Writing in The Wall St. Journal, Fouad Ajami is not very pleased with President Obama’s interview with Al-Arabiya TV. In it, he sees an unwarranted capitulation to the status quo through what he contends is Obama’s dropping of democratization and reform as a plank of US foreign policy. Ajami argues that by letting this slide, the US will lose to the forces of inertia.
Obama Tells Arabia’s Despots They’re Safe
FOUAD AJAMI“To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect,” President Barack Obama said in his inaugural. But in truth, the new way forward is a return to realpolitik and business as usual in America’s encounter with that Greater Middle East. As the president told Al-Arabiya television Monday, he wants a return to “the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.”
Say what you will about the style — and practice — of the Bush years, the autocracies were on notice for the first five or six years of George. W. Bush’s presidency. America had toppled Taliban rule and the tyranny of Saddam Hussein; it had frightened the Libyan ruler that a similar fate lay in store for him. It was not sweet persuasion that drove Syria out of Lebanon in 2005. That dominion of plunder and terror was given up under duress.
True, Mr. Bush’s diplomacy of freedom fizzled out in the last two years of his presidency, and the autocracies in the Greater Middle East came to a conviction that the storm had passed them by and that they had been spared. But we are still too close to this history to see how the demonstration effect works its way through Arab political culture.
The argument that liberty springs from within and can’t be given to distant peoples is more flawed than meets the eye. In the sweep of modern history, the fortunes of liberty have been dependent on the will of the dominant power — or powers — in the order of states. The late Samuel P. Huntington made this point with telling detail. In 15 of the 29 democratic countries in 1970, democratic regimes were midwifed by foreign rule or had come into being right after independence from foreign occupation.
…
It’s clear that the Gaza crisis—including today’s breakdown of a ceasefire—is impelling the world to take a longer, harder look at Middle East peace. In The New York Times, columnist Tom Friedman offers his update to Saudi King Abdullah’s peace plan of 2002. I’ve extracted the core of the proposals below, but I recommend reading the entire piece through the link.
One thing that jumps out is Friedman’s belief that Saudi Arabia should pony up $2+ billion annually to support the peace prospects. That idea might get some support, both in Saudi Arabia (though likely not by the government) and in the US (which is not in a position to offer inducements as it did in the Camp David process). Is that fair, though? Is Saudi Arabia in a position to offer this kind of money, particularly in a declining oil market and global economic meltdown? It’s easy, I guess, to suggest ways other people should act and spend their money, but a bit harder to actually come up with the funds.
I’m not all that crazy about having Egypt and the Palestinians responsible for securing borders, either. Both have very clear and specific interests in the area, none of which address Israeli security very well. I’d rather a more impartial guardian, such as Turkey, even with its Ottoman history.
Abdullah II: The 5-State Solution
Thomas FriedmanIn February 2002, I traveled to Saudi Arabia and interviewed the then crown prince, now king, Abdullah, at his Riyadh horse farm. I asked him why the next Arab summit wouldn’t just propose to Israel full peace and normalization of relations, by all 22 Arab states, for full withdrawal from all occupied lands and creation of a Palestinian state. Abdullah said that I had read his mind (“Have you broken into my desk?” he asked me) and that he was about to propose just that, which he later did, giving birth to the “Abdullah peace plan.”
… So, I’ve wondered lately what King Abdullah would propose if asked to update his plan. I’ve even probed whether he’d like to do another interview, but he is apparently reticent. Not one to be deterred, I’ve decided to do the next best thing: read his mind again. Here is my guess at the memo King Abdullah has in his drawer for President Obama. I’d call it: “Abdullah II: The Five-State Solution for Arab-Israeli peace.”
… 1. Israel agrees in principle to withdraw from every inch of the West Bank and Arab districts of East Jerusalem, as it has from Gaza. Any territories Israel might retain in the West Bank for its settlers would have to be swapped — inch for inch — with land from Israel proper.
2. The Palestinians — Hamas and Fatah — agree to form a national unity government. This government then agrees to accept a limited number of Egyptian troops and police to help Palestinians secure Gaza and monitor its borders, as well as Jordanian troops and police to do the same in the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority would agree to five-year “security assistance programs” with Egypt in Gaza and with Jordan in the West Bank.
With Egypt and Jordan helping to maintain order, Palestinians could focus on building their own credible security and political institutions to support their full independence at the end of five years.
3. Israel would engage in a phased withdrawal over these five years from all of its settlements in the West Bank and Arab Jerusalem — except those agreed to be granted to Israel as part of land swaps — at the same pace that the Palestinians meet the security and governance metrics agreed to in advance by all the parties. The U.S. would be the sole arbiter of whether the metrics have been met by both sides.
4. Saudi Arabia would pay all the costs of the Egyptian and Jordanian trustees, plus a $1 billion a year service fee to each country — as well as all the budgetary needs of the Palestinian Authority. The entire plan would be based on U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338 and blessed by the U.N. Security Council.
The virtues of this five-state solution — Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Saudi Arabia — are numerous: Egypt and Jordan, the Arab states that have peace treaties with Israel, would act as transition guarantors that any Israeli withdrawal would not leave a security vacuum in the West Bank, Gaza or Arab Jerusalem that could threaten Israel. Israel would have time for a phased withdrawal of its settlements, and Palestinians would have the chance to do nation-building in an orderly manner. This would be an Arab solution that would put a stop to Iran’s attempts to Persianize the Palestinian issue.
…
If a five-state solution isn’t enough, then British Foreign Minister David Miliband suggests a ’23-state solution’, i.e., one that includes and involves all Arab states. Asharq Alawsat carries the piece below that reports on his thinking. Former US diplomat Thomas Pickering notes a glaring void, however: the failure to include Iran. Iran, through its hyperbolic rhetoric and military and financial support of Hamas and Hezbollah, has thrust itself directly into the problem and must be part of the solution.
Miliband Reiterates Need for “23 States” Solution
Mina Al-OraibiLondon, Asharq Al-Awsat- Political and academic circles in Europe and the United States believe that the changes in the world during the past few months, from the economic crisis to the end of the administration of former US President George Bush, provide opportunities similar to those which followed the Second World War and which led to the establishment of a “world order” based on international institutions and specific powers steering most of the world’s events.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband underlined the importance of dealing with the changes in the world by citing at a debate in London yesterday US President Barack Obama who said “the world has changed and we must change too.” But Miliband urged the United States to work with Europe to deal with these changes and said: “Many among the European foreign ministers feel there is an opportunity, probably the last one, for drawing up a framework for solving the world’s disputes based on European-US values.” He added that there is a European desire to determine the status of the new world on the bases of the “trans-Atlantic” values but without specifying them.
Miliband was the main speaker at a debate held by the “Chatham House” Institute yesterday to launch a book that is considered an important result of the “Managing Global Insecurity Projects” which includes notable thinkers and diplomats and is managed by Britain’s “Brookings” Institute in cooperation with the New York University’s “International Cooperation Centre” and Stanford University’s “International Security and Cooperation Centre.
…
The phrase ‘Question authority’ was a hallmark of the student movements of the 1960s and 1970s, in the US and France as well as other Western countries. The phrase took on deeper meaning during and following the presidency of Richard Nixon, the Watergate scandal, and the scandals kicked up by a new form of investigative journalism.
Now, it seems that Saudi Arabia is coming into its own phase of not taking the word of bureaucrats as a representation of the whole truth. Arab News reports on two projects being undertaken by authorities to question themselves—or at least other parts of the bureaucracy. One involves sending undercover inspectors around Jeddah to check on the quality of services being offered to the city’s residents. Another sends teams out to inspect hospitals in the Taif area to ensure that they are operating properly, offering assistance to fix problems before they grow into debacles.
This is not to say that Saudi bureaucrats are any worse than other country’s bureaucrats. They aren’t. But bureaucracies suffer from an inherent weakness of insufficient monitoring and the frailties of the human condition. People have a tendency to not do their best at all times—it’s likely that that an impossible goal in the first place. Still, if government promises to do things, it must do them at a satisfactory level. It cannot be guaranteed that the word of a bureaucrat is sufficient to ensure that.
President Obama gave his first direct interview with the Arab and Muslim world to Al Arabiya TV, the Dubai-based, Saudi-owned satellite channel. Below is the full text of the interview, conducted by one of the channel’s preeminent analysts, Hisham Melhem.
In brief, Obama says that he will invigorate US involvement in the Middle East, with a focus on improving the lives of the people there. He will move away from language that some have seen as demonizing Muslims and Arabs—and hopes for reciprocity. He makes it clear that the US will continue to support Israel, particularly in the face of threats to its existence, but that Palestinians are as important as Israelis. He is committed to fulfilling his pledge to give a major address to the Muslim world, from a Muslim capital, within his first 100 days in office, though he does not state just where that will be.
Below is the full text of his interview:
Q: Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity, we really appreciate it.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.
Q: Sir, you just met with your personal envoy to the Middle East, Senator Mitchell. Obviously, his first task is to consolidate the cease-fire. But beyond that you’ve been saying that you want to pursue actively and aggressively peacemaking between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Tell us a little bit about how do you see your personal role, because, you know, if the President of the United States is not involved, nothing happens – as the history of peace making shows. Will you be proposing ideas, pitching proposals, parameters, as one of your predecessors did? Or just urging the parties to come up with their own resolutions, as your immediate predecessor did?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away. And George Mitchell is somebody of enormous stature. He is one of the few people who have international experience brokering peace deals.
And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating — in the past on some of these issues –and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved. So let’s listen. He’s going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.
Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what’s best for them. They’re going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead, it’s time to return to the negotiating table.
And it’s going to be difficult, it’s going to take time. I don’t want to prejudge many of these issues, and I want to make sure that expectations are not raised so that we think that this is going to be resolved in a few months. But if we start the steady progress on these issues, I’m absolutely confident that the United States — working in tandem with the European Union, with Russia, with all the Arab states in the region — I’m absolutely certain that we can make significant progress.
That the Saudi program to rehabilitate former extremists has had a loud failure doesn’t mean that the program itself is a failure. Writing in Asharq Alawsat, Tariq Alhomayed argues that the program, known by the Arabic name Munasaha needs constant re-evaluation and ‘tweaking’. There are sufficient success in the program to keep it running. He thinks that part of the reason for the media exposure of two Saudi former detainees was an attempt by Al-Qaeda to discredit a program that was succeeding in re-integrating youths into Saudi society as it pulled them away from terrorism.
Will Saudi Arabia Abandon the Munasaha Program?
Tariq AlhomayedThe answer is certainly no; the return of a limited number of individuals who completed the Saudi government-sponsored Muasaha [Advisory Committee] rehabilitation program to the Al Qaeda organization does not signify the failure of this program, or the need for its closure, rather it signifies the need for its continued evaluation, its assessment on a regular basis, and its continuance.
What we have seen with the announcement of two men [Abu Sufyan Al Azdi Al Shahri and Abu Al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi] who had both completed the Saudi-sponsored Munasaha program, joining a new terrorist group which was announced in Yemen [Al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula] is nothing more than a propaganda war aimed at attacking the Munasaha program, in order to make it seem like it failed. This is the goal of Al Qaeda and its leadership, because the rehabilitation of former Al Qaeda members or of those who were influenced by its ideology represents a knockout blow to the organization and those who want to return the media impetus to the movement, or those who are seeking to attract new members to it.
The greatest threat to the Al Qaeda organization does not come from armed conflict, but from ideological confrontation which exposes the movement and its leadership, as well as social rehabilitation, which does not shut the door on those innocent of committing acts of violence.
…
Talking about failures of the program isn’t all that’s necessary, of course. Arab News reports that the government has been keeping tabs on at least some of the ‘graduates’ of the program. Nine have been re-arrested.
Kingdom re-arrests ex-Gitmo inmates
M. Ghazanfar Ali Khan I Arab NewsRIYADH: As part of efforts to stop former Saudi detainees at Guantanamo rejoining militant groups such as Al-Qaeda, the authorities have rearrested nine men, including former inmates of the US detention center in Cuba.
“An official statement has already been issued about the arrests,” said Lt. Gen. Mansour Al-Turki, spokesman for the Ministry of Interior. He added that citizens and residents who violate the Kingdom’s laws would be arrested.
The Ministry of Interior said the nine Saudi nationals had undergone a rehabilitation program and some of them were returnees from Guantanamo. Their arrests follow reports that a former Saudi detainee has rejoined Al-Qaeda as a key office bearer.
…
Arab News also discusses, in an editorial, complaints that ‘graduates’ of the program are not electronically monitored afterward. It argues that because some/many of the Guantanamo detainees were actually innocent—they were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time and got swept up by US forces—it would be unjust to ‘tag’ them and follow them around. Perhaps that’s so.
Meanwhile, the US government is defending its own program of repatriating detainees from Guantanamo. It acknowledges that the Saudi program is not perfect, but that it appears to be working well. Twenty-two Saudi remain in Guantanamo.
I’m informed via reader e-mail that I must discuss the interview Saudi Prince Turki Al-Faisal gave to the Financial Times at the risk of losing my credibility.
The Financial Times itself believes the interview is worthy of editorial comment, so I guess I’d better hop to!
I think Pr. Turki is honestly conveying the feelings of the government and people of Saudi Arabia. His words echo those of his brother, Pr. Saud, the Foreign Minister, that the conflict must end, once and for all.
As much as the government of Saudi Arabia wishes to maintain friendly relations with the US, that relationship is in jeopardy. This repeats the warning that then-Crown Prince Abdullah gave the Bush Administration back in 2002: The US must try to rein in Israel if there is to be peace and stability in the region. In the views of Saudi and Arab publics, the Bush Administration was an unmitigated disaster for the region, for Arabs, and for Muslims at large. Some of this is indeed hyperbole, exaggerations made to score political points as well as misdirection by groups like Al-Qaeda to stir up resentment toward the US. The Iraq incursion started it, Abu Ghraib heightened it, stories coming from Guantanamo pushed it into the stratosphere. Gaza has simply made the situation intolerable.
The issue here is not just a matter of politics that can be reasoned, argued, fixed with a treaty or agreement. Instead, it has grown into an emotional issue—the same emotional issue that Abdullah brought to Bush’s attention in 2002. There has not been any forward action taken on the issue beyond Bush’s enunciation of the ‘two-state solution’. Today, Arabs and Israelis are both questioning whether a two-state solution is even feasible. What has changed the ground enormously is Gaza.
Again, it’s not a matter of politics or even a rational discussion of ‘who started it’ or why. Instead, it has become a visceral issue, fed by endless photographs of dead and dying Palestinian children and women. Hundreds of ghastly photos circulate through the Internet, e-mails, list-servers, and the Arab media. People who see these photos are not prepared to argue the niceties of international law. They are convinced that Israel is a criminal state.
Of course, it doesn’t help that the last 60 years of Middle Eastern politics have served to demonize Israel, justly or not. Nor does it help that too many imams in too many countries preach raw antisemitism and teach it in their schools.
Pr. Turki’s point is that if the US is to maintain cordial relations with Saudi Arabia, the US government must be seen to do something to change the status quo. Saudi Arabia, through King Abdullah’s peace plan, has gone as far as it can go, to the point of getting the members of the Arab League to sign onto the plan. The US, as a supporter of Israel, perhaps the supporter of Israel, must now do its part.
Some might say, ‘Well, if the Saudis don’t want the relationship, let them walk away… good riddance!’ That, while popular with some sectors of US society, is particularly dumb. The Saudis have already said that they will not use oil as a ‘weapon’, i.e., no repetition of the 1973 boycott. That does not mean that they will continue to offer preferential prices to the US for oil. Nor does it mean that Saudi Arabia cannot make life difficult for the US government. Simply by refusing to grant the US military permission to overfly the country, the Kingdom can wreak havoc for US military planners with concerns east of Suez. It could stop being the piggy bank to which the US government goes to find funding for international aid programs for which there is nothing in the US budget. It could stop buying Boeing or Sikorsky or General Electric weapons and weapon systems and instead buy from Europe, Russia, or China. Rather than voting with the US in international fora, it could simply vote ‘present’.
There are many ways in which the US-Saudi relationship can be harmed, all short of war. The question is whether the US government thinks the Saudis are bluffing. I think not. Having offered warning seven years ago, only to see promises made and then frittered away, I think they are serious. I think, as well, that the US government mostly understands this. As a result, pressure will be put on Israel to make changes in its traditional demands, though pressure will be applied to the rejectionist Arab states and groups as well.
It’s not the showdown at the OK Corral just yet, but warning flags are flying.
Saudi Arabia’s patience is running out
Prince Turki Al-FaisalIn my decades as a public servant, I have strongly promoted the Arab-Israeli peace process. During recent months, I argued that the peace plan proposed by Saudi Arabia could be implemented under an Obama administration if the Israelis and Palestinians accepted difficult compromises.
But after Israel launched its bloody attack on Gaza, these pleas for optimism and co-operation now seem a distant memory. Unless the new US administration takes forceful steps to prevent any further suffering and slaughter of Palestinians, the peace process, the US-Saudi relationship and the stability of the region are at risk.
Prince Saud Al-Faisal, Saudi foreign minister, told the UN Security Council that if there was no just settlement, “we will turn our backs on you”. King Abdullah spoke for the Arab and Muslim world when he said at the Arab summit in Kuwait that although the Arab peace initiative was on the table, it would not remain there for long.
America is not innocent in this calamity. Not only has the Bush administration left a sickening legacy in the region, but it has also, through an arrogant attitude about the butchery in Gaza, contributed to the slaughter of innocents. If the US wants to continue playing a leadership role in the Middle East and keep its strategic alliances intact – especially its “special relationship” with Saudi Arabia – it will have to revise drastically its policies vis a vis Israel and Palestine.
The US administration will be inheriting a “basket full of snakes” in the region, but there are things that can be done to help calm them. First, President Barack Obama must address the disaster in Gaza and its causes. Inevitably, he will condemn Hamas’s firing of rockets at Israel. When he does that, he should also condemn Israel’s atrocities against the Palestinians and support a UN resolution to that effect; condemn the Israeli actions that led to this conflict, from settlement building in the West Bank to the blockade of Gaza and the targeted killings and arbitrary arrests of Palestinians; declare America’s intention to work for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, with a security umbrella for countries that sign up and sanctions for those that do not; call for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Shab’ah Farms in Lebanon; encourage Israeli-Syrian negotiations for peace; and support a UN resolution guaranteeing Iraq’s territorial integrity.
Mr Obama should strongly promote the Abdullah peace initiative, which calls on Israel to pursue the course laid out in various international resolutions and laws: to withdraw completely from the lands occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem, returning to the lines of June 4 1967; to accept a mutually agreed just solution to the refugee problem according to UN resolution 194; and to recognise the independent state of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital. In return, there would be an end to hostilities between Israel and all Arab countries, and Israel would get full diplomatic and normal relations.
Last week, President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad of Iran wrote a letter to King Abdullah, explicitly recognising Saudi Arabia as the leader of the Arab and Muslim worlds and calling on him to take a more confrontational role over “this obvious atrocity and killing of your own children” in Gaza. The communiqué is significant because the de facto recognition of the kingdom’s primacy from one of its most ardent foes reveals the extent that the war has united an entire region, both Shia and Sunni. Further, Mr Ahmadi-Nejad’s call for Saudi Arabia to lead a jihad against Israel would, if pursued, create unprecedented chaos and bloodshed.
So far, the kingdom has resisted these calls, but every day this restraint becomes more difficult to maintain. As the world laments once again the suffering of the Palestinians, people of conscience from every corner of the world are clamouring for action. Eventually, the kingdom will not be able to prevent its citizens from joining the worldwide revolt against Israel. Today, every Saudi is a Gazan, and we remember well the words of our late King Faisal: “I hope you will forgive my outpouring of emotions, but when I think that our Holy Mosque in Jerusalem is being invaded and desecrated, I ask God that if I am unable to undertake Holy Jihad, then I should not live a moment more.” Let us all pray that Mr Obama possesses the foresight, fairness and resolve to rein in the murderous Israeli regime and open a new chapter in this most intractable of conflicts.
Prince Turki is chairman, King Faisal Centre for Research and Islamic Studies, Riyadh. He has been director of Saudi intelligence, ambassador to the UK and Ireland and ambassador to the US
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
While the Saudi government moves to curb domestic violence (see below), the Saudi National Society for Human Rights is calling for even more action. Asharq Alawsat carries this story about the NGO’s promotion of a specialized police unit to deal with the problem. Unfortunately, to be truly effective, such a unit would include female police officers. That would entail male and female police working together, something that the social conservatives would find unacceptable.
The organization goes further. It recommends that the premarital tests which check for the likelihood of genetic disease be expanded to include tests for addiction and psychological stability. The first of these sounds like a good idea. The second, though, raises reservations in my mind. A test for serious psychological problems could certainly be argued, but as with much of life, the devil is in the details. Exactly what conditions would be considered exclusionary, what degree of severity would be applied, and who would do the testing are problematic. It is not that long ago that ‘psychological illness’ was used by the Soviet government not just to deny marriage rights, but to imprison dissidents. With all the difficulties Saudi society is having with marriages already, one could grant the benefit of the doubt that misuse would not happen. It’d be better, though, to have safeguards built in from the start.
Saudi Ministry of Interior Considers Special Police Unit
for Domestic ViolenceJeddah: Asharq Al-Awsat – A Saudi rights activist has called for the immediate establishment of a special police unit to deal with cases of violence and sexual harassment.
Vice Chairperson of the National Society for Human Rights, Jowhara al Angari told Asharq Al-Awsat that a family police unit would contribute to curbing the phenomenon of domestic violence, which is on the rise.
Al Angari stated that the Ministry of Interior has begun practical procedures to study the proposal for establishing a special police unit to counter domestic violence.
Al Anqari highlighted the need for a raising public awareness on how to deal with- and report- cases of violence through school curricula and by training students on how to protect themselves against violence and sexual harassment. Furthermore, there is a vital need for information centres in different cities and districts as well as a register of rights for people to use as a reference.
“There must be some kind of register to detail the rights of family members. Men are aware of their rights but not of their duties. This why there is failure, violence and misunderstanding of religious teachings. For example, the Quranic phrase “hit them” (in reference to wives) is symbolic but the aggression that is being practiced contradicts Islamic teachings. This is why a register is needed to clarify the rights of family members whether male or female.”
…
Last week, the news was that Pr. Alwaleed bin Talal’s Kingdom Holdings had lost over $8 billion in the global economic downturn. Now, the company’s figures have been revised to show a slight profit, $73.6 million. As I’m not an accountant and I don’t have the books to even pretend to examine, I can only say I wish I had his accountants.
Saudi Kingdom Hldg says posts Q4 profit after review
RIYADH (Reuters) – Kingdom Holding Co (4280.SE), owned by Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, said on Saturday that it had revised its fourth-quarter earnings to show a small overall profit after initially reporting a net loss close to $8.3 billion.
The revision followed the completion of an examination by Kingdom Holding of its preliminary financial earnings for 2008 and a “re-categorization of some items of its income statement,” according to a statement posted on Saudi bourse website.
Based on this “re-categorization,” the company said, Kingdom Holding showed an “overall” profit of 276 million riyals ($73.6 million).
The company reported on January 20 a Q4 net loss of 30.97 billion riyals ($8.26 billion) after a dive in the value of its assets, which include a substantial stake in Citigroup.
Until relatively recently, Saudi Arabia did not pay much attention to its antiquities. It seemed particularly embarrassed by pre-Islamic antiquities as some took that to be an attack on Islam, which they considered to be the sum of all things. Islam wouldn’t be the first religion to deprecate what came before it, of course. While there were Saudis who recognized the importance of these items and archeological sites, due to religious pressures their excavation and examination was curtailed. Many sites, after having been identified as such, were re-covered in soil and fenced off from the public. Once general society learned of their importance, and accepted the fact that there was indeed important civilization in the country before the advent of Islam, attitudes—and official policy—changed.
Now, the Saudi government, acting through the Commission for Tourism & Antiquities, is starting to crack down on smuggling of antiquities and is increasing its efforts to repatriate items that had left the country without official permits. Arab News reports on the efforts in an interview with Pr. Sultan bin Salman.
SCTA to retrieve national relics abroad
P.K. Abdul Ghafour | Arab NewsJEDDAH: Prince Sultan bin Salman, chairman of the Saudi Commission for Tourism and Antiquities (SCTA), said Saudi Arabia was working hard to retrieve national antiquities within the framework of a comprehensive program.
“We have been assigned by higher authorities to retrieve these antiquities after locating them. In fact, we have been successful in bringing back some of them from Britain and other countries. Most of the antiquities were safe in world museums,” he said.
Speaking to reporters after opening an exhibition of GCC antiquities at King Abdul Aziz Historical Center in Riyadh, Sultan said the SCTA would hold an exhibition of national antiquities retrieved from foreign countries in the same place within four months. He said the new antiquities law would be very strict in dealing with the issue of smuggling antiquities.
…
The government of Saudi Arabia is not noted for taking quick action. When it comes to the issue of child, spousal, and domestic abuse, however, it appears to be moving with great alacrity. While the problem is an old one and a response is long overdue, it has only been over the past few years that society, the media, and government have started to pay attention in concert. Having started, they all now appear to be moving to curb the abuses.
Saudi Gazette reports that the Saudi Council of Ministers has completed its study of the problem and is about to propose new laws to fix it. The proposals will be sent to the Shoura Council and then on to the King. Proposals address the issues not only of physical violence, but also child marriages and the difficulties divorced women face in obtaining custody of their children.
Study on abuse draft law completed
Saeed Al-Bahis
DAMMAM – The committee formed by the Council of Ministers’ Board of Experts has completed its study of the draft law presented by King Khaled Charitable Foundation on violence against women and children.
Al-Jawhara Al-Anqari, the Deputy Chairman of the Human Rights Society, said the focus on children and women is because there have been several cases of violence against them. She noted the study will be submitted to the Shoura Council before it is forwarded to King Abdullah, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.
…
Recent reports note that one, and possibly two Saudis who have gone into the government’s rehabilitation program for those involved in terrorist activity have shown up in a videotape from Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The Saudi government believes the program is still working, though, and worth keeping. This Saudi Gazette article states that 214 men have gone through the program and nine have returned to terrorism, two of whom had been at Guantanamo. (Arab News reports that 218 have gone through the program.) That’s an overall recidivism rate of 4%, far below what Western prisons report. The article goes on to stress that this program is not a detention program, but one intended to rehabilitate, helping its participants to understand where they went wrong and how to avoid falling into the same behavior patterns that trapped them in the first place. Unfortunately, many of the Saudi-bashers see images of program participants in an art class and conclude that the Saudi government is not serious in its efforts. That’s a pity because it again poisons the well by refusing to acknowledge success when it happens.
Official: Rehab program of returnees still successful
RIYADH – The recent reappearance of a rehabilitated Al-Qaeda member in Yemen who had been previously held at Guantanamo Bay does not disqualify the Saudi rehabilitation program as it has been proven successful to integrate the majority of returnees into the mainstream of society, an official source at the Ministry of Interior said Sunday.
The Saudi government has adopted a well-designed rehabilitation program of security and advisory strategies to fight the deviant ideology, the source said.
Saeed Al-Shihri, who came back to the Kingdom a year ago after spending six years at the US prison camp in Guantanamo Bay and then appeared in Yemen to join the terror group’s Yemen branch, went through the Kingdom’s rehabilitation program.
…
In a related piece, Saudi Gazette also reports that the father of Saeed Al-Shihri—one of those seen on a recent videotape from Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula—has condemned his son’s return to terrorism:
Shihri’s father damns him for returning to Al-Qaeda
Abdullah Al-OraifijRIYADH – The father of ex-Gitmo detainee Sa’eed Al-Shihri who has seemingly surfaced in Yemen as a senior Al-Qaeda operative despite having had undergone a rehabilitation program in Saudi Arabia, says his son “is a deviant member of society who must be removed.”
The father, Jaber Aal Khath’am Al-Shihri, made the pronouncement in an interview with Saudi Gazette/Okaz during which he detailed how his son had seemed alright and was blending into society until four men started to visit him regularly.
A senior official of the Ministry of Interior, meanwhile, said a video posted on a jihadist website claiming the alleged reappearance of Al-Shihri and another Saudi, ex-Gitmo prisoner Abu Al-Hareth Muhammad Al-Oufi, as senior members of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, cannot diminish the Saudi government’s internationally acknowledged success in rehabilitating former terrorist suspects.
The source noted that only two out of 109 prisoners freed from the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have allegedly returned to the terrorist fold.
Thirteen other Saudis still remain in the Guantanamo Bay facility, which President Barack Obama, soon after he took office last week, has ordered to be closed.
…
Saudi workers in the private sector will be required to obtain health insurance, Arab News reports. This brings them on an equal standing with expat workers, who had been required to have health insurance as of last April. There’re are questions, though, about whether the system can move quickly enough to enroll a million and a half people and about the price. It’s a bold move to shift this kind of cost during an economic downturn (See Saudi Gazette: Harder times ahead), but Saudi government and society believe the risk is worthwhile.
Mandatory health plans for Saudis within six months
P.K. Abdul Ghafour | Arab NewsJEDDAH: A mandatory health insurance scheme is to be applied on 1.5 million Saudis working in the private sector and their families within six months, said Dr. Abdullah Al-Sharief, secretary-general of the Cooperative Health Insurance Council.
Al-Sharief said insurance companies are ready to provide health insurance cover to Saudi employees, adding that insurance providers in the Kingdom include 25 government hospitals. “We expect 25 more public hospitals will enter the service shortly.”
Dependence of government hospitals was essential as there are no private hospitals in some areas of the Kingdom.
But Dr. Abdul Ilah Saaty, vice dean of Jeddah Community College and an insurance expert, said insurance companies would not be ready in six months to provide the service to Saudi employees. “We should give them at least one year for preparation,” he told Arab News.
…
