The proverb in full is “Clouds are a promise made, rain is a promise kept.” It comes from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a country of many clouds and little rain. King Abdullah has dubbed Nayef bin Abdul Aziz the Crown Prince, over the objections of several members of the Allegiance Council. The House of Saud forestalled the Arab Spring KSA by carpet-bombing that unhappy country with cash and sinecures and a few token reforms. This essay will attempt to make a few guesses about the future of KSA, perhaps the USA's most important partner in that part of the world.
As the sons of the House of Saud age and wither, their succession resembles nothing so much as the procession of decrepit commissars who tottered up to the Kremlin to die in the latter days of the Soviet Union. Back in the day, Kremlinology was much akin to those Rorschach Tests, blobs of ink meant to summon up images from the subconscious. Saud-ology is not much different, I suppose: we know about as much about the internal workings of the House of Saud as we did about the Kremlin then. I correctly predicted the USSR would fall, as early as 1984, saying the Kremlin would eventually run out of old guys willing to sustain the travesty. People used to laugh at me, back then. They don't laugh now: Russia returns to its ancient pattern of pater patriae under Putin, no longer very Communistic but truer to form than it ever was under Lenin and Stalin.
The USSR was a charade and in many ways, so is KSA. We complain about KSA's intransigence and inability to effect reforms but the House of Saud is backed into a corner: its chief enemies arise from within its many bickering tribes and factions. KSA cannot change much, not without setting in motion its own demise, as the USSR couldn't change without setting in motion its own demise, as the Tsarist regime couldn't change. A country living behind such a mask cannot hope to vary its expression much.
Let us not attempt to draw too narrow a comparison between KSA and the USSR. My point is this: the King of the Hill fights from a fixed position and must control the slopes to the summit. The Old Guard of the USSR wasn't a family enterprise as is the case with KSA. But the more authoritarian the leaders of a regime become the farther they have to fall. Reforms must begin from below: they cannot be instituted from above by royal decree, especially not via the fig leaves of pseudo-reform. The House of Saud has maintained its supremacy by buying compliance from its many enemies and enlisting the grudging military support of its captive clientele, the oil-buying nations, especially the USA. Nayef was not chosen because he's the smartest guy in the room, he's not. He's a boor, a rough and intemperate man who still believes 9/11 was a Zionist plot and continues to oppress the kingdom's Shiite minority with extraordinary cruelty. Nayef was chosen because he represents stability, a continuation of the status quo, that is to say informed and justified fear of change.
KSA is a police state armed with powerful carrots and sticks. Carrots, insofar as it's our most reliable partner in the region: KSA buys our weapons, its mukhabarat feeds us intelligence, its oil fills our gasoline tanks, they torture prisoners for the Americans when it suits both our purposes. Sticks, insofar as it arrests and imprisons its dissidents without warrants or trials: Muhammad al-Abdulkarim, a professor of law, just got out of jail after ten days for mentioning the disputes surrounding the accession of Nayef to the position of Crown Prince. A little coterie of brave dissidents often petitions the King for reforms of various sorts. They usually get a few weeks or months in the slammer for their trouble. As far as I've been able to tell, the Saudi regime hasn't murdered any of them, sensing this might create martyrs who might serve as focal points for more unrest.
Curiously, the dissidents aren't calling for the overthrow of the monarchy. Saudi society, even at its most liberal, is fairly conservative. The dissidents say a constitutional monarchy would be a good idea and wouldn't destabilize the country. They're a bit naive in thinking so: the Saudi regime would more likely go the way of Iraq and Lebanon for a while as long-oppressed minorities, especially the Shiites, revenged themselves on their erstwhile tormentors. There's also that little matter of the Holy Cities: they used to be under the control of the Rashidi family which now runs the country of Jordan. The first king of Saudi Arabia married into the Rashidi clan to attenuate that feud but it's still alive. Iran would be sure to meddle, stirring up the Shiites as they've stirred the pot in Lebanon and Iraq and Bahrain. Iran's meddling in Bahrain proved intolerable: KSA sent in troops to put down the Shiites. Oh, and don't weep too many tears over the poor oppressed Shiites of Bahrain, Iran used to own Bahrain and wants it back and a goodly fraction of Bahrain speaks Farsi, not Arabic. There are plenty of Christians in Bahrain, too.
The odds of significant reform in KSA are vanishingly long. Nayef is the current beneficiary of the tontine of Saudi succession as the other Sudairi brothers die off. But Nayef isn't King, not yet and not by a long shot. The Saud clan huddles together in an ad-hoc council of allegiance, heirs of the founder of the kingdom, the sons and grandsons of King Abdulaziz's many wives. Though the doors to that council chamber are closed, the uproar within leaks out into the halls of power and many ears are pressed to the doors. The council of allegiance was supposed to elect the successor by secret ballot but it's no secret how things went down: the favored sons of Princess Hassa, the largest power coalition within the family, continue to hold power and install their own progeny in strategic positions within the kingdom.
Old King Abdulaziz had married many wives in an attempt to unify the many clans of the area. It seems to have worked rather too well: his descendants bicker and form clans of their own, jostling for power, a sort of corporation with thousands of superfluous executives with nothing much to do except scheme and plot. A few lust for political supremacy but most do not, content to wallow in luxury. Grown effete and brittle, the bloated House of Saud has never addressed any of the fundamental issues bedeviling modern nation states. There is genuine poverty in KSA. Money has thus far been able to paper over the more loathsome attributes of this most-autocratic and repressive of regimes but it's only a temporary solution. There will be a day of reckoning, as the other tinhorn dictators of the region found out, but it will not be soon. Nayef is the man of the hour, the latest despot with whom the world's leaders shall have to do homage. But it won't be for long.
Nayef isn't a patch on the ass of the likes of King Faisal, who might have brought KSA into the modern world had he survived assassination in 1975. His son-in-law Bandar is a remarkable man, far and away the most intelligent candidate for the job of King. Bandar isn't of the Sudairi lineage, though: he's the child of an illiterate Yemeni concubine. Sultan, Bandar's own father didn't think much of him, but Faisal saw great promise in Bandar and promoted him through marriage to his own daughter. Bandar's a long shot. He's a recondite and elegant politician, the confidant of many US presidents and a great friend of the Bush clan to the point where he's known as “Bandar Bush”. Nayef is a troublesome old coot but he'll soon be gone, I hope. I'm rooting for Bandar.
Its hard for us plebs
(#269836)to understand exactly [i]how rich[/i] the Saudi royal family are. I think this single fact clouds, if you will permit me, any analysis done by the non-rich.
The wiki on Prince Bandar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan
no cathedral can be built if no community desires one
I could imagine lots of things more pathetic
(#269858)I'm sure, given the time, I could imagine lots of things more pathetic than an American "rooting for Bandar". At the moment though I'm too flummoxed to try. The prince has probably exercised the single most corrupting influence on American politicians and the American political system of any man alive or has ever lived.
However rich the family is, they still need a constituency to survive. That constituency is the Wahhabists, from what I can make out. Thanks to the Wahhabists, the government gave grants to up to 10000 graduating students to train at bin Ladens jihad camps. There are bans on music, film, dance, and unveiled women. Homosexuals acts are punishable by death. Of all the crappy regimes in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia has to be the worst, surpassing even the likes of Israel and Iran.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Hie thee to the fainting couches.
(#269860)Bandar is the least-worst and certainly the smartest among those princelings. King Fahd was a good man and did what he could to reform his kingdom. He saw what you do not, that Bandar is a man of the modern world, certainly no hidebound Wahhabist. I believe he ran afoul of those very Wahhabists and spent some time in prison for his views. You see him as corrupt, well, so he is by your lights. By mine too: he was involved in the Iran Contra scandal. He's also a very great friend of the United States.
You are wrong about the constituency which might support the House of Saud. No such consistency exists and never did. The House of Saud has many enemies within the country, enemies they inherited over many centuries. It's instructive to see how you view Iran, a country which once harbored modern ideas and has regressed into the worst sort of theocracy. It's even more instructive to see how you view Israel, a country faced with the same implacable enemies as KSA, indeed many of those enemies are the same ones. All the regimes of that area are crappy. Bandar is the least-crappy option in a sea of even crappier alternatives.
To say a man is of the modern world
(#269927)To say a man is of the modern world is saying very little of him. And that, along with qualities of intelligence, is pretty much the extent of your recommendation of Bandar. Abdullah is also an intelligent man of the modern world and Saudi Arabia remains a contender for the worst nation on earth, far worse than either Iran or Israel. There's a good reason they are surrounded by enemies. But the succession is a side show. It's the system that is rotten and a good part of the system is kowtowing to Wahhabist fanaticism. I am reminded of the articles that appeared in the press when Yuri Andropov came to power in the USSR -a modernizer! drinks scotch! listens to jazz! He will be great for us!
This was and is all wishful thinking, and there's nothing wrong with that. But why not set your wishes higher? A far less crappy option would be the end of the monarchy.. This is not something any of us can achieve, but if we can wish for it. Maybe give a word of encouragement for those brave souls working for it.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Abdullah is a very old man. So was Andropov.
(#269973)And so is Nayef. Do pay attention: I already compared these Saudi princes to the doddering old Soviet apparatchiki, of which Andropov was only one. The system is indeed rotten, hence the title, many clouds, little rain. Reforms have been promised, few have been achieved. If the Saudis kowtow to the Wahhabi fanatics, the Wahhabis have been their enforcers since the beginning. The succession is not a sideshow, whatever you may think of it. It /is/ the show.
Why should I set my wishes any higher? Politics is the art of the possible and so is essay writing. Perhaps you'd like some new Muhammad or Nasser to arise, standing boldly astride the world, armed with oil wealth and some measure of wisdom to reform KSA from the top. Such wishes shall not be granted. Meaningful reforms don't happen from the top: I said that, too. I have no Words of Encouragement for anyone, brave or not. In the immortal words of Will Rogers, all I know I read in the newspapers. My intention is to inform and present my own opinion, one which never seems to coincide with yours, for which I remain perpetually grateful, for your grating comments are all heat and no light. Who would you rather have in charge of a deeply conservative society in one of the world's wealthiest countries? That's right, you haven't presented a choice. At present moment, I see Nayef, a coarse and brutish oaf representing the status quo on the stage. If I prefer Bandar, that's not really saying much.
Conservative society my ass!
(#269976)The Wahhabis and the Sauds have a mutually beneficial relationship, that's what I meant when I mentioned that they were the constituency of the Sauds.
Andropov was not seen as doddering until after he died, an event which came as something of a shock. When he came to power he was in his late sixties and his health was not an issue. He was spoken of in precisely the terms you are using for Bandar, stressing his urbanity, hoping such a man can't help but be a boon to the West. It was his successor, Konstantin Chernenko, who was seen as doddering, and rightly so; not only was he older than his predecessor by several years, he was ill even before he took office, and was never more than a compromise candidate.
Why should I set my wishes any higher?
Only because I imagine you have some feeling for those living under this oppressive monarchy. Conservative society my ass! You'd be pretty conservative too if you faced a public whipping for getting caught enjoying an ale. If I had to root for a prince, let it be the one most likely to bring the institution crashing down. As for who would be best for USA, just remember what they said of Andropov, who was not that much older than Bandar is today, and had a cleaner bill of health, too.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
The Wahhabis served as enforcers for Ibn Saud.
(#269979)Andropov's ill health was an open secret. It may have come of something of a shock to you but Andropov was clearly in trouble even before he mounted the steps of the Kremlin: look at all the pictures of him, whey-faced and wan, often missing from the reviewing stands of important military parades. I find it amusing to find someone who was actually shocked by Andropov's death, but then, where all those Sovietologists were poring over the entrails, I saw the USSR headed for the rubbish bin for lack of fresh blood and said so. At the time, everyone knew Andropov was a sick little monster, lashing out at threats both real and imagined, certainly no man of modernity. As for the whole wretched history of the USSR, its leadership came to resemble the Papacy in many respects.
KSA is a conservative society. Once there was a day, right here in the good ol' US of A when enjoying an ale was illegal. That's how conservative societies behave. Which prince would bring the country down? Any names on your little list? Bring down KSA at this stage of the game and it would resemble Somalia in a few months. Oil prices would go through the roof. The world economy would grind to a halt.
It took some long while for the USA to allow women and black people to vote. I wouldn't approve of tearing down the USA over a few grievances, however unjust: this is what we call, however ungrammatically, the More Perfect Union. Reforms begin from below, a point seemingly lost on you, however often I repeat it. Perfection is asymptotic: I attempted to say KSA is continuing its status quo policies because its leadership is pinned into a corner, with many enemies within its own borders. The choice of Nayef reflects this attitude.
green pieces of paper
(#270030)You are incorrect about Andropov. According to online sources, he fell ill about a year after attaining office, long after the bandar-like ballyhoo that greeted his rise had died down. Have you really forgotten the talk of Andropov? Go back yourself and read it, it resembles your bandar rooting in some interesting ways. I think it's natural for certain people to look for the solution of rotten systems in the shape of sophisticated smooth talkers like Andropov or Bandar. I still remember the surprise at reading Bird Dog seriously proposing that the best way to deal with North Korea was to wait for the death of Kim Jongil and hope that his Swiss educated son would be a more compliant negotiating partner. These leaders, whoever they are, do have some degree of freedom in their actions, but especially in the rotten regimes, they are also prisoners of the system and find themselves carried along by the logic of decisions made decades previously.
You are probably confusing Andropov with another Soviet premier, Konstantin Ustinov Chernenko, the successor of Andropov who was not only older than Andropov, but actually ill when he was promoted. He was never written of in the Western press as a lover of scotch or jazz, and was from the very beginning mocked as an apt symbol of a dying regime. I thought I wrote about this in my previous comment, but it bears repeating apparently.
If the system is rotten, then it can't be reformed, from above or below. The foundations have to be rebuilt. I know Americans (who are also pinned in the same corner) have a lot at stake with this system, which allows them to give green pieces of paper in exchange for oil - paper which Americans can print at their convenience, but for everyone else in the world to get this paper, they have to make something or do some service. It's a very sweet deal for the USA and I understand how enemies of the house of Saud are essentially enemies of the USA.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Let's just say I've had my own opinions about KSA and USSR
(#270043)all of which have been proven right, over the scoffing and laughter of intelligence operators, both inside and outside the US military. I don't have to rely on some scruffy online sources: I was around for all that. On one thing, those operators and I agree: Andropov was ill, long before he came to rule the USSR. And don't insult my intelligence by saying I might be confusing Andropov with Chernenko. Andropov is easy to remember: he tried to get Russia to stop drinking. Needless to say, it didn't work.
Yes, I'm rooting for Prince Bandar, despite his obvious flaws. It has been my observation the sophisticates and smooth talkers rise in this world where obtusely honest men do not. Every person has his own personal view of Eden, a world where justice rules and not men, where lions shall lie down with lambs and they shall all eat grass together. No such Eden ever existed, Micky, and it is pointless to yearn for one. KSA is a state which appeared on the world stage in 1938, emerging from a violent, feudal society at the edge of the Ottoman Empire. Great Britain promised the Arabs of the Hejaz and the Nejd their independence if they would fight the Ottomans. The British did not exactly keep their promises, did they? If you now believe KSA is the enemy, they believe we are treacherous and faithless. In such circumstances, it is the sophisticates and smooth talkers whose soft words can turn away wrath. If differences are papered over, it is green paper which speaks to power, not broken treaties. Bandar is not so evil as all that: clouds are promises made. We do not know what goes on in the heart of all the princes: Bandar is as close as we'll ever get.
Bandar is not so sophisticated that he can avoid the old Wahhabis and his peers who ran the security apparatus of KSA. I have said he disappeared for some time, lying low, either under house arrest, as I suspect, or ill, as others suspect. We don't know for sure. He re-emerged two years later, providing no details. In the course of researching this essay, I looked at the records of many of these Saudi princelings and could not find a better candidate than Bandar.
Anyone who placed his hopes on anyone in the Kim family reforming North Korea should heed my little proverb about clouds and rain and be enlightened thereby. According to North Korea, all is sweetness and light and no reforms are needed. When one turns the camera ring to put a rotten regime in focus, the vast bureaucracy which benefits from that regime will be seen. Ask those bureaucrats if the regime is rotten: they will disagree, since they benefit from it. The tyrants only need zampolit within that bureaucracy to keep it in line. But ask the zampolit if they believe in the regime, they will tell you blankly they don't: they are herding cattle. You see, Micky, I grew up in countries which never had free and fair elections. I know how this goes. I've seen who benefits and who doesn't.
You think you're going to build a better foundation by tearing down an existing country? Dream on. If Iraq hasn't taught you anything, for all your minging and cant about the evils of America, I cannot give you a better counterexample. I have another one for you: Egypt, which has also turned out to be a bigger mess than anyone imagined.
Revolutions seldom end well. Only the stupid and naive believe in them. Substantive change is gradual. Be reconciled to the world as it is, get your bearings and quit believing in revolutions. The usual result is worse than what came before.
Reform? Reform? Aren't things bad enough already?
(#270066)I'm curious about Andropov's illness. Can you elaborate? I remember no mention of illness until the kidney failure that took hold of him a year or so after taking office. I suspect you have been duped by some black propaganda in the form of rumours of ill health in leaders we don't like. Ayatollah Khomeni was rumoured for years to be ill. Just like Kim Jongil today. I suspect whatever you heard of Andropov was baseless, but it turned out to be true. After all we all die in the end.
Bandar may be a good or an evil person. It scarcely matters is what I'm saying. The monarchy is evil and the institutions that support it are evil. I'm surprised you wish well of a man who has had such a corrosive effect on your own society.
I agree with you on revolutions. I am not advocating revolutions here. I liked the idea of a leader who will accelerate the rot, is all, I'm not quite advocating storming the palace here. I don't have any hope of reform either. Wasn't it Wellington who said: "Reform? Reform? Aren't things bad enough already?" I don't have a solution, but it lies beyond revolution and reform, both of which take as a given the world as we find it, just as you recommend. I think we have to be a little more utopian. This is fraught with danger, but I think we are forced to take such risks.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Things are indeed very bad in KSA. I have not said otherwise.
(#270070)Why do you remain so curious about Andropov? The US had plenty of intelligence on his health. He had been receiving dialysis treatments for years. Your suspicions are just that: feel free to reach any conclusions you wish. A rumour is just a report without independent confirmation. I am no longer privy to that level of intelligence but I read plenty of rumours these days. Iran was fairly open about Ayatollah Khomeini's deteriorating health, Shiites are nothing if not praying people and as he declined, the calls for prayers were made from every minbar.
Kim Jong Il has not died, if the DPRK propaganda is to be believed. He is in a state of suspended animation and he lies in the Kumsunsan, a great morbid palace. He remains the Father of the Country. Like Monty Python's parrot, he is resting. Beautiful plumage, though.
Bandar is, well, Bandar. I see in him echoes of King Fahd. It is pointless to wish for perfection in such men: the best leaders are often deeply flawed and their more-acceptable counterparts resemble that idiot Jimmy Carter. Since you mentioned Ayatollah Khomeini, it's instructive to realize he was guided by Plato's Republic at many turns and formed his Islamic Republic upon its principles. Plato was merely theorizing but others have taken him seriously, as they took Marx a bit too seriously.
Is a monarchy evil? This, I suppose, depends on the monarch. Monarchy is terribly efficient. When Madison and Jefferson were drafting the blueprints for the USA, they came to the conclusion the nation would need a Chief Executive. Much of the Constitution, if not the amendments, were limits upon the president's power but the Vice President was also a President of the Senate, a curious situation which required the passage of the 12th Amendment. Republics must have leaders with mandate. We are not formed around a parliament; our leaders are granted the needed mandate for unpopular change. As a Liberal, I am no advocate of monarchy but there's nothing intrinsically evil to the institution. The Saudi King is nobody particularly special: he exists in a legal twilight since Islam doesn't encourage the notion of a hereditary malik king.
Accelerating the rot is an exceedingly stupid idea in the case of Saudi Arabia. First, the country isn't even a century old: what's needed mostly is for the old first-generation bulls to die off, as in the case of the USSR. You say you have no solution, but you have proposed one, yes you have. I seem to recall some voices calling for the overthrow of another wicked tyrant, Saddam Hussein. We see how well opening that Pandora's Box worked out: as Saddam was being overthrown, one of his last communiques said the Americans would end up doing everything he had done and the Shiites would institute their own religious hegemony. This prophecy was fulfilled, in spades. I believe Saudi Arabia ought to reform with all possible speed, but no faster, lest it go the way of Iraq or Iran and now it becomes apparent, Egypt.
I was never privy to the secret information
(#270090)I was never privy to the secret information you had access to regarding Andropov. I only know what I read in the papers, and this, I repeat, is echoed in your profile of Bandar.
I wouldn't hold up either Iran or Iraq as models for emulation normally, but with the case of Saudi Arabia I might make an exception. You seem to be saying that the opposite is true, you wish Iran and Iraq learn something from Saudi Arabia - like the monarchy, I suppose. I disagree. Iraq has its problems, but the leadership is strong, stronger than I had expected. Iran has a flourishing film culture - has its problems of course, with harrassment and censorship, but Saudi has banned films altogether.
Maybe you have read Tanner's "Afghanistan- a Military History" - quite interesting until we get to the 21st century, in which the author embarasses himself by musing, quite seriously and at some length on the possibilities of reviving the Afghan monarchy as an alternative to the Taleban. Wasn't Chalebi also spinning tales of reviving the Iraqi monarchy to draw American neocons into his web of deceit? This American fascination with Muslim monarchys is qutie weird and I would never have predicted it. Same goes for the support of Jewish theocracy in Israel.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
I have never said anyone should emulate anyone else.
(#270106)The wars and revolutions which befell Iraq and Iran and Egypt demonstrate how these situations can go from the frying pan to the fire. Furthermore the Kuwait experience shows things can go from sorta-conservative to really-horribly-conservative.
You want someone to pull down the old rotten facade of KSA. First problem, it's not rotten. It's amazingly robust. KSA has attenuated the Arab Spring by handing out big wads of money and locking up a few protesters, not a particularly elegant strategy but that's what Nayef and his crew are all about: keeping a lid on things. I strongly suspect the monarchy is locked into its current course of action while Nayef is in charge of things. That's not good for KSA: pressure is building up under the lid, as it was before Fahd came to the throne back in the day, but much of that pressure is conservative, not reformist, as it was in the day of Fahd, too.
I really don't care who's in power, as long as they're making progress advancing the rights of man. Such people will always face enemies, but they can't just do a Jimmy Carter and expect the world to hop to their tune.
Eh
(#270081)Andropov's kidneys failed him three months into office, and he was bedridden full-time nine months into office. With kidneys that bad, his health had to have been failing when he stepped into Brezhnev's shoes.
I'm a little baffled at your surprise about my comment re Kim Jong Il. My point was that the U.S. has little influence on changing or reforming the hermit kingdom. China has much more influence but they choose to let the North Koreans wither under that communist regime. As Blaise noted, you opt for what is possible and for what is the least worst option. I'd rather the North Korean people mount a capitalist revolution but such a thing would be highly unlikely. Better to hope that the current leader dies soon and take your chances with new blood.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particula
I'm not disputing his health
(#270088)I'm not disputing his health. I'm talking about the coverage in the press when he took office. It was exactly as I said it was, very positive and hopeful, like the Bandar coverage. Focus on his illness and using it as a metaphor for the health of the state would have come months later.
I agree that the USA or anyone else has little hope to reform North Korea, but it could influence in a positive way if it chose to do so. At the moment, the US seems to be willing to cede whatever influence it potentially has to China, which I don't think is altogether a good thing.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
No it wasn't
(#270091)Andropov was head of the KGB for goodness sake. He was not seen as positive or hopeful.
I blame it all on the Internet
You are missing my point
(#270093)You are missing my point. Bandar was a participant in Iran contra and in his 20 years as Saudi Ambassador to the US he was probably responsible for far more damage and corruption to the American body politic than Andropov was. Yet Bandar is being portrayed here in much the same light, with the stress on his urbanity.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
America came to Bandar, not the other way round.
(#270105)Bandar serves his own constituency, that is to say, KSA and the USA. You really don't get this: Bandar is our friend, a loyal and deeply complex agent who aligns American and Saudi interests. Forget corruption, that's the last thing on his mind. Corruption is for little guys. Bandar is one of the world's largest arms dealers and brokers of peace deals, at the same time. His influence for both good and evil is almost incalculable.
A least bad scenario is not a very positive spin
(#270095)at least that's the message I carried away.
Was Iran-Contra a big deal, in the general scheme of things?
no cathedral can be built if no community desires one
Iran contra was bad enough
(#270098)I understand that message, but I still hope that something positively good might come out of Saudi Arabia. Neighouring Yemen has some good vibrations.
Iran contra was bad enough, also the lack of interest in the press or political class in getting to the bottom of it, though we can't blame Bandar for that. I think Bandar's worst offence is the suitcase-fulls of cash delivered to American politicians over the years as ambassador.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
I don't think so. Did Iran-Contra lead to impeachment
(#270101)unlike Mr Clinton's issues? It shows the American people aren't really too bothered about that sort of thing - whereas Mr Clinton's issues partly led to Mr Gore's lack of success, 9/11, Iraq and so forth. Although I would be the first to admit that I'm not too well up in US politics (apart from what is discussed here).
no cathedral can be built if no community desires one
Which is a more serious offense?
(#270102)Lying to a grand jury about a love affair, or ignoring Congress and selling weapons to an enemy in order to furnish illegal funds to a murderous police state?
M Aurelius was probably right.
Obviously, lying about the affair...
(#270103)...is the more serious offense. Much more serious is your use of 'in order' turning a fairly brief 27 word comment into an intolerably long 29 word comment.
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
Well, the Iran Contra situation featured plenty of lies
(#270107)to Congress and the FBI. Weinberger was convicted of two counts of perjury, Poindexter, George, probably at least two dozen convictions for perjury. But hey, that's why the GOP is all about Jesus, cause a pardon from on high means you can be born again into a new life in politics.
By God you're right.
(#270108)Like a sprocket with too many teeth, that sentence seems made to cover little ground with a lot of effort. A bicycle built for going nowhere fast. A masterpiece of inconcision. I can't decide whether to weep for shame, or run for office.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Benedict Arnold only sold the plans to West Point.
(#270112)Reagan would have sold them the cannon, shot and powder.
I agree with BD
(#270082)I remember the 80s, and all the Soviet leaders were seen as sickly old men at the time. That's one reason why Gorbachev was seen as such a break with tradition.
I blame it all on the Internet
When they need a whisky or beer
(#269995)they go to Dubai or Jordan - or Paris or London. Its not [i]that[/i] hard when you're rich. Also, you seem to feel that the generality of Saudi people are clamouring for representative democracy, and the freedom to drink alcohol on the street. Actually, the reverse is true. They are a highly conservative society. How many men want women to drive?
no cathedral can be built if no community desires one
Yeah, that's what I've read
(#269997)if they had an elected government they'd be even more conservative (and anti-infidel) than the monarchy is.
I blame it all on the Internet
That's certainly what happened in Kuwait.
(#270000)After we rescued them in Gulf War Part One, the Bush41 administration sorta leaned on the Emir of Kuwait to institute a more representative legislature. To his credit, he did. Who got elected? The Sunni fundamentalists. Kuwait's more repressive than ever.
I'm not saying that they are clamouring
(#270029)I'm not saying that they are clamouring for representative democracy. I don't know enough about the place to make such claims. I do think though that they can do better than this awful monarchy.
I think it's a mistake to make sweeping generalizations about a fragmentary society that exists under such a repressive regime. We just don't know what they are capable of and I understand the fear expressed here that change there might disrupt the happy go lucky life-styles of the West. Take courage would be my advice. Sometimes doing the right thing is difficult.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Not that I'm any authority on KSA, but here's a simple guide
(#270061)to the country and its attitudes. I've seen other societies propelled into modern times, the Hmong, the Fulani, the Pashtun, the Palestinians and the Kurds.
Let's start with the proposition that there's this ancient society which didn't exactly thrive so much as hang on at the periphery of larger, more advanced cultures. Such cultures are often composed of violent clans, featuring a good deal of raiding and predatory behaviours. The clans of KSA are not that much different from Hmong or Fulani clans once you look at their objectives. Lots and lots of politics, feuds going back into antiquity and always the threat of more dominant cultures encroaching on them.
Now change something. In the case of the Saudi clans, it was more than oil, it was the end of the Ottoman Empire and the presence of the British who had just betrayed them. They had been promised autonomy and they didn't get it. Under such circumstances, the Saudis were incredibly angry. You can see the same sense of betrayal in the Kurds and the Fulani, equally betrayed. The Hmong, well, they just wanted to live in their mountains unmolested, they were reasonably content to be Lao or Chinese or wherever they happened to live. The Pashtun wanted their own country too. They didn't get one and are resigned to that condition. But none of them are happy and none of them have much autonomy. This breeds despair.
If you've ever been betrayed, the first instinct is to count your true friends on your fingers and briefly panic when you realize how much you've confided in them and how vulnerable this trust has made you. The same phenomenon is seen in people who win the lottery or come into a great fortune: they retreat into a bewildered state of xenophobia, trusting nobody. Everything becomes a matter of quid-pro-quo. No matter how heartfelt the protestations of friendship might be, they are not believed.
Now combine betrayal and the greatest financial fortune ever to befall a clan. Note I did not say "a nation", a clan. The reaction was predictable: KSA has retreated into itself, like astronauts riding their rocket into the sky, a continuously detonating bomb underneath them. The metaphor is quite exact: consider the watts generated by Saudi oil in the engines of the world. The entire world economy has become utterly dependent upon their ability to produce and control that oil. Do you think they have any incentive to introduce democracy and its requisite chaos into that proposition? They think their whole country will explode like the Challenger shuttle if they allow so much as an iota of deviation from the status quo.
We their customers haven't helped things along much. We've connived with those dictators, alternately flattering and demanding, buying their oil, selling our weapons, damning them from our bully pulpits and not a word of sympathy or empathy for their plight, yes, plight, for they don't believe they have any true friends. They see us the way the lottery winner sees the hordes of well-wishers and hangers-on, as a contemptible rabble. They've sent emissaries to us, worked both publicly and behind the scenes for a lasting peace with Israel. We wouldn't take their advice on dealing with Saddam in Iraq. We're dirty dealers, we in the West. We haven't behaved honorably, dealt honestly with them, befriended them, a fellow nation which rose to great power and wealth in the world, providing the badly needed relationship which might have given the Saud clan the mandate for change and reform.
Perhaps one day we'll see fit to honor our promises. They keep theirs as a matter of principle.
It's a good summary
(#270067)It's a good summary, but as a guide, it lacks one detail: the path into the future.
One word comes up again and again: modernity.
I get your drift that KSA is in need of a man of modernity (Bandar) and here you say the society was propelled into modern times. I suspect there is some mystification going on here. I think you really mean 'integrated into a global capitalist economy' when you write modern, implying that, like the passage of time it is natural, necessary, and even desirable. I disagree.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
If anything, I'm trying to demystify the Saudis.
(#270069)Too many half-truths swirl around the Saudis and Arabic-speaking people in general. They are, after all, human beings with a standard set of emotions and needs.
Once again, please don't put words in my mouth: the Saudis will never be truly integrated into a global capitalist economy, nor do I particularly desire it. It cannot happen: they occupy a disproportionately important role, both within the world economy and within the Muslim world. King Fahd called himself the Guardian of the Two Holy Cities, not His Majesty.
The Saudis are far beyond any capitalist consideration. Fortune has two meanings. Fate and geography has given them more wealth than is strictly good for anyone, but it has not given them water or arable land or any other good thing: like some dark parable of King Midas in modern times, the Saudis have been given wealth but nothing else. Muslims are not the only pilgrims to that barren land: the leaders of the world go to that Canossa called Riyadh, with their hands out.
Why should I worry about the Path to the Future for the Saudis? I am writing an essay, dispensing advice, not to the Saudis but to the English language readers of this blog. Here is the path to the future for the Saudis: the oil will eventually stop flowing and their civilization will become a magnificent ruin. The halls of power will fill with blowing sand. The Bedu will wander through that landscape and the few tourists who dare to trek there will make some fine photographs and they will quote Shelley's Ozymandias. That is the future and it seems inevitable.
fully integrated
(#270089)If you have no interest in the path into their future, you shouldn't be writing about a tangled succession. I agree with your vision of the Saudi future, but there are many ways to get from here to there. Some are better than others.
The Saudis are fully integrated into the global capitalist economy which would grind to a halt without the oil they sell. Also noteworthy is their role in banking, having been encouraged to lend billions to poorer nations over the past 30 years or so. And we shouldn't forget their integration with Western political systems through bribery, campaign financing etc.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
I'll decide why I write an essay.
(#270104)The Saudis are bound to their own fate. The Saudis have been paying down their debts over the last decade. Saudis are seriously constrained by Islamic prohibitiions on lending at interest: a friend of mine used to construct halal deals which sorta simulated interest payments, but to say KSA is fully-integrated into the global capitalist economy is simply wrong. Quit pursuing that line of argument, it isn't true. KSA has invested a great deal of money. It has never lent a penny, technically.
I repeat myself in saying KSA is beyond capitalist considerations. The standard capitalist motivations and rewards do not apply to them.
You can read up on petrodollar recycling
(#270109)You can read up on petrodollar recycling on wikipedia and other places. I recommend you do so before writing another word on Saudi Arabia and its role in the global economy.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
I recommend learning a little Arabic
(#270111)and cease listening to the press about KSA. There are enough clues, right out in the open, to presume KSA is beyond capitalist considerations, including the phenomenon of petrodollar recycling, which is only one such. KSA has money but it can't buy friends. The USA is as close to a friend as they have in the world. A good friend can tell you the truth in private. Maybe the USA and the rest of the world can stop treating the Saudis like a boogeyman-of-convenience. That would be a very good start.
I wonder how much
(#269840)the recent events in Libya and Syria have upset the KSA royal family. As much money and power as they have, recent events have to be making them a bit nervous.
"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)
There's a reason there's a kingdom in SA
(#269845)and it's spelled O-I-L. The resources in that area are too important to be left in the hands of squabbling tribes or a democracy.
I blame it all on the Internet
I can't think of a stable, oil-rich democracy in the
(#269847)non-European world e.g. like Canada or Norway.
We have a problem with developing co-operative ventures to advance self-interest. And this is not terminally infected by self-hatred or the fault of evil empires speaking.
no cathedral can be built if no community desires one
Brazil? nt
(#269850).
I blame it all on the Internet
Is Brazil in the non-European camp?
(#269855)I'd figured there was a Euro-descent aristocracy calling the shots for the most part.
no cathedral can be built if no community desires one
Like the US? nt
(#269856).
I blame it all on the Internet
Brazil Has been Oil Poor Till Recently
(#269862)Brazil is not a traditional oil power. Recent off-shore finds are, well, recent, so they haven't really affected the political structure of what is a large country with a complex economy and considerable industry. The country was so oil poor it developed and deployed sugarcane ethanol.
I think if you adjust the phrasing from "Oil Rich" to "Oil Dominant", then it works out much better. Venezuela is oil dominant, Brazil is not. This would hold true even if Brazil's reserves proved to be larger than Venezuela's, because Brazil is a much larger economy (too lazy to Google now, but a quick guess is 8x GDP).
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
That's a rather good assessment of the facts.
(#269864)Flooding a nation with cash seldom works out well, long term. Spain became incredibly wealthy as shiploads of gold and silver arrived in its ports. So much arrived it actually depressed the value of hard currency. Seventy-odd years later, Spain was bankrupt. It had spent its wealth on 1) wallpapering its churches in gold 2) Financing wars in the Netherlands against the Protestants. It's a question of what you do with unexpected wealth which makes all the difference.
Still, Brazil may yet become bogged down and its politics corrupted by oil money. As you note, most of the oil and gas is still underwater.
There's no reason to invest in industry, education or
(#269866)research (other than that required to maintain the flow of easy money) when you can afford to buy everything cheaper than you could make, grow or invent it.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Well, the US did both
(#269898)in the first half of the last cent, so its not mutually exclusive. Also Iraq, when Sacram was a 'good' guy in the 70s.
no cathedral can be built if no community desires one
The US spent the first half of the 20th century inventing
(#269901)the industries that make petroleum valuable in the first place, so that comparison doesn't hold at all. If the US had started mining huge amounts of gold & silver in the 1890s, instead of inventing a new form of energy, the analogy would be similar.
Saddam used oil money to build a modern state, so that's a good counter-example to the general trend. Of course Iraq was an agricultural powerhouse for millennia, and that helped.
M Aurelius was probably right.
I disagree. The USA has always had tremendous natural
(#269918)extractive resources - gold, too. It could have gone down the road of extractive utopia for the capitalist, killed off or resettled indigenous people and exploited dirt poor miners - which is what happens here in the extractive industries - but it did not. Wealth created was shared and society equalitarianed.
no cathedral can be built if no community desires one
The US gold & silver rushes in the 19th century
(#269919)did exactly that (including resettlement, massacre & enslavement of indigenous people). I don't think there were ever enough extractive resources to float the entire economy here, not with millions of immigrants annually for decades.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Not always, Manish....
(#269922)As Jordan points out above, American experiences with (at least some of the) extractive industries have often led to exactly the sort of social iniquities you cite: the California Gold Rush of the 1840s is pretty much of an exception. Mainly because California was already a territory ripe for non-extractive development: good agricultural land (already somewhat developed by the existing Spanish/Mexican inhabitants), water supplies, extensive timber resources; maritime resources, cattle ranges (and, eventually, oil) - the templates for a complex economy and "developed" society.
Other areas - Nevada, Montana, the Klondike? Not so much. Still (at least until very late in the 20th Century) poorly developed. However much wealth the land could be made to yield.
Social inequity in the USA is/was nothing like what exists
(#269969)in the ROW.
J's point about the millions of immigrants every year throughout the 19th cent is valid. It is also possible that the US could have gone down the way of the modern Russian pluto-oligarch led society - but for the special characteristics of the American people.
no cathedral can be built if no community desires one
You Are Correct
(#269881)The full impact of oil on Brazil is very much an open question. It's still early days.
That said, I don't think they would ever deteriorate to Venezuela status. The country does have other major economic drivers, and their associated interests.
But it could certainly become more corrupt, and productive investments be reduced while easy oil money feeds idle speculation.
As usual our collective need to exit fossil fuels is overdetermined.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Lula flirted with Chavez a fair bit.
(#269894)Neither has much good to say about the USA. True, Lula wasn't the nut case Chavez is, but Brazil could easily descend into the same morass.
Well sure
(#269873)if you ask a different question you'll get a different answer. But Brazil does produce a lot of oil and they're a democracy.
I blame it all on the Internet