"After the Sheikhs: The Coming Collapse of the Gulf Monarchies," is a new book written by Professor Christopher Davidson, who teaches at the University of Durham in the north of England. A few days ago, he wrote an article in The New York Times related to the book titled "The Last of the Sheikhs." On June 22, 2013, the first paragraph of my column read, "Nearly 20 years ago, a book was published in English by a Palestinian-American author named Said Aburish, titled "Rise, Corruption and Coming Fall of the House of Saud." The book was published in 1994 and the author died in 2012, but the House of Saud has endured. Some books contain wishes, and others contain some personal independent reasoning. Professor Davidson's book is perhaps of the second kind, as he is an academician of the highest caliber, and has a long and profound expertise on Gulf affairs. But I say that he missed the mark. I don't seek a response from him, as the debate will be settled in the coming years, or in one or two decades. But just like Said Aburish died with Saudi, Bahrain, and other Gulf countries still enduring, I predict that the professor and I will depart this world with the situation in the Gulf largely unchanged. It is not an ideal situation at all. Every member state of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) needs to reform. However, this applies to every single country in the whole world. If we consider the "exceptional" nation, the United States, we will find that this country needs to reform, even more than any dictatorship in the depths of Africa. For one thing, a dictatorial regime in a backwards country harms no one but its citizens. Meanwhile, the United States, at least since the Second World War, has engaged in neo-colonial policies, and its wars killed millions of people in addition to hundreds of thousands of Americans. Therefore, reform in the United States is a thousand times more important than toppling a dictator in the Middle East, Africa, or East Asia. Moreover, there is a key point in understanding Gulf countries that the Western authors ignore or overlook, namely, that some Gulf regimes are more liberal, democratic, and open than their peoples. These peoples did not see prosperity, in the sense of high income that guarantees high living standards, education, and healthcare for citizens, until the last generation or two, and they are still feeling their way ahead between the advocates of old traditions and the advocates of joining the world and openness. And yet Western or Westernized Arab writers try to invent Gulf countries tailored to their fantasies, steering away from accurateness, both in analysis and outcomes. I am not defending anyone, but only presenting an opinion that I hope is objective. To prove it is objective, I criticize Saudi policy. I had barely expressed support – on October 7 – for Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, for refusing to deliver his country's speech at the UN General Assembly in protest against the UN Security Council's performance, when I suffered from the ‘evil eye,' as they say in English, and disagreed with Saudi policy a few days later. What happened was that Saudi Arabia was elected as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, but it turned down the seat saying the Council had failed to carry out its duties in protecting international peace and security, and preventing transgressions, conflicts, and wars. This is true, but it was better for Saudi Arabia to remain in the UN Security Council and express its views there on the Council's failures again and again, instead of expressing them once and withdrawing. For this reason, I hope Saudi Arabia will reconsider its decision. [email protected]
