Policy Watch: Perspective on Saudi Arabia

WASHINGTON, Jan. 2 (UPI) -- There has been a lot of criticism of the Saudis recently. Saudi money is said to be backing the spread of an extremist version of Islam, even Islamic terrorism, throughout the Muslim world. Some have gone so far as to suggest that we would be better off if the Saudi monarchy was overthrown by an overtly hostile regime. While we mistakenly see the former as an ally, we would definitely recognize the latter as an enemy and act accordingly.

I, for one, have never been shy about criticizing the Saudi government. I was on the Saudi Interior Ministry's list of people not to be admitted into the Kingdom from 1989 (just after an article I wrote critical of Saudi policy toward its smaller neighbors appeared in The Wall Street Journal) until 2001. And as a result of some articles of mine published more recently, I am back on it again. The Saudi government and I, then, are hardly friends.

But before dismissing the Kingdom as a lost cause, I think we need to stop and think.

Many people have claimed that Saudi money is going to Islamic terrorists in other countries. Even Saudi officials I spoke with admit that this is happening. The assumption made by many, though, is that the Saudi government either directs or supports this activity. The truth is more complex.

Many wealthy Saudi individuals reportedly give money to extremist Islamic groups. Saudi officials I met indicate that they have no control over this. It is extremely difficult to stop these individuals, with bank accounts in many countries, from giving money to whomever they choose, just as individual Irish-Americans could not be prevented from giving money to the IRA.

The charge that Saudi foundations are giving money to extremists is a more serious one. Many claim that the Saudi government definitely controls them, and so it must approve of what they are doing. But it's not so simple.

First of all, these foundations really do give money to many legitimate charitable causes. Second, these foundations cannot strictly control the use of their money once they have given it away. Third, Saudis I met with insist that the government can influence, but does not control the actions of these foundations -- especially outside the Kingdom.

When asked about reports that some members of the royal family support Osama bin Laden, one prince I spoke to shortly before 9/11 denied that any do. "Why would we support that man? He wants to kill us!" Another admitted that while Riyadh initially did provide some support to the Taliban, they stopped doing so in mid-1998 when the Taliban refused to turn bin Laden over to them. I don't claim to be the confidant of the royal family. It seems to me, though, that -- despite what some in the West might think -- it understands full well that bin Laden is its enemy.

Given this more complex reality, would we really be better off if the Saudi royal family was replaced by a blatantly anti-Western regime? We would certainly recognize the need to contain such a regime, but how long would that take, and what would be the cost? A regime in Riyadh determined to harm Western interests could provide far greater assistance to Islamic extremists than whatever they obtain from the Kingdom now. And what would be the fate of the Saudi population while we contained this new government? Would it be reduced to poverty, as Iraq was after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990? Wouldn't this simply result in more terrorists being produced?

There is much to criticize the Saudi government for. But you don't have to be an apologist for the Kingdom to realize that we are surely better off trying to work with the current government in Riyadh while encouraging it to adopt reform rather than having to fight against the radical regime that is likely to arise there if the Saudi monarchy collapsed now.

--

Mark N. Katz is a professor of government and politics at George Mason University.