Kingdom Reiterates Need for Anti-Terror Center
JEDDAH, 12 July 2005 — Saudi Arabia yesterday emphasized the need for setting up a global center to combat terrorism and said it would help boost international cooperation to fight the scourge.
Addressing the Council of Ministers, Prince Abdullah renewed his call for the world community to step up cooperation to counter terrorism, “dismember it, dry up its sources and confront the extremist thinking that leads to terror,†the Saudi Press Agency said.
Today, international sharing of information about terrorist and terrorism is done ad hoc. Different bi-national agreements, some regional groupings like INTERPOL, and informal meetings of intelligence and security professionals comprise the sum total of international cooperation.
Crown Prince Abdullah’s call for a global center makes sense, so long as control of the membership can be maintained. Letting Syria, for instance, play a role these days makes as much sense has letting it serve on Human Rights panels, i.e., not much.
The need for a global center is, I think, obvious. There is too much useful information tucked away in the desk drawers of various security services around the world that needs to be shared, needs to be put into a global picture.
This Arab News piece also reports on other Saudi anti-terror efforts, including the arrest of eight terror suspects near the border with Iraq. While the Saudis have exerted great efforts in closing off that border, they haven’t reported much on its functioning. Here, at least, is one report.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
July:12:2005 - 02:03
I consider him utterly sincere. I also don’t see any evidence of the much touted “double game” that goes beyond, “well, that’s what I would’ve done.”
Other than funding the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s and 90s, which was completely above board and, at least until the end of the 90s approved by all, there’s simply no evidence that the Saudi goverment was a witting accomplice in terror.
July:13:2005 - 00:33
Mr. Burgess: No question Prince Abdullah’s proposal is a bold and positive move. But I fear that in some way the Saudis are in an analogous position in American public opinion to America in Muslim opinion. They and we can’t do anything right in the eyes of people whose minds are made up about each of us. From personal experience in the 2004 elections, I noted that in the cases of Dean and Kerry, both got the BEST applause when they made some negative comments about the Saudis. Being anti-Saudi is practically the only issue RightRepublicans and Left Democrats can shake hands on. To me, that’s being short sighted. I’m not a friend of the Monarchy, but I wish we could find a way to reward the Saudis, and give them positive feedback when they make genuine efforts for peace and anti-terrorism. The Abdullah Peace Plan of yesteryear, for example: it was a “starter”; it had many elements of practicality and even magnanimity. But, of course, it was dead on delivery–because of its source not because its content.
July:13:2005 - 08:36
The term “anti-terror center” is just too broad. I’ve read of imams (North African, I think) whose definition of “terrorism” encompasses non-Muslims who inadvertently step on a Muslim’s foot.
How is one supposed to condemn terrorism yet still endorse Wahhabi Islam?
July:13:2005 - 11:18
Paleologos: I think the “Abdullah Peace Plan” wasn’t DOA. It did succeed in getting unanimous support from the Arab League (with abstensions), which is not small matter.
As far as public perceptions of the two countries… well, that’s why this blog.
Solomon2: Yes, the definition of “terror” has been a very difficult hurdle. I do point to the definition that came out in the Riyadh Declaration, however, as an indicator that there is some broad area of overlap on which progress can be made.
July:13:2005 - 11:41
Much of this report reads like pablum, repeating the usual common/politically correct fables of the causes of terrorism. Defining terms (like “civilian”) is supremely important in assigning meaning to this document. (I note that the report explicitly cites the Iraqi delegate’s definition of “criminal”.)
It may possibly serve as a starting framework, but the central ideological problem, which is (nowadays) specific to Islam, is not addressed.
July:13:2005 - 15:46
A clear statement that nothing justifies the murder of civilians is a pretty “non-pablum” point of reference, I’d think. The Saudis do not accept extremist definitions of what constitutes “civilians”. For them, it’s anyone outside a uniform, none of this “they could grow up to be….” nonsense.