Mystery swirls as Saudi ambassador to US exits
WASHINGTON – A Washington diplomatic mystery swirled around the sudden resignation of Saudi Arabia’s ambassador here, baffling foreign policy experts and injecting new intrigue into US-Saudi relations.
Prince Turki Al Faisal, one of the most influential foreign envoys here and steward of the key and sometimes uneasy alliance between the world’s sole superpower and the Gulf oil state, abruptly quit on Monday, Saudi sources said.
The shock resignation — after only 15 months on the job — and the Prince’s immediate departure from the United States, came after he told staff on Monday he wanted to spend more time with his family, an embassy official said.
“It is very strange, and to most of us very surprising,†said Michael Hudson, a Saudi watcher and professor of Arab Studies at Georgetown University.
“What goes on in Saudi Arabia, it is a very opaque kind of place, is very hard to tell. This sudden, very abrupt departure is very unusual and makes you think something else is going on,†he said.
This AFP article, published in Khaleej Times, does a good job of speculating on why Saudi Ambassador to the US, Pr Turki Al-Faisal, may have left his position. Guesses range from promotion to demotion, from arguments about Saudi policy to arguments with US policy. The fact is, until we learn more directly from him or the Saudi government, we just don’t know. Perhaps one of the guesses will turn out to be right—and the source that guessed correctly will move up in the firmament of analysts. Perhaps none are right. It’s too early to know for sure.
The Economist offer up its own bit of speculation, sticking to a more restricted set of facts.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
December:13:2006 - 12:09
CNN is now reporting that:
“Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has warned Vice President Dick Cheney that Saudi Arabia would back the Sunnis if the United States pulls out of Iraq, according to a senior American official.
The official said the king “read the riot act” to the vice president when the two met last month in the Saudi capital, Riyadh.”
The “riot act”, huh? Pretty strong language, if you ask me.
I don’t think the timing between this statement and Turki’s departure is an accident.
And I still think that the handwriting regarding this move was on the wall when KSA condemned Hezbollah this past summer.
December:13:2006 - 12:36
Sorry, I just don’t see it. I’m not overwhelmed by CNN’s insights into the KSA. The CNN people I worked with there were largely clueless, depending on locally acquired stringers to supplement their instant, parachuted-in, ‘experts’.
Time will tell, though….
December:13:2006 - 13:33
I agree with you in general about CNN. But what is more interesting to me is that this statement was made by a “US official” in Washington — now, who that US official is (I would be willing to bet that it is someone associated with either the State Dept or the WH is not Cheney’s office. Or perhaps someone with the Baker-Hamilton group.) is anyone’s guess. But it is an interesting “revelation” in terms of timing.
And the way this story has been “played” by someone (or some faction) is very interesting. The language — that Cheney was “summoned” by the Saudi’s is fascinating. I mean, why Cheney? Why not Rice, which would seem more appropriate? And who is trying to make the case that the Saudi’s are holding the US hostage in that they have the power to “summon” high US officials and to levy threats?
One thing I will say, is that you have to give the Saudi’s credit for consistency. Because no matter what, they single-mindedly put Saudi interests first and foremost, as they see those interests, of course (ie, maintaining a delicate balance between their internal status quo and changing realities on the ground).
December:13:2006 - 15:22
I surely cannot fault the Saudis for putting Saudi interests first!
The Cheney thing is interesting. He is pretty well respected by the Saudis, dating back to Desert Shield/Desert Storm. When the US wants to convey a clear message, they tend to send Cheney to the KSA. Of course, the Saudis can use that channel, too. Whether ‘summoned’ is the right word, I’ve no way of knowing at present. ‘Summoning’ an ambassador seems more like it.
I’m not overly impressed by ‘leaks from Washington,” either, I’m afraid. There are so many motivation for getting a message out–whether or not that message actually represents USG policy–that I tend to disregard things coming from anonymous sources. Personal agendas and axe-grinding are in acute over-supply in DC.