The Wall St. Journal runs a front page article on the US government’s investigation of Al-Rajhi Bank, one of Saudi Arabia’s major banks, as a possible source or conduit for terrorist funding. The article alleges, based on interviews and recently available documents, that the US government has been reluctant to push the Saudi government to investigate the bank and its practices on its own.
An oddity in the piece is that it states that there is great friction between the bank’s owners (the Al-Rajhi brothers) and the Al-Saud. Given that and given that there is a strong assumption that what the Al-Saud want is what they get, it would seem that the Al-Saud would be happy to see Al-Rajhi taken down a notch or two. That seems not to be the case, however. The article suggests that the Al-Rajis have strong connections with the religious conservative establishment and that this might be the reason why the Al-Saud and the government have not moved against them.
The article notes that the USG is concerned about the bank’s relationship with certain charities, some of which have been designated as terrorist fronts, like Al-Haramain and the IIRO.
If nothing else, the article will put some pressure on both the Administration and the Saudi government. What that pressure results in remains to be seen.
U.S. Tracks Saudi Bank Favored by Extremists
Officials Debated What To Do About Al Rajhi, Intelligence Files Show
LENN R. SIMPSONJIDDA, Saudi Arabia — In the 1940s, two Bedouin farm boys from the desert began changing money for the trickle of traders and religious pilgrims in this then-remote and barren kingdom. It was a business built on faith and trust, Sulaiman Al Rajhi once told an interviewer, and for many years he would hand gold bars to strangers boarding flights in Jidda and ask them to give the gold to his brother on their arrival in Riyadh.
Today, Mr. Al Rajhi is a reclusive octogenarian whose fortune is estimated at $12 billion. And Al Rajhi Bank grew into the kingdom’s largest Islamic bank, with 500 branches in Saudi Arabia and more spread across the Muslim world.
Following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the bank also set off an intense debate within the U.S. government over whether to take strong action against its alleged role in extremist finance. Confidential reports by the Central Intelligence Agency and other U.S. agencies, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, detail for the first time how much the U.S. learned about the use of Al Rajhi Bank by alleged extremists, and how U.S. officials agonized over what to do about it.
After 9/11, the Saudi monarchy pledged its full support in the fight against global terrorism. And following violent attacks inside the kingdom in the next two years, the Saudis did launch major strikes against militants operating on their soil. But the Saudi government has been far been less willing to tackle the financial infrastructure essential to terrorism. U.S. intelligence reports state that Islamic banks, while mostly doing ordinary commerce, also are institutions that extremism relies upon in its global spread.
As a result, the Bush administration repeatedly debated proposals for taking strong action itself against Al Rajhi Bank, in particular, according to former U.S. officials and previously undisclosed government documents. Ultimately, the U.S. always chose instead to lobby Saudi officialdom quietly about its concerns.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
17:32,
I worked closely with Glenn Simpson on this article. We provided access to IIROSA leadership and extensive documentary material. Earlier today I sent the following comments to Glenn, some of which do not deal with my client (an association of Islamic charities) but with some glaring but relatively few problems I had with the article.
Dear Glenn,
I thought you might like to have some initial comments about your article. We can talk later today to discuss them in detail. As is usually the case with lengthy pieces like this one, many of my comments may have been addressed in material that you originally submitted but which was cut by your editors. Anyway, here goes -
You use the offensive term “Wahhabism†to describe the Al Rajhi family’s religious belief. This is a term the people you describe do not use and find offensive when it is used by others. It is roughly equivalent to using “Mohammedan†instead of “Muslimâ€. While the term is widespread, like many racial and religious slurs, it is never used to self-describe conservative Salafis from the Najd like the Al-Rajhi family.
Your article refers to the “golden chain†material without mentioning the numerous times in which US and other courts have ruled that the document is not probative.
You mention the Treasury allegations about Al-Haramain without mentioning – or linking to the OMB Watch document as I specifically requested – the serious flaws in the Treasury designation process. I realize that this is not an article about “process†but to write allegations about links to al-Qaeda without any balance is unworthy of the normal journalistic standards of the Journal.
With regard to Al-Haramain, Oregon, you fail to mention that the criminal indictment against the organization was dismissed or even to provide a link to your earlier more complete article on the subject. You imply that al-Buthi and Al Haramain were indicted for supporting al-Qaeda when that was not the case at all. There are no terrorism related charges in the indictment. The facts – and the excellent coverage given to this matter by the Washington Post – establish without any doubt that the funds in question were intended to be and were in fact administered by the Russian government and not any terrorist organization.
You state as fact rather than as an allegation a connection between an Virginia charity that had previous connection to IIRO and the Al-Rajhi family. As you note, the US government staged a widely-promoted “raid†five year ago that has not led to any criminal action.
I realize that this article is about why the US government does not like Al-Rajhi and not whether those beliefs are justified. I also realize that you are dealing with complicated material that must be summarized to some extent. However, there is widespread evidence that American intelligence and policies with regard to financial support of terrorism are seriously flawed. I believe that you are selectively relying on US government allegations (some of them many years old) without cautioning your readers about concerns – and the basis for these concerns – that those allegation may not be factually based.
Again, I am sure that the material that you submitted to your editors addressed many of my concerns . I look forward to working with you on future articles that explore these important matters.
Regards,
Wendell
20:07,
Thanks for the additional information.