11 Ex-Detainees of Gitmo Freed

RIYADH, 21 December 2006 — Saudi Arabia has freed 11 former Guantanamo Bay detainees after they completed their jail sentences, the Interior Ministry said yesterday.

It said the men were among 29 Saudis handed over this year by the United States from the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.

“The cases of the rest of the accused are still under review until a final ruling is issued,” the ministry said in a statement carried on state media. Last week, 16 Saudis held at the naval base returned home and the Kingdom said it would continue efforts to seek the return of other Saudi citizens, but did not say how many remained in US custody at the controversial prison.

Unfortunately, this Arab News article gives no names, so it’s impossible to tell from which groups of prior detainees these men belong.

Non-Muslim Trespasser Never Risked Execution: Indian Envoy
M. Ghazanfar Ali Khan, Arab News

RIYADH, 21 December 2006 — The Indian ambassador to the Kingdom said yesterday that a non-Muslim Indian expatriate who strayed into the “Muslims Only” part of the holy city of Madinah earlier this week was never facing any stiff penalties for his trespass. His comments were made to clarify media reports in India that said the man faced a long prison sentence or even the death penalty for his alleged crime.

“It’s all fabricated stories and in fact Jojo was never tried or given the death penalty,” Indian Ambassador M.O.H. Farook told Arab News yesterday. “Rather he was released (on Tuesday) by the Saudi police.”

…There is no recorded incident where a non-Muslim was executed for entering restricted space in Madinah or Makkah. Authorities generally treat these violations in much the same way trespassing is dealt with. In cases where the violation seems accidental, authorities will simply escort the trespasser out of the prohibited zone.

The question—which has raised some fantastic speculation—is answered. It is not an instant death penalty for a non-Muslim to trespass in Mecca or Medina, at least for innocent trespass. Whether an intentional attempt to enter the two cities, reserved exclusively to Muslims, would be treated differently is still an open question.

Restricting two cities to Muslims only seems not terribly outrageous to me. Yes, it closes them to people who are truly curious—and potentially converts. And it is somewhat unique in the world, though there are certainly monasteries that restrict entrance to some groups (Mt. Athos in Greece, for instance, run by the Greek Orthodox Church, forbids women’s entry; Catholic cloistered convents and monasteries limit entry as well). But I think this a religious rule that is up to the religion to decide and enforce.

It make far more sense to restrict two cities than an entire country. That’s something Saudi officials might think about when they consider the idea of religious freedom.

Visitors warned not to overstay in Saudi
Habib Shaikh

JEDDAH — Interior Minister Prince Nayef has warned that Saudi Arabia will take tough action against foreigners overstaying their visas as well as against Saudis and expatriates who employ, transport or accommodate such illegal residents. He said the government would also adopt stringent measures to prevent investment firms from cheating their shareholders.

Nayef warned that Haj and Umrah agents who fail to stop their pilgrims from overstaying would find their licences cancelled. A large number of Asians and Africans come to the Kingdom holding Haj visas with the intention of seeking jobs.

Many private companies, especially construction firms, as well as Saudi individuals employ them as they are cheaper compared to those workers having valid work/residency permits, known as iqamas.

“We know that the temptation is low wages but people should give priority to national interests. We don’t want to snowball the problem of illegals like in some countries. Many people like to come to our country for jobs. We want the citizens to cooperate with us. We don’t want to punish them but if they don’t cooperate we’ll strictly apply the punishments,” Nayef said.

“We’ll combat overstayers by strictly and quickly imposing punishment, first, on those who employ them, second on those who accommodate them, and third on those who transport them. All of them will receive tough punishment as they deal with illegals,” Nayef told reporters after presiding over a recent meeting of regional governors.

Saudi Arabia is perceived as wealthy beyond all dreams. Many of those living in truly poor countries seem to want a piece of those dreams, as even poor Saudis—and there are many—appear to have better lives. Visas to the KSA are not easily obtained, though they’re somewhat easier to get today than even a few years ago. But visas for religious purposes—Hajj or Umrah pilgrimages—are not difficult to get. Or to abuse.

This piece from Khaleej Times notes steps the Saudi government is taking to prevent illegal immigration under the guise of religious pilgrimage.

Rights Team Allegations Refuted

RIYADH: DIRECTOR General of Prisons Major General Ali Al-Harithi has refuted the allegations of the US-based Human Rights Watch that they were denied access to prisons.
A Human Rights Watch team visited Al-Hayer Prison in southern Riyadh and met the inmates for more than five hours, Al-Harithi told the Arabic language daily Al-Hayat.

HRW said it sent a team to Saudi Arabia last month on the first extensive mission.

“Senior Saudi officials have been generous with their time. But the true measure of transparency is a willingness to grant independent investigators full and confidential access to detainees in a range of facilities,” HRW executive director Kenneth Roth said in a statement obtained Tuesday.

The group called for full access to prisons, women’s and juvenile detention facilities, and shelters for foreign women in Buraida, Dammam, Jeddah, Najran and Riyadh.

According to this article appearing in Saudi Gazette, and contrary to the HRW report noted earlier, the group was able to visit prisons.

Whether it was all the prisons it wished to visit or under specific conditions it might have preferred are unaddressed in this piece, however.

Kingdom Won’t Take Sides in Iraq, Says Saud
P.K. Abdul Ghafour, Arab News

JEDDAH, 20 December 2006 — Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal said yesterday that Saudi Arabia would not take sides in Iraqi sectarian violence, denying press reports that Riyadh would support Sunnis in the wake of a US withdrawal from the war-torn country.

“Since the start of the crisis in Iraq…the Kingdom has said it will stand at an equal distance from all Iraqi groups and does not describe itself as the guardian of any group or sect,” he said to reporters in Riyadh.

He said Saudi Arabia would continue its efforts to bring about security and stability in Iraq. “We cooperate with all those who want a united, independent and sovereign Iraq,” he said. “And we hope all Iraqi citizens receive equal rights and duties under the law.”

Arab News carries this summary of a press conference held by Saudi Foreign Minister Pr. Saud Al-Faisal. He noted that Saudi Arabia will not take sides in the internal Palestinian conflict, but rather call for unity among the factions. When asked about his brother, Pr. Turki Al-Faisal, and rumors that he might become the next foreign minister, he replied, “If the royal highness is coming to take my post, then he should be ready for a fight.”

Saudi confirms US envoy has stepped down

RIYADH – Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal confirmed Tuesday that Riyadh’s ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki Al Faisal, has resigned, saying it was for personal reasons.

‘It is true that he presented his resignation, and it was accepted,’ Prince Saud told reporters about Turki, his brother.

It was a purely personal decision, he added.

Prince Turki, one of the most influential foreign envoys in Washington and steward of the key and sometimes uneasy alliance between the United States and the oil powerhouse, abruptly quit last week.

The shock resignation — after only 15 months on the job — and Turki’s immediate departure from the United States came after he told staff he wanted to spend more time with his family, a Saudi embassy official said.

But it sparked a flurry of speculation, ranging from claims that Turki was the victim of bureaucratic back-stabbing in Riyadh to suggestions that Saudi Arabia may be sending a message to Washington over its dismay with Iraq’s descent into chaos.

The Washington Post floated an early theory hours after Prince Turki’s departure, suggesting he may be in line to replace Saud Al Faisal as foreign minister.

Prince Saud himself hinted that Turki might take a back seat, saying that he had served his country well ‘for a long period of time.’

Ever since he was named in Washington, Turki indicated that he would serve for a limited period, Saud said.

Khaleej Times carries this AFP report carrying government confirmation that Amb. Turki Al-Faisal has, indeed, resigned. While the media were wildly speculating on the meaning of his resignation last week, it had not been actually confirmed that he had decided to leave the job.

Saudi Arabia Blocks Promised Access to Prisons

(Riyadh, December 18, 2006) � The Saudi government is refusing to grant a Human Rights Watch delegation access to the country’s detention facilities despite numerous assurances from senior government officials that such visits could take place, Human Rights Watch said today.

Human Rights Watch informed Saudi authorities of the detention facilities it wanted to visit on October 3, prior to its current visit to the country, its first in nearly four years. Human Rights Watch called on the Saudi government to grant its delegation full access to prisons, women’s and juvenile detention facilities, and shelters for foreign women in Buraida, Dammam, Jeddah, Najran and Riyadh.

“We’re pleased that Saudi officials have talked to us candidly about human rights in the Kingdom, but disappointed that they haven’t yet fulfilled their commitments to let us visit detention facilities,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, who led the delegation last week.

Human Rights Watch began its visit to the kingdom on November 27 and has held meetings with Saudi ministers and corrections officials over the past 10 days. On November 30, Saudi authorities permitted Human Rights Watch to visit a small number of prisoners in just one ward of al-Ha’ir correctional facility (Islahiya al-Ha’ir) south of Riyadh, but blocked the delegation’s attempt to return to the facility on December 2, despite promises of full and repeated access by the assistant director of prison services for the Riyadh region, Muhammad bin Nasir.

This press release from Human Rights Watch, which now has a team in Saudi Arabia, complains that the Saudi government, not withstanding its earlier assurances, has not allowed the group to visit certain facilities.

Editorial: Democracy, Made to Order?

Like most British politicians, Tony Blair is a proud member of the British House of Commons, the mother of parliamentary democracy. Thus when a legislator like Blair speaks on democracy, as on his current Middle East peace mission, he deserves a respectful hearing. He has called for new elections in Palestine. He says the government Palestinians elected January has failed because a basic plank of its policy is that it is not currently prepared to recognize the state of Israel. Because the Hamas government would not renounce violence against Israel, the “international community” led by Blair’s friend George Bush, has mounted an economic and political blockade against the Palestinian administration. The result has been widespread economic and social disruption that has ratcheted up Hamas-Fatah rivalry so that Palestine seems now on the brink of civil war.

The only way out of this conflict, out of this threatening impasse says Blair, who as a child of the mother of parliamentary democracy should know more about the democratic process than most world politicians, is a fresh general election.

…Just supposing that Hamas won a second time. Would that, by some complex formula of democracy that we clearly do not understand, mean that the world’s capitals would finally accept the outcome? If so, why was their choice not good enough the first time? Or will Palestinians be forced to go to the polls for a third vote, to see if they can make a different decision?

Arab News editorializes in what it appears to think is a clever manner, thinking to create a paradoxical situation regarding Palestinian elections and British and US support for democracy and their lack of support for Hamas (and by extension, Hezbollah).

There is no paradox. The Palestinians may elect whomever they choose, be it Hamas or Fatah or someone else entirely. It is the Palestinians’ choice to make. Equally, the Lebanese can continue to elect Hezbollah to parliament.

However, neither the UK nor the US are bound to offer support to a government they don’t like. They may be restricted from actively overthrowing that government, absent a perceived threat to themselves, but they have no legal or moral obligation to support that government. Support is a favor granted, not an obligation owed. If the Palestinians or Lebanese make the ‘wrong’ choice (i.e. Hamas or some other group unwilling to both recognize Israel and renounce violence, or Hezbollah in the case of Lebanon), then the Palestinian people (and the Lebanese) will suffer as a result.

That may well be coercive. It might even be characterized as ‘blackmail’. But one party has absolutely no requirement to offer assistance to another who acts counter to the first party’s interests. As far as the US and UK are concerned, if the Palestinians elect a government interested in peace, then the barriers to foreign aid will open; as long as they choose a party not interested in long term peace in the area, then they will continue to suffer. Politics—including international politics—isn’t a game of being fair to everyone, for whatever reason. It is an exercise in power to achieve particular goals. Or, as Clauswitz suggested, diplomacy is war by other means.

There is a very simple lesson here: A readiness to accept the reality of Israel and to stop warring against it is a requirement to receive benefits from both the US and the UK. Certain parties may think they can wait out current administrations and find a different answer to the lesson, but they are wrong, as are the Arab media who support their aspirations. It might be time to realize that Israel, a fact for the past 50 years, is not going to vanish from the map. Realistic approaches to dealing with that fact—starting with recognizing the right of Israel to exist—would be useful.

Arab News also offers up a piece that discusses the difference between ‘recognizing Israel’, ‘recognizing Israel’s existence’ and ‘recognizing Israel’s right to exist’. What It Really Means to Agree to ‘Israel’s Right to Exist’

The piece is on the tendentious and overly legalistic side, unfortunately. The writer, John V. Whitbeck, an international attorney, seems to be looking for a solution that is completely just, but he only looks at the Palestinian case for justice, not the Israeli case. In any event, the Palestinian-Israeli problem cannot be solved with perfect justice or even perfect fairness. Both sides are going to have to accept the fact that perfection is out of reach. Peace, and the end of the killings, is worth imperfect justice.

This post is part of a “Blog Symposium” being led by Dave Schuler, of The Glittering Eye blog. Also taking part are Michael Cook, the Cleveland Dodge professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University; James Hamilton, a professor of economics at the University of California, San Diego; Rasheed Abou Al-Samh, a Saudi-American journalist based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, who also blogs at Rasheed’s World; and Shivaji Sondhi, a professor of physics at Princeton University. We’re offering our own views on the situation in Iraq and inviting comment, criticism, correction.

See Part I here

You Can’t Tell the Players without a Score Card Part II
Actually, you can’t tell the game…

The Gulf States

KUWAIT: It’s pretty clear that Kuwait has not deep love for Iraq following the 1990 invasion. Kuwait doesn’t particularly like Iran either, though. Iranian moves toward the islands of Bubiyan and Warba during the Iran-Iraq War (Iraq has also asserted claims toward the islands), as well as Iranian targeting of Kuwaiti tankers during that war. (This led to the reflagging of Kuwaiti tankers under the US, British and Soviet flags.)

Kuwait’s population is a mix of Sunni and Shi’i. While there is no official census noting religious affiliation, estimates put the Shi’a population at somewhere between 10% and 25%. The Shi’a population is both Arab and Persian. Due in large part to the Iraqi invasion, Kuwait has one of the strongest senses of national identity in the Gulf.

Forward headquarters of the US Third Army are in Kuwait.

BAHRAIN: This tiny country—300 square miles in area—is anomalous in the Gulf for several reasons. The majority of the population, 60%-75% depending on whose estimates you follow—is Shi’a, though the governmental leadership is Sunni. It is also unique in that it is formally a constitutional monarchy. The Shi’ites are both ‘Usuli and Akhbari. Nearly everyone in the country has relations elsewhere in the Gulf, from Iran and Iraq, to the Emirates and Saudi Arabia. There are also strong links, both familial and trading, to South Asia. Bahrain is also the oil state to be first running out of oil, though it has extensive undersea natural gas fields.

Bahrain is very concerned about Iran. The Iranian government, following the 1979 revolution, has made strong claims to ownership of the island and, in 1981, was actively fomenting revolution against the government.

U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT) and US Marine Corps Central Command (MARCENT) are headquartered in Bahrain.

QATAR: Nearly as traditionalist in culture as Saudi Arabia and also following the so-called ‘Wahhabi’ strain of Islam, Qatar has seen rapid political development over the past ten years. It has historic conflicts with Bahrain, some resolved only a few years ago, over ownership of a small group of island, but more importantly over undersea gas fields. Qatar also has quarrels with Saudi Arabia, often taking political positions seemingly intended to slight the Saudis.

As chief source of funding for Al Jazeera TV, Qatar plays a central role in framing media discourse about events in the Middle East.

It has generally good relations with Iran, something made easier through the fact that only 10% of Qataris profess Shi’ism.

Qatar is host to the forward headquarters of the US Central Command (CENTCOM) and the US Air Force Central Command (AFCENT) at Al Udeid Air Base outside the capital.

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: Comprised of the Emirates of Abu Dhabi, Ajmān, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Sharjah, and Umm al-Quwain, the county held its first elections earlier this week. The country is noted for its free trade, which is sometimes seen as ‘anything goes’. Only about 20% of the population is Emirati, with 50% of the population coming from South Asia. It has excellent commercial relations with Iran, but a long-standing dispute about the ownership of Tunb and Abu Musa islands (which Iran occupies militarily) and for some reason, re-opened arguments about its border with Saudi Arabia earlier this year.

The UAE is strategically important in that it occupies the southern portion of the Straits of Hormuz, a vital channel for oil tankers servicing the entire Gulf.

The Emirates have extensive, global trade and business relationships. They were at the center of a dispute about the Dubai Ports World move to take over some management of US ports. The country is also cited as a problem when it comes to trafficking in drugs and people. Its free-wheeling business atmosphere is alleged to permit money transfers for nefarious purposes.

The US military is permitted to use both air bases (assumed to be for the basing of U2 aircraft) and naval dry dock facilities in the country.

OMAN: This country is anomalous in the region in that the majority of its population is neither Sunni nor Shi’a in its religious beliefs. Instead, most Omanis follow Ibadi Islam, seen as a branch of Kharajitism, which dates back to the 8th C.

During the Iran-Iraq War (which the Gulf Arabs term the ‘First Gulf War’), Oman remained neutral, siding with neither side. It continues to have strong political and commercial relations with Iran, but also with the US and other Gulf States.

The US appears to nave no permanent military facilities in Oman, but they often conduct joint military exercises. Oman provided some basing support during US military operations against Afghanistan and Iraq.

7,312 homes to be constructed for low-income people in Saudi
Habib Sheikh

EDDAH — The first phase of building houses for low-income citizens all over the kingdom under the National Housing Units Project, includes 7,312 homes, according to the ministry of social affairs, which has begun licensing the construction.

…According to the ministry, the number of housing units approved for construction this year is 16,000. It said priority will be given to regions with the greatest need — Jizan, Najran, the Northern Region, Al Jouf, the holy city of Makkah and the Eastern Province. Construction companies will be licensed to prepare the land for housing construction. Al Oqla explained that a team comprising 13 officials from the ministry of social affairs, governorates, and charitable societies would set the conditions for applying and determine those who are in greatest need. “The governor of each region will be responsible for choosing the areas where the housing units will be built according to the needs in the region,” he said.

…Meanwhile, the ministry of economy and planning has announced that in order to address the problem of housing shortage the country should build at least one million residential units by 2009 because the kingdom’s population is estimated to reach 35 million by 2010.

King Abdullah has taken a special interest in the plight of the Saudi poor—and there are many of them, flying in the face of the usual stereotypes of the ‘rich Saudi’. The goal of a million new units in two years’ time is pretty ambitious, though.

The Age of Bullies
Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed

“The Age of Bullies” is not a phrase that I coined. These words were written on a large poster that a Palestinian woman raised and that said, “Palestine of 1967 was made up of fedayeen that of 2006 is made up of bullies”. No one can disagree with the opinion of this woman when three children are deliberately killed because they belong to a pro-Fatah family and a judge is killed in revenge because he supports Hamas. These are the groups in Palestine today. It is a repetition of what is happening in Iraq and of the killing of children, elderly, and simple workers in Iraq.

We are indeed living in the age of bullies. We never had such an era throughout our history of power struggles that compares with this.

In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, bloody struggles took place among the Palestinian factions. These incidents pained our souls but today’s confrontations make our hearts bleed. Nothing is taboo. Children are killed because their father is a Fatah supporter, and an elderly man is killed because he is a Hamas supporter. And what is this war all about? It is about nothing else but power. None of those that are fighting among one another has a plan different from the other. They all make speeches about liberation, the state, and the refugees but they are all seeking their own interests. They are seekers of power and authority and are ready to drag the country to a civil war. These have harmed the Palestinian cause more than the Israelis have tried to do over so many years. They have divided the ranks, brought despair, defeated the local soul, and shocked and pained the Arabs with their ugly deeds. They divided the nation and relieved Israel of the confrontation. Anyone that sees the crimes that are being perpetrated and hears the threats to commit more becomes anxious about the future because we are stepping into an unprecedented phase in the history of the conflict.

We stand at the threshold of the first Palestinian civil war that no one ever imagined would take place no matter how much the Palestinians become divided into teams and camps…

Writing in Asharq Alawsat, Al-Rashed—the paper’s former Editor-in-Chief—points out that strong-arm tactics being used by Hamas (and by Hezbollah in Lebanon) are resulting in the most dangerous times for the region, to the benefit of Israel (and Iran) and to the complete detriment of Palestinians (and Arabs in general). Worth taking a look at.

US Court Throws Out Case Against Saleh Kamel
Barbara Ferguson, Arab News

WASHINGTON, 18 December 2006 — A significant decision by a New York judge last Thursday dismissed a lawsuit against Saleh Kamel and Albaraka Investment Bank.

The accusations alleged they had been involved in support of the Al-Qaeda group suspected of backing the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Khaled Al-Nahdi, assistant to CEO of Dallah Albaraka Group, said in a statement on Friday that Judge Richard Conway Casey, of the Federal Court of South New York, had dismissed the case raised by a number of insurance companies on Dec. 14, 2006, against Saleh Kamel and Albaraka Investment & Development Company. Abdul Qader Hashim, a legal adviser of Dallah Albaraka, and also in charge of the case stated that Judge Richard Casey had dismissed a similar case earlier (Burnet vs. Albaraka Inv. & Dev. Co.) raised by the families of the victims in the same incident against Saleh Kamel and Albaraka Investment & Development Company.

Whether it was bad intelligence, a confusion of names (Saleh Kamel’s son Abdullah comes up in some strange connections), or shot-gunning attorneys, Saleh Kamel is apparently not linked to funding terrorism. This Arab News pieces notes that the various indictments raised against him (four or five of which have been dismissed so far, both in the US and UK) have relied on a document known as the ‘Golden Chain’. In all cases, the purported ‘Golden Chain’ has been shown to be worthless as a source in attempting to identify terror funding sources.

I’ve met Kamel several times, most recently in the home of Arab News‘ Editor-in-Chief, in 2003. He did not strike me at all as one with any interest in funding extremism, no matter the issue. In fact, he scandalized some of the other guests, including royal family members, by stating bluntly that the Palestinian issue should be of no concern to Saudis, who have enough on their plates to get excited about. What he is, though, is a very astute businessman, with extensive media holdings including the ART satellite TV network of nearly a dozen channels. He has also successfully invested in banks, in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Sudan, which seem to be what attracted attention post 9/11.