Sunni Shia relations 090907

Criticism of U.S.-Gulf Arms Deal in Gulf Press

By: I. Rapoport

The U.S. recently announced a series of arms deals, worth $20 billion, with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. The deals are part of steps aimed at countering Iran's regional policy in the Middle East.

Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Secretary-General 'Abd Al-Rahman bin Hamed Al-Atiyya approved of the deals, saying: "The Gulf states have strong ties with the U.S., especially in the area of military cooperation... These deals are undoubtedly aimed at meeting the security requirements of the GCC states, which have every right to keep in step with advancing [military technology]. In my opinion, these deals by the GCC states do not constitute a threat to anyone, since [these states] are fully entitled [to make] such deals, just like any other [country] in the region."

The Gulf press, however, published articles criticizing the arms deals and U.S. policy in the Middle East. Columnists wrote that the Gulf states should not be squandering their funds on unnecessary weapons, and that the deals are aimed at promoting the interests of the U.S. rather than their own. These columns had a tone of appeasement vis-à-vis Iran, stressing that the Gulf states, while taking steps to arm themselves, were nevertheless interested in friendship with Iran, not military conflict.

Saudi Arabia, while expressing unconditional support for the arms deals, warned the Gulf states not to trust Iran's intentions, on the grounds that, in light of Iran's imperialist aspirations, it was likely to use its weapons to attack the Gulf states.

The following are the excerpts from columns on this issue that appeared in the Saudi and Gulf press:

The Gulf States Are Not Powerless Proxies of the U.S.

The editor of the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai, Jasem Boudi, wrote in an editorial that the arms deals serve no useful purpose, and criticized the U.S. for viewing the Gulf states as proxies to fight Iran on its behalf. He called for establishing an atmosphere of trust and stability in the region instead of building arsenals: "... In light of our painful experience with the New Middle East that the U.S. wants [to create], we must say that we have no wish to taste once again the [bitter] taste of war. We refuse to turn our lands into a launching pad for an attack on Iran, and we find it hard to believe that Iran will invade and occupy the Gulf states as part of its war with the 'Great Satan' [i.e. the U.S.]... These arms deals will be neither advantage nor deterrent. The alternative is, of course, [to create] an atmosphere of trust, security and stability [in the region]...

"The Gulf states are not cardboard [states] that lack sovereignty. They are not impotent and powerless lumps that [purchase] arms when America asks them to, and sit quietly when it asks them to. They do not lack the ability to understand policy and assess danger. They are certainly not [willing to serve as] the proxies, boxing gloves, or talons of other [countries]...

"Ultimately, our true interest is in security, stability, peaceful coexistence and neighborly relations with Iran... The war is an American plan; it is not the plan of [the countries in] the region. We hope that the people who came up with [this plan] understand that a military confrontation, should it occur, will be 'the mother of all earthquakes,' [felt] not only in the region but in other areas as well... Will America surprise us, for once, and listen to its allies, who advise it to be prudent in its handling of the region's issues? We hope it will, but we are not [particularly] hopeful."

These Funds Should Be Used for Development, Not Armament

Kuwaiti MP Dr. 'Abd Al-Muhsin Yousef Jamal wrote in the Kuwaiti weekly Al-Tali'a: "The Gulf states must buy arms at full price, while Israel receives them as a gift from President Bush and [will continue to receive them] from his successors... Whenever oil prices go up, they immediately try to take [the money] out of [our] bank accounts, in any way that serves the [interests of] the American economy, even though we have no need to arm ourselves in this fashion. The most infuriating thing is that America [not only] sells us arms but also determines for us who our enemy should be!

"Since its liberation [from Iraqi occupation in 1991], Kuwait alone has paid over $10 billion to the U.S., and I do not know for whom this enormous arsenal is intended. Whom do we [intend to] fight? After all, Kuwait's international [policy] is based on good relations with other [countries]!

"...The U.S. has imposed strict conditions on arms [sold] to the Arabs. [These arms] must not be used against Israel, they must not be advanced, and they may only be kept in certain areas... I hope that the Gulf countries learn a lesson from this, and give first priority to the interests of their people and to their relations with their neighbors, before they begin enthusiastically purchasing arms that are of no use to them. These billions [should be used] to boost the economy, strengthen infrastructure, and promote the wellbeing of the [Gulf] peoples."

The U.S. Should Treat the Gulf States Like Allies, Not Subordinates

Columnist Dr. Tareq Seif wrote in the UAE daily Al-Ittihad: "America's behavior in the Gulf raises an important question: Does its regional [policy] promote the joint interests of America and the countries in the region, or does it serve America's interests alone? In other words, is America treating the countries in the region as its friends and allies, or [is it treating them] as its subordinates, who must comply with its requests without objection or question, even to the detriment of their own vital interests?...

"The American administration did not consider the special character of the commercial, economic and financial relations between Iran and the Gulf states, nor did it consider the vital strategic interests of these countries when it adopted a policy of coercion towards Iran...

"In the long term, the American administration, headed by Bush, is creating mistrust and doubt in its relations with the countries of the region, and [raising doubts] as to the degree of [its commitment to] preserving the interests of its allies and friends. [America's policy also] highlights the inability of its intelligence apparatuses to assess the scope of the threat faced by the region...

"The American administration must reassess its relations with the Gulf states by placing its partnership with them on a more suitable footing... It must stop treating them as its subordinates who must comply with Washington's plans."

The U.S. Seeks to Foment Crisis Between the Gulf States and Iran

Bahraini columnist Radhi Al-Sammak wrote in the Bahrain daily Akhbar Al-Khaleej that the U.S. had defined Iran as the enemy, and had imposed this position on the Gulf states while providing them with weapons that cannot deter the Iranian nuclear threat.

"Since the Gulf states [remained] completely silent, the U.S. allowed itself not only to announce the [arms] deal but to say, in the name of the GCC states, that the deal comes in response to Iran's growing military capabilities and to the so-called threat of its nuclear program aimed at manufacturing nuclear weapons...

But none of the GCC states [actually] made a clear statement regarding the nature of this deal and their part in it... and not one of these states justified the deal in terms of confronting the Iranian nuclear threat. [In fact], the GCC states all declare their friendship with Iran and their wish to develop their ties with it in various areas. Therefore, the statement made by America in the name of the GCC states smacks of a deliberate [attempt] to generate a crisis between these states and Iran – and the first to be harmed by this tension... is not the U.S. but the peoples of the Gulf... It is the intensive military presence of the U.S. in the Gulf which constitutes the real threat to the peoples and countries of the region...

"None of the [Gulf] states paused to consider the benefit of these costly deals... [considering that] the weapons [we purchased] cannot deter a nuclear [attack].

"Finally, there remains one embarrassing question regarding the deals: What is the [purpose] of all the American warships and aircraft carriers in the Gulf, if not to defend [the U.S.'s] allies? Which is the more effective deterrent... the massive [arsenal] of state-of-the art weapons deployed by the enormous American naval [force] in the Gulf, which has been rapidly growing throughout the last three decades – or the defensive weapons that [the U.S.] has charitably allowed the Gulf states to [purchase] at astronomical cost?..."

The U.S. is Trying to Get Its Hands on the Gulf States' Capital

Columnist Hassan Al-'Attar wrote in Akhbar Al-Khalij: "The peace and quiet we desire... will not be achieved by building arsenals of weapons which have already proven to be useless, but by eliminating the factors that generated the atmosphere of insecurity and hostility [in the first place]... I believe that the reasons cited by [U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice were merely a cover for [the U.S.'s] real motivation [for the arms deal], which is to get back the large sums that the Gulf states received in the last four years due to the rise in oil prices. [This was done] by means of the American arms manufacturers, which are a central pillar of the American economy..."

"The American administration's current political steps in the Arab region are an attempt to involve the Gulf states, and some of the [other] Arab countries, in the conflict with Iran, even though these countries have declared, on a number of occasions, that they are against a military solution to the conflict, and that they object to America launching a military attack on Iran from their territories..."

Saudi Arabia: The Gulf States Should Fear the Iranian Threat

In contrast to the criticism published in the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia expressed approval of the arms deal. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Sa'ud Al-Faisal stated that the deals were part of a comprehensive plan for the defense of the region, and stressed that his country is arming itself for defensive purposes only. "It is a well-known fact," he said, "that Saudi Arabia is a non-aggressive state, and it has a right to defend itself, especially in light of the dangers coming from every direction..."

Saudi columnist Khaled Hamad Al-Suleiman wrote in the Saudi daily 'Okaz that the Gulf states needed to bolster their defense capabilities in order to establish a balance of deterrence in the region and to counter Iran's imperialist aspirations: "Iran is filling its arsenals with submarines, destroyers, missiles and [other] advanced weapons... and working day and night to manufacture a nuclear bomb – yet it has the nerve to criticize the Gulf states for [exercising] their right to strengthen their defense capabilities!!

"Iran... sticks its nose into everything that happens in the Arab world... and its fingerprints can be found wherever there is trouble in the Arab [world]. Yet it condemns the Gulf states for striving to improve their ability to defend themselves and their people in order to confront the dangers of this conflicted region, and [denies] their right to restore the regional balance [of power] which has been drastically upset...

"The Iranians should [try to] understand why the countries in the region have started to enhance their military capabilities, [instead of] objecting and trying to claim this right for themselves alone... It would be a mistake for the Gulf states to trust any Iranian assurances that its arsenals will not be used to subjugate the Gulf, or that its nuclear bomb will not threaten the Gulf – because Iran has had only one [goal] on its agenda since the [Islamic] Revolution – namely, to re-embrace imperialism.

Source : MEMRI

Syrian Muslim Brotherhood Website: Syria, Iran Working to Ignite Region For Own Interests

In an article posted on the website of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (www.ikhwansyria.com ), Faisal Al-Sheikh Muhammad, a movement member and regular contributor to the site, harshly criticized the policies of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Al-Sheikh Muhammad wrote that Assad and Ahmadinejadwere sabotaging all attempts to reduce tension in Iraq and Lebanon, and were even threatening to ignite the entire region in order to divert world attention from the Iranian nuclear issue and from the issue of the international tribunal for the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri.

The following are excerpts:

"They Are Holding Cards That Are Affecting The Region"

"At his inauguration [for his] second [term in office], Bashar remarked that, in the next few months, the region and the whole world would change, while the Iranian president warned that the summer would be hot.

"These two individuals do not usually issue such warnings for nothing: The truth is that they are holding cards that are affecting the region - each according to his ability and power. While Ahmadinejad is brandishing his nuclear plans, which scare the West, as well as the issue of the Iraqi quagmire into which the U.S. military is sinking, Assad is flaunting the Lebanese case, along with the terrorist organizations which he has established, financed, and armed, and which he has the power to deploy whenever and wherever he wants.

"We already know that Tehran and Damascus are trying to impede and sabotage any consensual solution in Iraq and Lebanon that will calm the situation in the region, gradually stabilize security, and reestablish peaceful coexistence within the Lebanese and Iraqi societies. The agenda of both Ahmadinejad and Assad is [to leave] the two countries in the grip of destructive anarchy... in order to keep the U.S., Europe and the world occupied, thus preventing them from confronting the Syrian and Iranian leaders, [as would occur] if [any] settlement were reached in Lebanon and Iraq.

"Soul-mates Ahmadinejad and Bashar are Playing for Time and [Taking] Preventive Steps to Preserve the Status Quo on Iraq and Lebanon"

"The world's continued preoccupation with Beirut and Baghdad - the two hotspots which are, in effect, a powder keg that endangers the region and the whole world, and which Ahmadinejad and Assad are threatening to blow up - is bound to turn the entire region into a bloodbath, should any degree of success be attained in [the efforts to] sabotage the Iranian nuclear project or to thwart Damascus's attempts to prevent the establishment of the international tribunal [for the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri].

"Soul-mates Ahmadinejad and Bashar are playing for time, and [taking] preventive steps to preserve the status quo in Iraq and Lebanon. Everything we hear about meetings between Iranian and U.S. representatives over the situation in Iraq is nothing but another diplomatic game [played] by Iran, contemptible but ever brilliant at fraud and deception.

"They are Deviously and Malevolently Aspiring to Destroy This Region, With Which They Feel Neither Affinity Nor Kinship"

"The same goes for Damascus, which announces at every opportunity that it is in favor of any agreement acceptable to the Lebanese for solving their problems and [reaching] internal consensus, while [in reality] both its reasoning and actions are against [a solution in Lebanon].

"Ahmadinejad wants to buy time in order to obtain nuclear weapons and to force the world to face this as a fait accompli. Indeed, yesterday he declared that the world must accept Iran as the ninth nuclear country (after the five superpowers, India, Pakistan, and North Korea). Bashar, in turn, wants to convince the world that [the road] to peace and security in Lebanon passes through Damascus.

"It appears that what the allies Ahmadinejad and Bashar are proclaiming is no secret: the region is sitting on a powder keg, whose explosion would alter the geopolitical situation of the entire area… They are aware that the focal points of the explosion, as well as the means and tools for its execution, are in their hands. They are deviously and malevolently aspiring to destroy this region, with which they feel neither affinity nor kinship."

Source: MEMRI

Nawaz to return despite Riyadh plea

09/09/2007

Islamabad: Former Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif insisted yesterday he will return to Pakistan despite pressure from Saudi Arabia and a key Lebanese politician to honour an agreement to remain in exile.

After a three-hour meeting with President General Pervez Musharraf and Lebanese lawmaker Sa'ad Hariri yesterday, Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief Muqrin Bin Abdul Aziz said Sharif should respect the accord made with Saudi authorities that he stay out of Pakistan for a decade. "We are hoping, we are really hoping, sincerely hoping, Nawaz Sharif honours this agreement [which was mediated by Saudi royalty and the Hariri family in 2000]," Muqrin told reporters.

However, the Sharif brothers have consistently denied signing any deal with Pakistani or Saudi governments.

Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah Bin Abul Aziz was concerned about the "unity, stability and prosperity" of Pakistan, Muqrin said. But a spokesman for Sharif said his leader had told him by telephone that his mind was made up.

"He has reiterated that he will come on September 10. He just feels a little sad that the Saudis, for whom he has the highest respect, have appealed like this," spokesman Ahsan Iqbal said.

Hariri, son of assassinated former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hairi, said he had met Sharif in London and conveyed the Saudi concerns to him. "I will meet him again," he said.

"King Abdullah hopes that in the national interest of Pakistan all parties concerned with the agreement will honour and adhere to the terms of the agreement," Hariri said.

On the situation in Pakistan, Muqrin said: "We respect the verdict of the Pakistani Supreme Court and the people of Pakistan. But it is our firm belief that his [Sharif's] return would affect the stability of Pakistan."

The Pakistan court in August ruled that it was an "inalienable" fundamental right of Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shahbaz to return to the country.

Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) ruled out any change in the brothers' plan to fly back home tomorrow from London. After landing at the Islamabad international airport, they would proceed to their hometown Lahore, capital of Punjab province, by road.

"He is returning under the verdict of the Supreme Court of Pakistan," PML-N Central Information Secretary Ahsan Iqbal said, wondering why Musharraf was afraid of their leader.

Acting PML-N president Javed Hashemi said the Sharif brothers would definitely stick to their schedule and the party would approach courts if the authorities arrested them. Shahbaz told a private channel from London that they would not change their decision to return to the country.

Source: Gulf News

US loses ground

BY NICOLE STRACKE

9 September 2007

THE attacks of September 11, 2001 and the strong US criticism of Saudi Arabia in its aftermath set the course for a change in Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy towards a gradual disengagement from the US. In fact, by the time of the Arab Summit in 2007, Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz described the US presence in Iraq as "illegal occupation" and de facto legitimised the Iraqi resistance movement.

Whether this represents a real shift in the Kingdom's policy remains an issue of contention. Sceptics have pointed to the traditional historical friendship between Saudi Arabia and the US, and recalled the close strategic ties both states had established over the years on a quid pro quo basis: Saudi oil for US military protection. In addition, Arab public statements are perceived as: “They talk a lot and do nothing… We will just give it some time, let tempers cool down, and after a year, things will be back where they have been before.” Moreover, the recently announced US-GCC arms deal amounting to $20bn has re-emphasised US commitment towards its Gulf partners and makes it appears as if it is back to business as usual. A US State Department official recently assured that the US “is still powerful, we protect our friends, we’re not going away.”

Behind the scenes, however, not only the Saudis but the other GCC states as well have in fact started to lose confidence in the US. The frank statement of Saudi King Abdullah at the Arab Summit was more than just 'background noise'; it was the result of the increasing and growing dissatisfaction of the region's leaderships with US policies and attitudes since September 11 and the US invasion in Iraq. The result is a vanishing confidence in the US capability to deal with the threats challenging the region with some regional states are no longer sure whether the US is capable and willing to defend its Gulf allies in case of a military attack. This is the most critical point in the US-GCC relationship today.

The crisis in confidence can be attributed to two key factors. For one, US policies are not transparent and are becoming more unpredictable, thereby making it difficult for the Arab Gulf States to see the US as a reliable partner with a clear strategic vision. Second, the US failure in Iraq and deterioration of the security situation in Afghanistan gives reason to believe that US cannot cope with the new forms of threat challenging the entire region: that is, the threat from the activities of non-state players such as terrorist and insurgency groups.

First and foremost, the GCC states are concerned about the US attitude towards the Iranian interventionist policy in Iraq. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al Faisal’s statement back in September 2005 that the US is “handing the whole country [Iraq] over to Iran without reason” underlined a strong and consistent regional concern about Iran’s hegemonic interest in the Gulf. The fact that the US has further stood by the Maliki government, which is backed up by the Al Dawa party and al Hakim group, both known for their strong links to Teheran, suggests to the GCC that the US is either underestimating the implications of the Iranian interventionist policy, or incapable of encountering Iranian power, or even worse, unwilling to risk such a challenge. Either way, the situation is dangerous for regional security and stability. If Iran continues its provocative policy in the region and the US does not respond in an adequate manner, Teheran might be tempted to interpret US behaviour as a sign of weakness.

While none of the Arab Gulf states doubt the US ability to counter a conventional Iranian attack, the GCC states are not sure whether the US would jeopardise the safety of its troops in Iraq to protect its GCC allies against an Iranian aggression. Also, it is widely assumed that Iran will use Hezbollah or its RGF intelligence arm Al Quds organisation to operate from within some GCC states such as Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Given the evident inability of the US to deal with such groups, which have been employing insurgency tactics in Iraq and increasingly in Afghanistan, the GCC states doubt if the US will be able to meet its security commitments to traditional allies in the Gulf.

The US status as power broker in the Middle East is also shaky to say the least. Caught between the host of problems with Iran and Syria, the war of attrition in Iraq, and increasing pressure from rival domestic interest groups in Washington, the Bush administration seems neither capable nor willing to revive the Arab-Israeli peace process even though analysts from the region and the West have long urged that the solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the key to achieving long term stability in the Middle East. The lack of any serious US initiative to deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict led Saudi Arabia to take on a mediatory role and push for the revival of the Arab peace plan first announced in 2002. Meanwhile, the US has officially criticised the Saudi efforts to settle the Hamas-PLO conflict and referred to the Makkah agreement which was brokered in February 2007 under the supervision of the Saudi King as “unhelpful.”

Finally, the debates within the US Congress over weapons sales to Saudi Arabia (including the implicit criticism of the so-called US Gulf allies), the US withdrawal from Iraq, or change of policy towards Iran, are all carefully followed by the Gulf States and are seen as further examples of a possible wavering US commitment to the effective security of the Gulf. With the US already in the midst of a highly contentious presidential election campaign to culminate in November 2008, it is becoming increasingly difficult to gauge the likely direction of long-term US policies. Where the GCC states will be situated on the next administration’s priority list is anybody’s guess.

A silver lining is the fact that the increasing unreliability of US policies has had an impact on the GCC states and encouraged overall regional cooperation. Over the past years, the group has gradually moved closer, cooperating on political, economic and security issues. Continuing regional integration will make it more difficult in the long term for the US to influence in the domestic affairs of these states and dictate certain policies.

With an eye on the Iranian nuclear file and the potential militarisation of the programme, the GCC states decided last year to establish a common civilian nuclear programme.

By doing so, the GCC states are trying to reduce the need for a potential long term dependence on a US nuclear umbrella. In the meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has strengthened its defence relations with the UK. By the end of the year, the Saudi King is expected to sign a $40 billion arms deal with United Kingdom to buy Eurofighters jets. The British-Saudi arms deal goes beyond the issue of modernising the Saudi air force. It is both a political message and a strategic move that strengthens the links between Saudi Arabia and other allies. More importantly, it demonstrates again the determination of the current Saudi government to gradually multiply its options and ease up its dependence on the US.

Nicole Stracke is a researcher in the Security and Terrorism Program at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai

Source: Khaleej Times