On April 25, Crown Prince Abdullah met President Bush at the President's Crawford, Texas ranch. It was a crucial opportunity for the President to pressure the Saudis on co-operation in the terror war and on democratization in the Arab Middle East. But the question of oil prices rested on the top agenda and the terror war and democracy appear to have been hardly mentioned. Why?

There appear to be signs of reform emanating from Saudi Arabia, but at the same time the regime is as barbaric as ever, ruthlessly cracking down on internal dissent whenever it rears its head. There are also indications that a revolution is may be simmering in the Kingdom, but the question remains: is it being led by democrats or Osama-worshipping Islamists?

If an election were held tomorrow in Saudi Arabia tomorrow and a regime supportive of bin-Laden and al-Zarqawi took power (which empirical realities suggest is the case), does it even make sense for us to be supporting “democracy” in Saudi Arabia at this moment? Is the devil we know better than the devil we don’t know? Or is supporting freedom, notwithstanding the circumstances, always in our interest?

To discuss these issues regarding Saudi Arabia with us today, we are joined by a distinguished panel of experts:

John R. Bradley, a British journalist whose book Saudi Arabia Exposed: Inside a Kingdom in Crisis has just been published in the US.

Rasheed Abou-Alsamh, a Senior Editor at the Jeddah-based Arab News who reports from the kingdom for The Washington Times;

Ali Al-Ahmed, a Saudi scholar and director of The Saudi Institute. He was a political prisoner in Saudi Arabia at age 14, and has been exiled in the US.

and

Prof. Khaleel Mohammed, Assistant Professor at the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University. He spent seven years in Saudi Arabia.

FP: John R. Bradley, Rasheed Abou Alsamh, Ali Al-Ahmed and Prof. Khaleel Mohammed, welcome to Frontpage Symposium. Mr. Bradley, let me begin with you. First things first, what was the significance of the recent meeting between Crown Prince Abdullah and President Bush? And what are the key issues in terms of American-Saudi relations at this moment?

Bradley: What was most significant about the meeting between President Bush and Crown Prince Abdullah was what was not discussed, not what was discussed. We all knew that the price of a barrel of oil would top the agenda, and it did. The issue of internal reform was not brought up at all -- apart from in the context of some vague reference to the need for the Saudis to reform their economy in the context of pending WTO entry. Otherwise, it was completely ignored.

This is an enormous tragedy. By not pressing Abdullah in any meaningful way on the issue of domestic reform, and seeming to be held captive by Saudi whims on the issue of oil flow, powerful ammunition was given to all those in the Arab world (and in the West) who say that the Bush administration is not really interested in undermining dictators, unless they happen to have policies which clash with US interests.

To say that the reform agenda inside Saudi Arabia has stalled is an understatement, which again is bad news when it comes to the Bush doctrine of "spreading democracy" in the Middle East. What few reforms were introduced -- or were touted as about to be introduced -- have been abandoned or scaled back by the regime. In the meantime, it's the same old story: outright repression and hypocrisy, all couched in the language of phoney Islam and patron-style benevolence.

The only positive thing one can say is that elections have taken place. But they were such a sham -- women not given the vote, only half the seats up for grabs on municipality councils that have absolutely no power -- that the vast majority of Saudis treated them with the contempt they deserved and stayed at home.

In the weeks before Crown Prince Abdullah arrived in Texas, 40 Christians were arrested in Saudi Arabia for the "crime" of praying in a private home. More than a hundred men were sentenced to lashings and jail because they were found dancing together in a private villa, and were therefore condemned as "perverts".

Three reformers and their lawyers were meanwhile languishing in prison because they had signed a petition calling for constitutional reform. Saudi religious scholars -- whose salaries are paid for by the Al-Saud -- continued to preach about the merits of jihad in Iraq, actively encouraging Saudis to travel to that country for that purpose. Saudi jihadis are blowing to smitherenes Iraqis and Americans inside Iraq, and this was not deemed worthy of mention. Even one of Abdullah's entourage was refused entry to the US days before the visit because he was on a terrorist watch list.

Why the deafening silence, then, on the issue of reform, or more precisely the lack thereof? Why no criticism of the mass arrest of reformers, gays, women, Christains?

The answer, of course, lies in the historic oil-for-security alliance forged by the US and Saudi Arabia 60 years ago. The main, overriding priority for the US is to keep a steady flow of oil at reasonable prices. The result is that the Al-Saud is now in a stronger position, when it comes to the kingdom's relations with the US, than ever before. It is the Saudis who are calling the shots.

The attacks inside Saudi Arabia by Al-Qaeda-linked groups, incorrectly interpreted in the West as threatening the regime, in fact are useful to it in two very important ways, while in no way threatening its iron grip on power. The attacks are one factor that helps keep oil prices high, and the Al-Saud now has an estimated $60 billion budget surplus, and so can once again claim to their people be the goose that lays the golden egg.

The second way the instability serves the regime is how it allows senior princes like Abdullah to turn to the West and say: look, we warned you that this place is full of fanatical Islamists who want a Taliban-style regime! Get rid of us and you'll have to deal with them! What everyone fails to mention, in response, is that the vast majority of Saudis are not in fact fanatics, and it is the Al-Saud itself that props up the fanatical Wahhabi religious establishment, giving it control of the schools, the media, the religious police, the mosques and even in many respects the policies adopted by the Al-Saud itself. The Saudi people are repressed as a result. They are not fanatics, they are ruled by fanatics. So the Al-Saud are the root cause of the problem of extremism inside Saudi Arabia, not the buffer that keeps it at bay.

Nevertheless, as I say, abstract perceptions often have more of an impact on foreign policy than the complex reality on the ground does, and the US seems increasingly terrified of any kind of political or economic instability inside the kingdom -- especially as rumors abound that King Fahd is clinically dead. The US has therefore, somewhat predictably, opted for the status quo. It's very depressing.

FP: Thank you Mr. Bradley. This sounds like a totally tragic and absurd situation. Saudi clerics get paid by their leaders to promote jihad in Iraq, which takes the lives of Americans, and our government is hugging their leaders. Mr. Alsamh, what’s your take here?

Abou-Alsamh: I have to agree with John that the pressing matter of political and judicial reforms were unfortunately not talked about at the latest Crawford meeting between President Bush and Crown Prince Abdullah. It does seem that the soaring price of oil has once again taken off the pressure from the Saudi rulers to push through reforms such as giving women suffrage; elections for the Shoura Council; true reform of the judiciary, which is still controlled by the executive branch and religious hardliners, and the basic right of public assembly and the formation of labor unions and political parties.

I think that the kingdom’s baby steps toward democracy that we’ve seen so far, with the recently concluded municipal elections, have been hampered by the fact that there is no public arena for the spirited debate of ideas. And there is no freedom to deviate from the accepted norm of ultra-conservative Wahhabism, which is stifling. Religion is regularly used to bash opponents and keep everyone in line. Everything here takes place in this surreal vacuum where the rulers seemingly suddenly woke up one day and said, “Oh, by the way we’re going to have elections this year.”

Of course, everyone here knows that the rulers agreed to hold the elections begrudgingly and under great pressure from the Bush administration, but the real problem is that there wasn’t adequate preparation of the electorate or detailed support from the US government and civil society. There was no get-out-the-vote type of program either by the Saudi government or non-governmental organizations. A group of liberal businessmen in Jeddah did recently try to organize weekly symposia to educate voters, but were stopped by the government who ordered them to desist, presumably because they feared it could later lead to the formation of political parties.

Sadly, some in the US seem to think that it is enough to just wave a magic wand and that democracy will sprout fully formed from the desert. If only it were so easy!

The continued ban on the formation of all political parties remains a serious barrier to the development of a functioning democracy here.

I have to disagree with John that the vast majority of Saudis stayed away from the polls because they doubted the government’s sincerity in holding the elections. For sure, only 20 percent of eligible Saudis, men 21 years of age and older, even bothered to register to vote. But an average 70 percent of that group showed up to vote on election day. That suggests to me that those who understood the importance of the elections, the first in over 40 years, made sure to show up at their polling stations and vote. The troubling figure are the 80 percent of eligible Saudis who decided to sit out this election, either because of cynicism or just plain lack of information.

Being an optimist, I prefer to believe that the majority of the 80 percent who didn’t register did so because they had no prior experience of democracy or politics to speak of. But in order to educate the Saudi masses I think that the United States should first be focusing on the basic right of holding public meetings, peaceful demonstrations and freedom of speech.

I covered the anti-government demonstration held in Jeddah last December 16, 2004, for the Washington Times and saw with my own eyes how a small group of peaceful and mostly poor Saudi demonstrators of all ages — men, women and children — were chased through the narrow streets of old Jeddah by riot policemen wearing bullet-proof vests and shooting rubber bullets at them for three hours.

What was the government so afraid of? Were a small group of unarmed demonstrators such a threat to them? I don’t think so.

I voted in the municipal elections in Jeddah on April 21 and none of my choices won except for Abdul Rahman Yamani, an Islamist, whom I voted for only because I didn’t know anyone else running in his district. I was overwhelmed by the list of the names of the more than 500 candidates vying for only seven seats on the municipal council.

The so-called liberal candidates were not organized like the Islamist candidates, who met together before the election to plot strategy, and were adept at sending out short-text messages to voters’ mobile phones urging them to vote for them.

In fact, Islamists swept most of the seats across the country, which has left moderate Saudis and the United States in the quandary of seeing Islamists using the ballot box to gain power. The US may well see another Algeria situation here a few years down the road if it does not start actively supporting moderate Saudis, who are not fanatical in their religious thinking, and who support progressive social policies such as women’s rights and the incorporation of the minority Shia into mainstream life.

FP: So democratization poses the threat that we might get a greater devil we don’t know than the devil we do know? In other words, that an even more rigid and America-hating Islamist regime might be elected and come to power if real elections are held?

Mr. Al-Ahmed, kindly answer this question and also what you think of the discussion this far.

Al-Ahmed: This visit dealt a huge blow to democracy activists in the Middle East, and their supporters in the West. Seeing the leader of the free world, holding the hands of a born dictator was shocking.

To be frank, Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is a dictator, son of a dictator, brother of dictators, and father of possible dictators. His government is one of the two governments in the world that bars women from voting. The Saudis are the leading supplier of hatred against the West, Christianity, and Judaism.

The issue of oil covered other issues and was central to the meeting. Saudi Arabia has not much more oil to offer to the US and the world. The Bush administration is wrong to believe that the Saudis have the key to solve the oil crisis. Even if Saudi Arabia wanted to pump more oil it cannot because there is no more. They are now running at almost full capacity.

Americans and the rest of the world must understand that the oil of the world is not endless. They must quickly develop new and alternative sources of energy before a crisis sets in. Oil supply is declining everyday, and demand margins are growing larger than the decline. China, India and even Africa want more oil let alone the United States, and oil suppliers have no more oil.

I agree with John that the US left the most important and long-term issues from the discussion. That was, to say the least, outrageous.  Terrorism assisted and carried out by Saudis in Iraq and within their borders is a prime cause for rising oil prices. Saudi support for terrorism is an oil issue, and must have been discussed.

As for me personally, I believe that the US has not a shred of desire to push for democratic reforms in Saudi Arabia. I know many US officials and intellectuals, including your magazine Jamie, are for democracy in the country, but those in power are not.

Score this one for the Saudis. The Americans didn't gain much of it. Oil won’t be cheaper and terrorism will still be Saudi's second exports after oil.

FP: This all looks like a very depressing picture. Prof. Mohammed, what do you think? And does democratization in Saudi Arabia pose the threat that we might get a greater devil we don’t know rather than the devil we do know?

Mohammed: Ah yes, the much vaunted democracy.  I spent seven years of my life in Saudi Arabia and I found that my experience did not make me look with much hope for any quick imposition of democracy. Because the idea of a single vote for a single person has the presupposition that the person is capable of making a rational judgment. But in Saudi Arabia, the school system is based on the most rigid, sectarian indoctrination possible.

I daresay that if Saudi Arabia were to hold elections tomorrow, apart from the fact that it would choose who could and could not vote, the people would choose Islamists. So yes, we are looking at the devil we do not know. 

The Islamists know the system and how to use it. Mr Al-Ahmed has said that Saudi Arabia is the leading supplier of hatred against Christians, Jews and the West. I remember going there to study Islam and I thank many of my teachers for patiently coping with me--but I also remember how ashamed I was about the disinformation that was being preached in colleges. The obsession with the Jews and Jew-bashing was really something else. And I, a child of the West, was told that in the West, the women are all into committing acts of infidelity with the mailman. How Western women are wanton hussies, etc.

So could a "democratically" elected government lead to a worse situation? Most certainly. Until Saudi Arabia changes its education system, until it is pressured about the abuses meted out on a daily basis to the maids from the Philippines and Sri Lanka, until it is held accountable for these things, nothing will change.

Mr. Al-Samh asks that we support moderates. Who are these moderates? The Saudi Kingdom always talks about its moderate Muslims. And yet, I have written until I am blue in the face asking for information and I have gotten nothing. In Islamic law there is a sub-maxim that says: The one who remains quiet is not deemed as having given an opinion--but silence when clarification is needed is evidence of an opinion. The fact that Saudi Arabia remains quiet on issues is the most manifest indication of the state of affairs there.

FP: Prof. Mohammed, when you refer to the “abuses meted out on a daily basis to the maids from the Philippines and Sri Lanka” what exactly are you talking about? Please give us some detail here, especially for many of our readers who might not be aware of this phenomenon. And perhaps illuminate some other injustices you have witnessed and are personally familiar with.

Mohammed: That you should seek elucidation illustrates my point. Filipinas and Sri Lankans (as well as Indonesians) pay recruiters to go to Saudi Arabia (and the gulf) to work as maids. I can only speak for Saudi Arabia--these people are treated as slaves. They cannot travel from one city to another without special permit--and do you know why? Apart from the usual crud about security reasons, the fact is that the regulations pertaining to them are based on the slave laws--and Saudi Arabia has seen no need, nor received any pressure to change these horrible conditions.

Ask the officials of the Filipino and Sri Lankan embassies in Saudi Arabia about how many of their citizens have sought refuge there, away from the abuse. You mention injustices that I have witnessed and are personally familiar with: since propriety does not allow me to get into salacious details, let me simply state that these poor women are there to be beaten, raped, maltreated and their countries and the developed countries turn a blind eye to them because of economic reasons.

The Filipina maid income is vital to the Philippines, as is the case also with Sri Lanka. Because I attended the Shariah college in Riyadh, and dressed a certain way (turban and robes), and because of my appearance (Asian Indian), many foreign laborers would figure out that I had some position of authority and approached me with their complaints. So yes, I have spoken to the actual victims. And when I visited the Philippines, I met many maids who recounted the most horrific stories of abuse.

FP: Who are the abusers in these tragic circumstances you refer to? Who will ever make them accountable?

Mohammed: The employers themselves...in which case, the place of employment, the house becomes a virtual prison. These women cannot leave without permission, and since they have no recourse to authorities because of language issues, they are basically slaves.  And since they come from third world countries, in many cases the embassy officials are themselves corrupt. In many cases in Saudi Arabia where the Filipina maids were lucky to make it to the embassy, their cases were hushed because rich Saudi employers could grease the palm of the embassy officials. WE in the US, Canada and the rest of the world can focus on the case and make the Saudi Government responsible. After all, it has a duty to protect these workers.

FP: Thank you Prof. Mohammed.

So, Mr. Bradley, so do you think that democratization might be a very bad idea for Saudi Arabia before the education system is changed?

Bradley: When it comes to the question of democracy, we are in a catch-22 situation.
 
Since the founding of the kingdom the Al-Saud has tried to crush even privately held opinions and beliefs that do not conform to the state ideology, Wahhabism. The West became entirely complicit in this, fearing that freedom for the Saudi people might mean paying a higher price for a barrel of oil or the election of a government that might not be inclined to waste so much of the money it makes buying Western arms. Better, as you say, the devil you know. The Al-Saud were also fellow anti-Communists. In the midst of these perceived common interests, the feeling was: screw the ordinary Saudi people. Who gave a damn about their oppression?
 
But the trade-off had ideological consequences way beyond the brutal physical oppression of the Saudi people: to achieve that end the Al-Saud empowered at home a Wahhabi religious establishment by giving it effective control over not only the mosques but also the schools, the religious police, the media, and even many of the government’s own policies; and sanctioned it spreading that hatred to the wider Islamic world and beyond in the form of Wahhabi preachers, madrassas and literature.
 
And now the West seems to be surprised that the Islamists are winning the elections. When theirs is the only viewpoint allowed any kind of expression, is it any surprise that they are better able to address their core supporters? Should it come as any surprise, in turn, that liberals feel so marginalized that they simply retreat into their own shells? As Rasheed conceded, only a tiny minority of the tiny minority who bothered to register for the elections actually went out to vote. The triumph of the Islamists does not therefore necessarily represent the wishes of the Saudi people, but rather only of that section of Saudi society that is empowered and better organized.
 
Prof. Mohammed wants to know who these “liberals” are, where they are. If we are talking about Western-style liberals, then they are indeed few and far between. But if we are talking about Muslims who are observers and yet tolerant of others’ beliefs, and who want to radically reform the Saudi political system in a way that does not empower the Wahhabi hardliners, then I believe we are talking about the majority of the Saudi people.
 
What I try to show in my forthcoming book is how, just as the Al-Saud have spectacularly mismanaged everything else they have been put in charge of running over the past 60 years, they have been hugely unsuccessful in brainwashing the Saudi people into abandoning their historically tolerant and diverse Islamic principles. From the Shi’ites in the Eastern Province to the tribal groups of Asir and Najran near the Yemeni border; from the inhabitants of the commercial capital of Jeddah in the Hijaz to the people of the northern Al-Jouf province: everywhere you go – and I have been to all of these places – you get the sense of a people who, like those in Europe who lived under Communism and Fascism, seem only to be waiting for the time to throw off the imported ideology that has been used to oppress them – in their case Wahhabism.
 
The reason we don’t hear of such people – the liberals or anti-Wahhabis, I mean -- is because speaking out is so damn risky. Let’s not forget that three reformers and their lawyer are languishing in prison merely for calling for a constitutional monarchy. Writers are banned if they produce columns that do not support the status quo. Peaceful demonstrators are sentenced to lashings and imprisonment. Rebellions in the Eastern Province and Najran and Al-Jouf have been ruthlessly crushed. Sufis and Shiites and moderate Sunnis retreat into their homes rather than suffer the ranting of a Wahhabi cleric at the local mosque. But just because these “liberals,” who are at heart fundamentally anti-Wahhabi, are not visible does not mean they do not exist. But by continuing to prop up the Al-Saud regime, which stifles all dissent, the West is making even more certain that this kind of opposition, which it might be able to do business with, is less likely to emerge.

FP: This is all getting confusing. From what Mr. Bradley appears to be saying, there is an Eastern-European type revolt brewing in Saudi Arabia, and we have to support the democratization process to get it to overflow. At the same time, the education system has engendered a generation of Islamists who know nothing but hate for the West and will win if an election occurs tomorrow. Do we or do we not support democratization in Saudi Arabia?

Mr. Abou-Alsamh, what policy should the Bush administration pursue toward Saudi Arabia?

Abou-Alsamh: Well Jamie, you’re right when you say that our dialogue seems confusing. I would rather say it is getting complex, because Saudi Arabia is a complex country with many contradictions. That is not to say that we should just throw up our hands in despair and give up on trying to get democracy to grow here, as successive US administrations have done in the past in the hope of keeping the oil flowing to the West.

After 9/11, the West, and in particular the United States, has to realize that the Saudi people have been yearning for more freedom and that it is in everyone’s best interest to allow democracy to grow.

The current system of governing the kingdom has papered over growing resentment and hatred bred by the corruption of some and a corresponding lack of accountability, and the undue influence of religious extremists.

While there is the danger of the Islamists that were recently elected being more overtly anti-American, there is also the fact they are highly educated. Most have PhDs from the US and all are committed to greater transparency, efficiency and less corruption. That can only be good for us.

For sure, the Islamists are very conservative when it comes to social issues like women driving and voting, but I think that they can at least be engaged in a dialogue, unlike other religious hardliners who are beyond reasoning.

Mohammed asks where are the moderates? Having lived in the kingdom for seven years he should know that there are many Saudi moderates, but that a share in the oil wealth has bought their silence. For sure, it is long overdue that they stand up, speak out and be counted. If the United States had been more willing to back them up with all of its muscle, I think more Saudis would have taken the risk of speaking out.

The sad fact is that the oil wealth has served well in turning many Saudis into soft-centered mutes. But we shouldn’t forget the three brave reformists and their lawyer who are in jail for calling for a constitutional monarchy. They have not, crucially, called for the overthrow of the royal family, but want a more modern way of ruling the country with greater public participation. They are arguing that the old system of the ruler holding a weekly “majlis” to hear the concerns of the people is no longer feasible now that there are 18 million Saudis.

The royal family has certainly done many good things for this country, but many Saudis now want a greater say in how decisions are being made and what our oil wealth is being spent on.

I think it helps the reformists for the Bush administration to continue pushing for more democratization in Saudi Arabia. The municipal elections were a good first step, but women should be given the vote, elections should be held for at least half of the Shoura Council, and political parties and trade unions must be allowed to flourish.

To continue reading this symposium, Click Here.