What is the position of the West with regard to democracy in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? Are Western nations undertaking clear and active steps in this arena and providing support for real reform measures?
When answering these two questions, I, as a Saudi citizen rather than as merely the head of the Saudi Center for Human Rights, can say that I have never once seen tangible action undertaken by a Western Government to push the Saudi regime to move in the direction of having (popular) participation in the political process and granting both political and human rights to its citizens. In fact, what the administrations of Western states are doing is the opposite of this, and they are providing strong support for Saudi Arabia's dictatorial ruling regime.
No action is being undertaken by the US administration in the direction of democratizing Saudi Arabia. However, this administration comes out with many tedious statements that could fill a large book that would contain wishes and sometimes threats. Most of it comes from reports published by the US State Department, the purpose of which is to reassure the representatives of the American people in Congress that their government is concerned about reforms in Saudi Arabia.
Action by Western nations on behalf of human rights and democracy in Saudi Arabia does not go beyond accusations made by Western writers and journalists who describe Saudi society as backward and dictatorial.
Yes, we are politically a backward society, and a number of our people believe in dictatorship as a means of maintaining stability, especially as it concerns the family, and this has led to acceptance of dictatorship by the ruler and obedience to our so-called ruler (wali al-amr). But the fact is that most of us now have come to understand the importance of democracy and human rights as a means of having our society grow and become more advanced.
This large number is silent either because of our government's tools of repression or due to the fact that they fear discord and its effects on our nation's stability. This is particularly the case when they see actions of the extremist Islamist movements now which include explosions and acts of violence because they have failed to reach agreement with the regime and their political positions have been infused with a tendency toward extremism.
Our society is, by nature, religious, traditional, and peaceful, and during the last hundred years it has been able to keep a brake on violence within the country. It has produced moderate Islamist groups that are more aligned with society and are able to mobilize large sectors of it. But some of these groups were hijacked by (extremist) philosophies (anzimah) before their development could continue and before they could accept what is called "liberal Islam." They were taken over and transformed into groups that followed the policies of the regime under the guise of loyalty to the ruler and non-opposition to him, because this was taboo. Other groups were harassed and pushed into committing violence in response to violence. Many people were not conscious of the fact that what our society lacked was a broad dialogue between its movements, including the regime itself.
Many Western politicians and people in the media applauded the so-called national dialogue in our country and process of political liberalization pursued by the regime. But the fact is that these people hardly understood at all what was really happening. The dialogue organized by the regime took place with the participation of movements that were demanding reform, but the regime played the role of Big Brother--monitoring those who participated in the dialogue and making sure that they did not deviate from an important basic principle, which was loyalty to the regime and lack of opposition to it. Those conducting the dialogue had the right only to disagree with each other and then come to an agreement (with the regime). The policy of the regime (was pictured) only as perfection personified.
Due to this strange and unique way of having a political dialogue, those holding the dialogue came out of it not knowing why they came or whether they were actually conducting a dialogue concerning their future and reform of the regime--or had just acted out their theatrical roles for the sake of putting a gloss on the regime's image.
I believe that it is necessary for the regime to be put on the bench of the accused in this conference and for those members of our nation present at the conference to conduct a dialogue with the regime rather than to have its leaders stand at the doors of the conference hall, brandishing their big whips.
Saudi reformists have written petitions in which they have timidly demanded better human rights and that the regime undergo change and provide opportunities for political participation. However, those who signed the petitions were brought to the ruler, apologies were demanded from them, and they were told not to attempt to close their ranks (to achieve) reforms.
The West did not lift a finger to help them. The governments of Western nations have thanked the Saudi regime for its efforts and have considered it to be a partner, ally, and close friend in their campaign to annihilate terrorism. These Western administrations that come to power in democratic fashion deal with their peoples on the basis of democratic principles and in accordance with the rule of law. But as regards those of us who live in the Middle East--and especially with regard to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia--they prefer to show their gratitude to our oppressors, to glorify them, and to describe them as noble warriors in the cause of eliminating terrorism. They forget that those to whom they have shown gratitude are experts in terrorizing us, oppressing us, and persecuting all of our efforts toward achieving democracy and the rule of the actual (al-haqiqiyah; as published, and likely a misprint for "al-huquqiyah," or "having to do with the rule of law.")
Our Saudi citizens are inquiring about liberalism, but they are afraid of it. The extremist Islamist movements, like the Saudi Government, are warning against it. To them, American liberalism does not want what is in the best interests of our people, but rather wants our nation to fall apart, give up its basic principles, and be subordinate to the West. This artificial liberalism is something that is not important (for us). (What is important is the question:) Have our citizens been granted their rights, and do they participate in the political process of decision-making or not?
In the eyes of Saudi citizens, the democracy that the United States preaches about is that our women should start wearing jeans and smoke cigarettes while sitting in convertibles, because this is what our citizens see happening in the West. The Western governments have never once undertaken any effective action concerning democracy (being implemented in the Arab world). Instead of refusing to deal with our dictatorial governments, they support them with weapons that have never been used in wars--but which have been used against our citizens. And the intelligence cooperation between our oppressive regimes and the Western agencies is something that is quite obvious and cannot be hidden. As for the claim that the Saudis have not cooperated with the United States concerning Al-Qa'ida, the deletion of the 28 pages from the report submitted to Congress was certainly proof that there are those in the US administration who are afraid of the reaction of our dictatorship if (certain matters) were to be made public.
The war against extremism and fanaticism does not begin in the caves of Tora Bora, but rather inside the White House itself, since the policies of the White House have been both black and bitter. Those who inhabit the White House only look for short-term results. They want to kill and take prisoner members of Al-Qa'ida, and they are forgetting that our (Saudi) citizens who are deprived of their rights are the ones who are furnishing Al-Qa'ida with men and that they are the ones who brought about the destruction of 11 September--considered to be the greatest crime committed against the United States in its history. This does not mean that the White House should demand that (all) the members of our society be arrested, that our women should be sterilized, or that we should be attacked with tanks. This would not help matters at all. We who live in Najd, the Hijaz, 'Asir, and Qatif do not accept humiliation. What has happened in Jerusalem and is happening now in Iraq is a humiliation for all of us. When we see a crying Afghan child who has been orphaned by an American missile, this affects all of us--not to mention how much it affects us when we see the master of the White House shaking hands with our dictators, embracing those who rob us of our property, and talking about his deep and close friendship with them.
This democratic West that is concerned about human rights is the same West that is supporting the survival of our dictatorial governments, is patting our oppressors on the shoulder, and is describing them as sincere people who desire peace.
This West that preaches democracy in Iraq is the West whose actions there are being monitored by our citizens, and they see the irony involved. Where is the democracy that Bush has promised to the Iraqi people? When the Shiite religious authority Ayatullah al-Sistani is demanding elections, the US administration is rejecting this at the present time and is delaying them. In fact, the UN secretary general has been preparing to send a delegation to Iraq to persuade Iraqis that the time is still not ripe (there) for democracy.
What is the difference between Bush's administration and that of King Fahd concerning democracy and elections? Bush is delaying them in Iraq and believes that the situation is not suitable (for them). This is the same position that is being taken by the government of King Fahd, which is of the opinion that full elections and political participation are not desirable at the present time because our nation is not ready for these things. It is as if political participation were not desirable for us because we are creatures of a unique sort on this Earth.
In Iraq, the people who are hungry and unemployed are groaning and they are full of anger when they see that pornographic films provide a good income (for those who show them) and that the owners of houses of prostitution are enjoying US military protection, according to a report by the New Yorker magazine. And this is something that horrifies the average citizens in Saudi Arabia and causes them to agree with their brethren in Iraq that Iraq's period of dictatorship was better for the Iraqis.
What is the democracy that America has brought to Iraq, and what will America bring to those of us who are in Saudi Arabia?
This is what our conventional Saudi citizens are asking. And this is the reason for the suffering of those of us who are working in the field of human rights in the realm of political reform. We are struggling to reply to many questions asked by people who believe that a person who works in the field of human rights is nothing more than a Westerner who wears an Arab headdress and has no aim other than that of destroying Islamic civilization.
And it should not be forgotten that our citizens are conscious of our weakness because we are forbidden to operate inside our country and to support them. The Western governments do not put any pressure worth mentioning on the Saudi regime to permit us to operate (in the country). Hundreds of activists and people protesting against human rights violations have been arrested, and reformist activists have been threatened and chastised. All of this is taking place under the eyes of allies of the regime such as the Americans and others who have taken their armies to Iraq to liberate that country from its tyrants, and at the same time they send messages of friendship, love, and solidarity to our tyrants.
Our citizens have not forgotten the US position concerning the cancellation of elections in Algeria in 1992 and how US intelligence agencies and administrations supported the leaders of the jihad in Afghanistan, but then turned against them. And they are also aware of the fact that Usama Bin Ladin shared a tent with a CIA officer near Tora Bora, which these days has become the place of refuge for Bin Ladin.
Until further notice, our citizens will not believe that the United States and other nations of the West wish for them to have democracy and human rights. They know quite well that they only want their oil, their subjection, and their willingness to make peace with the occupiers of our lands, such as Israel and others. They find it strange that some Americans believe that if they were given the right to vote, they would elect Islamists to rule them, as if they were the only people in the world who should only be allowed to choose what America chooses for them. In fact, it is true that our citizens would choose Islamists, because they see no others to choose. The regime supports them, with the exception of those among them who want to wage the jihad. And the liberals do not mean anything to them except as the reverse side of the coin of America at the present time. However, if our citizens were granted freedom and if they began to breathe fresh air, the Islamist extremists would be forced to make their mustaches more presentable and they would have to cut them in a fashion preferred by our citizens, rather than the other way around.
Here is the message that our citizens wish to send to the West: Deal with our governments on the basis of their record as related to the rule of law and their efforts to grant (our citizens) popular participation and to build civil institutions, rather than on the basis of their production and pricing of oil, how many weapons they purchase, and the degree to which they like Israel. If this is not done, there will be many Usama Bin Ladins (in the future), and the tools of government repression will not be able to prevent this.
In the final analysis, this is not an appeal to solve our problems with our regimes by means of US tanks or British paratroopers. It is an appeal to have the Western governments cease lending the hand of friendship to those who violate human rights and consider democracy to be the work of infidels. This is the least that one can expect of them.
(Description of Source: London Al-Quds al-Arabi in Arabic — London-based independent Arab nationalist daily with an anti-US and anti-Saudi editorial line; generally pro-Palestinian, tends to be sympathetic to Bin Ladin)
toolkit.dialog.com/intranet/cgi/present?STYLE=739318018&PRESENT=DB=985,AN=184700E-mail this article