learns to call people like Oliver North a hero.

That's what happened when the White House decided it was going to get those swathy Latin Communists: terrorism and illegality. It made no difference if a firebrand who marched against the Vietnam War stood up to the sanctimonious killers; the POTUS could ignore him, and get the short-term funding from a foreign monarch. A little act, token, symbolic; Nicaragua has fewer people than Papua New Guinea, and it's about as rich. However, to the people who sink money into election campaigns, it was stunning: members of Congress who had resisted funding reactionary terrorism were suddenly faced with opponents with campaign warchests backrolled by the Fuggers.

When resistance was useless, and congressmen had to deliver the bacon, then they turned their attention to avoiding issues in which they would run afoul of the White House. If the White House, in turn, wanted to a take a principled stand, there was no Prince Fahd to help out. Principled stands should be easy to get domestic funding, right?

This is not intended to demonize the Saudis, who are merely a uniquely rich (and now, uniquely well-position) monarchy. They have their own problems, and there are things they cannot accomplish, much as they would like to. For 30 years now, they have been pushing for a two-state solution in Palestine, which is the only conceivable resolution; Congress is now devoted to posturing, not attacking problems sincerely.

Saudi Arabia now suffers blowback in the USA.

SOURCES & RECOMMENDED READING: Prof. Albert Hourani, A History of the Arab Peoples, Harvard University Press, 1991;

Prof. Ira M. Lapidus, A History of Islamic Societies, Cambridge University Press, 1988;

Library of Congress Country Studies: Saudi Arabia Excellent, critical articles on Sayyid Qutb at Paleo Ideofact: on his Social Justice in Islam, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16; on Milestones (both links are to complete text online): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 7; 8. The significance of Sayyid Qutb to Islam is confined to ideological debates now raging in the Islamic world; Qutb's views cannot be construed as related to Salafism ("Wahhabism"), the established religion of Saudi Arabia.

NOTE: 1 An useful source of information about covert actions against civil society by both the KGB and the CIA during the Cold War is the International Centre for Security Analysis (ICSA), King's College, London, UK. I was especially impressed by "Interfering With Civil Society: CIA and KGB Covert Political Action during the Cold War," by Kevin A. O'Brien; this was published in the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence (Winter 1995): 431-456.

In my struggle to find an unimpeachable source for the allegation that the CIA and the Soth African BOSS helped Jonas Savimbi's UNITA movement in Angola (one of the most odious things the US government ever did) I stumbled across this paean to Reagan at the Heritage Foundation.

In another part of the world, when Soviet-backed forces formed a government in Angola in sub-Saharan Africa, the United States promptly allied itself with the anti-communist Union for the Total National Independence of Angola (UNITA), led by Jonas Savimbi. Savimbi became a favorite of many conservatives — he was even dubbed the "George Washington" of Southern Africa by Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus. Reagan began helping UNITA in 1985 when congressional proscriptions on assistance were lifted

Apparently no one has come up with convincing evidence that the CIA had any connection to RENAMO, the White Rhodesian-created terrorist organization that devastated Mozambique—apart from providing "engagement" with the RSA while it sustained the terror campaign there.