I feel that I have written this article before, perhaps about Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain or another country. Today, I write about Saudi Arabia, and I ask once again who gave the United States the right to interfere in our internal affairs, and decide what is good for us or not. I am not writing to defend any Arab country. I have not done so in the past nor do I do so today. Instead, I am criticizing the American side which builds what may benefit or harm solely on the basis of its oil needs and the interests of Israel. This means that every single stance by the U.S. runs contrary to the national interests of the countries in question, and the interests of the entire nation. The Obama administration, despite the good intentions of the president, has taken a negative stance on Bahrain, only to reverse its position under pressure from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The United States clumsily expressed its support for the opposition, i.e. the Shiite majority, just like Iran did, but cunningly. As a result, the U.S. harmed both the government and the opposition. It encouraged an extremist minority within the opposition to call for the downfall of the regime, with the result being that the regime sought the downfall of the opposition with the help of GCC member states. Had the administration encouraged the Bahraini opposition to negotiate and accept what the government offered it, and wait for a better chance in the future to make more demands, no confrontation would have taken place, and both the government and the opposition would have come off better. I reiterate today what I said each time I wrote about Bahrain, which is that the opposition has many legitimate demands and it is the duty of the government to meet these demands. The relations between Riyadh and Washington have been strained a lot in the past two months, and have quite possibly deteriorated to the level seen in the aftermath of the occupation of Iraq in 2003. Saudi diplomacy was dismayed over the U.S. administration's abandonment of Hosni Mubarak. According to American sources, Saudi Arabia refused to receive U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates last month. When King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz received Gates last week, the American official was cautious, and told the journalists after the meeting that he did not raise with the king the issue of sending Saudi troops to Bahrain. Then this week, Obama sent National Security Advisor Tom Donilon after the Defense Secretary, to Saudi Arabia and the UAE to discuss the crises in the region. I say here that the people of the Gulf are more knowledgeable with their affairs than anyone else, just like the people of Mecca know it better than anyone else, as the saying goes. If they agreed to support themselves in Bahrain to fend off the threat of Iranian meddling and incitement, then it is arrogance when a foreign official from thousands of kilometers away comes and claims that his opinion is more correct than the opinion of the people of the country in question themselves. Perhaps I would not have written this entire article, were it not for an op-ed published last week in the Washington Post, by Martin Indyk, entitled “Amid the Arab Spring, Obama's dilemma over Saudi Arabia”. First of all, the so-called Arab spring began near the end of last autumn in Tunisia, lasting all winter, before spring came. But at any rate, it is a phrase used in English even if it contradicts the calendar. Secondly, the dilemma is Saudi Arabia's over the U.S., not vice versa. Saudi Arabia signed an arms deal with the United States worth 60 billion dollars, and is now negotiating to purchase warships, missile defenses, helicopters and patrol gunships, with facilities for the latter on the coasts. But Saudi Arabia pays a very high price for its military purchases from the U.S., while being required to produce more oil, in excess of its people needs in terms of oil revenues, to keep oil prices low. Saudi Arabia does all this while the United States gives Israel weapons free of charge, to continue its occupation and murder and to threaten us. Indyk said that the solution is not to help Saudi Arabia avert the political tsunami sweeping across the Arab world. According to Indyk, this is a short-term solution that lacks foresight. Instead, he wants Obama to negotiate a new compact with King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz. I absolutely reject this as an Arab citizen. The legitimacy of the King emanates from his people, and Saudi Arabia is ruled on the basis of the Quran and the Sunnah, not Athenian democracy. Arab rulers, be they monarchs or presidents, are more respected, loved and supported by their people when they distance themselves from U.S. policies. For this reason, the popularity of King Adbullah remains high in his country, because he is a reformist and because he can refuse to receive a senior U.S. official or oppose American dictates regarding Bahrain or elsewhere. If I am to be worried by the policies of a certain country around the world, it would definitely be the United States, which announced a 700 billion dollar defense budget in a bankrupt and indebted country. This is more than half of the defense spending of the rest of the world combined, or more than the defense spending of China, France, Britain and Russia combined; such spending is not aimed at funding charity projects around the world. [email protected]
