1. 1
   Publius Pundit - Blogging the democratic revolution Pinged With:
   February:10:2005 - 00:51 
   

   [...] bia —

   Saudi Arabia faces a cabinet reshuffle

   John Burgess blogs on the recent cabinet appointments made by King Fahd. He also gives his impression of th [...]

2. 2
   Jane Said:
   February:09:2005 - 08:56 
   

   “wasta” huh? Now I know three words in ARabic.

3. 3
   Dean's World Trackbacked With:
   February:09:2005 - 11:03 
   

   Saudi Elections
   Saudi Arabia is holding its first free elections tomorrow. It’s only for municipalities, but it’s a start.
   …

4. 4
   Publius Pundit Trackbacked With:
   February:09:2005 - 19:51 
   

   Saudi Arabia faces a cabinet reshuffle
   John Burgess blogs on the recent cabinet appointments made by King Fahd. He also gives his impression of them and what reforms they have (or haven’t in some cases) made for their country.

5. 5
   praktike Said:
   February:09:2005 - 22:07 
   

   Abdullah al Obeid is going to cause some heartburn, John. Here’s the WSJ’s take.

6. 6
   John Said:
   February:09:2005 - 22:45 
   

   Praktike: Sorry, I’m not a WSJ subscriber. Can you give me a gloss?

   Thanks

7. 7
   praktike Said:
   February:10:2005 - 09:14 
   

   Here’s an excerpt:

   The appointment as education minister of a former director of the Muslim World League, branches of which the U.S. government is investigating to learn if they have financial ties to al Qaeda, struck a jarring final note. The selection, part of a broader cabinet reshuffle, came as a surprise, one diplomat said yesterday, and is still being studied. But this person said one optimistic interpretation is that Saudi leaders may be hoping a religious figure will have the credibility with religious conservatives that is needed to push through unpopular changes, such as rewriting the educational curriculum to promote tolerance of other faiths and cultures.

   Reaction from one Saudi critic in the U.S. was swiftly negative. “That’s a step backwards,” said Nina Shea, an official of the human-rights group Freedom House, calling the Muslim World League “one of the chief world propagators of hate ideology.” MWL officials couldn’t be reached at their offices in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

   The new minister, Abdullah al Obeid, was traveling and unavailable for comment, a spokesman said. The Saudi Foreign Ministry had no immediate comment. In court filings, lawyers for MWL have denied any connection with al Qaeda or other terrorists.

   Mr. Obeid was secretary general of MWL from 1995 to 2002, a period when the huge Saudi government-funded organization fell under intense scrutiny from Asia to North America for spending tens of millions of dollars to finance the spread of Saudi Arabia’s austere brand of fundamentalist Islam.

   In an essay on terrorism that is part of a 2002 book on Islam the Saudis distributed to media members at the conference, Mr. Obeid blamed “some mass media centers that are managed and run by Jews in the West” for reports linking terrorism and Islam. Under his leadership, Mr. Obeid added, the Muslim World League organized symposiums to explain that Palestinian attacks on Israelis “are conducted in self-defense and they are lawful and approved by all religious standards, international treaties, norms and announcements.” He made no distinction between attacks on civilians and soldiers.

   The MWL is the parent of the International Islamic Relief Organization, a charity that current and former U.S. officials say the Treasury Department has proposed for designation as a terrorist entity. It hasn’t been so designated, though. No one could be reached at the IIRO office in Mecca yesterday.

   Mr. Obeid is a well-known figure in the dominant ultraconservative wing of the Saudi religious establishment. Until this week, he served on the king’s advisory council and as head of the government-sponsored National Human Rights Association.

8. 8
   Jane Said:
   February:10:2005 - 11:09 
   

   Sounds like a step backwards to me too.

9. 9
   John Said:
   February:10:2005 - 14:00 
   

   Thanks for the quote.

   I’m inclined to see this as the smart use of a noted religious authority to make religious reforms palatable. I could be wrong and only time will tell.

   I do think, though, that the MWL has been a bit demonized. With the combined efforts of the entire US intelligence and investigative agencies, over a four year period, they have not yet been able to come up with a definitive answer about whether or not the MWL is a “good guy” or a “bad guy”. Such an inability suggests to me that they can’t find evidence to come to a “bad guy” conclusions, but don’t want to be left embarassed if, at some future date, something untoward shows up. In governmentese, this is called “CYA”.

   Maybe it’s prudent to do that. Maybe it’s just cowardice.

   Let me extrapolate from a personal example…

   When I first joined the foreign service in 1979, my medical clearance was fine. It had expired, however, in 1980, prior to my going overseas on my first assignment. So I had to take a new physical exam.

   That exam returned very high white blood cell counts. Very disturbing. I was kept in DC for a year while they did their extensive examination to figure out what was wrong. After numerous tests, including bone marrow taps, the doctors ended up scratching their heads as to a cause. It certainly looked bad, maybe even dangerous. And State was not going to accept the responsibility if they cleared me and something happened later.

   My regional bureau, after months of finding stuff for me to do in DC–when they wanted me to be overseas–finally said, “put up or shut up”, “give this situation a name that can be acted upon, or let the guy go overseas.” The doctors finally relented and I went overseas in February of ’81.

   Were the doctors too cautious? Maybe. Six years later, while serving in Syria, I came down with acute appendicitis. Once that was taken care of, my white blood cell count was normal.

   By keeping me in DC, the doctors weren’t doing any good–apparently I’d had a really low grade infection that wasn’t showing the “proper” symptoms, so they couldn’t treat what they didn’t recognize.

   On the other hand, were I to be kept in DC, I couldn’t do what was otherwise beneficial, or at least harmless.

   So, is MWL “infected”?

   I honestly don’t know. The officials of that group that I’ve met don’t seem it. They are intensely Muslim, but not dangerous. Can their own immune systems fight off what infection might be there, low grade that it is? Possible, particularly if they recognize the symptoms as something treatable.

   Could it all blow up in the future? Possible, too.

10. 10
    praktike Said:
    February:10:2005 - 16:58 
    

    Thanks, John.

11. 11
    Brian H Said:
    February:12:2005 - 21:39 
    

    Your appendix story reminds me of the comparison of doctors to trackers: newbies see hoofprints, and shout, “Zebras!”. Old hands mutter, “More damn horses.” Both may be wrong, but the consequences of the o.h.s’ errors are more serious, for all their rarity. Not that having life-threatening chemo for misdiagnosed non-existent cancer isn’t a problem, too.

    So the weighted risk x consequences calculation has to be taken into account in lots of fields. Politics is no different.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.