From the New Duranty Times, with thanks to EPG.
President Bush might not have turned up personally in Riyadh yesterday but he certainly sent a high-powered delegation to pay his respects to the new leader of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah.The American turnout, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, former President George H. W. Bush, and former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, was the latest signal that relations between the two countries have thawed since the strains of 9/11. But it was also an acknowledgment of a simple fact: like it or not, the United States is more dependent than ever on Saudi Arabia.
"The Saudis are in a great position today," said Jean-François Seznec, a professor at Columbia University's Middle East Institute. "We cannot be enemies with everybody. We need their oil desperately."
Indeed, the alternatives to Saudi Arabia are fewer today than seemed to be the case just three years ago. Predictions of a boom in Iraqi oil have been proved wrong; Iran, OPEC's second-largest oil producer, is locked on a collision course with the West; Venezuela is following an erratic path; and Russia's commitment to market reforms and foreign investments seems increasingly unreliable.
All this has added to Saudi Arabia's already impressive clout. What is more, other powers - mainly from Asia - seek greater access to its resources and have been increasingly courting the Saudis. "They can play the United States against other buyers, like China," Mr. Seznec said. "And why wouldn't they?"
American officials, furious over Saudi Arabia's handling of the investigations after 9/11, recognize this new reality. The warmer relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States were on display last April, when Crown Prince Abdullah - who succeeded his half brother, Fahd, on Monday as king - visited President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Tex. As a sign of public diplomacy, and personal bonds, they kissed on the cheek and held hands...
Yes and after viewing that picture, the entire country cringed in disgust.
Everyone was there. Prince Charles was there. Our Foreign Minister was there. It's truly disgusting how the world grovels at the feet of the Arabs. South-Africa during the Apartheid was shunned and this fascist state gets away with pretty much everything. Do the Sauds party with the infidels in Europe, is that why they're all cozying up to each other?
We need to get the f**k out from under ALL these
oil-pumping nations, even the ones who are our "bestest friends". Our liabilities are the 800lb gorilla in the room, and he's off his meds. Add to that the amount of T-bills and T-notes owned by the Chinese and others and we are setting ourselves up for extortion and blackmail, not to mention an economic holocaust.
We need to kick Western innovative abilities in the Kiester. Give R&D a national priority, treat technological advances in energy and communications, and the economy, as vital facets of the GwoI/WW3, and fund and properly support a broad ranging and multidisciplined effort to invent a new reality for living in the West and how we deal with the rest. the kind of "we're all in this together" mentality that led to bond rallies, scrapmetal drives, rationing, and dogged determination accompanied by HIGH MORALE during WW2 was instrumental in turning the tide against the last centuries fascist flavors. we need to cultivate this same "attitude with attitude" for the challenges of today.
Granted, nothing will be achieved overnight, but we must start yesterday, or at least now.
to the naysayers, i am reminded about a discussion with a co-worker about returning to college in middle-age. "but i will be 50 when i graduate", they remarked, inferring that it will, for them, be too late to see any benefits. "how old will you be in 4 years if you don't go?" they were asked.
History shows that the citizens of the UK and the US know how to pull together when it hits the fan, from a street/neighborhood level all the way up to international cooperation. it's a proven track record, time and again. it's what we do, what we're good at. we do it right despite critics, both internal and foreign, despite well-meaning but hopelessly wrong opposition, and despite our enemies best efforts to lay us low. we take our blows to be sure, sometimes we end up on the ropes, forced to take an 8-count, but when we find ourselves at the end of the rope, we "tie a knot in it and hang on". Giving up is so fundamentally against our character that it takes a new generation, unfamiliar with our last victories, to try again, because the lessons we teach, stay taught. we can do this, and in the process we will rediscover all the things that exist that make us so freakin' outstanding. it's not that unknown in human nature to slack off and let efforts diminish when things are going well, we've received our wakeup calls and it's high time we start to tighten up and get our sh!t back in order.
KING FAUD SPEAKS
"I summon my blue-eyed slaves anytime it pleases me. I command the Americans to send me their bravest soldiers to die for me. Anytime I clap my hands a stupid genie called the American ambassador appears to do my bidding. When the Americans die in my service their bodies are frozen in metal boxes by the US Embassy and American airplanes carry them away, as if they never existed. Truly, America is my favorite slave."
King Fahd Bin Abdul-Aziz, Jeddeh 1993
"Yes and after viewing that picture, the entire country cringed in disgust".
That did it for me. I already had a number of reasons to distrust Bush, but supported his 'war on terror' anyway, that kissing and holding hands pushed me over the edge. I would no longer trust him with a house plant.
Thank you Caroline2 for that King Faud quote. I read it before somewhere, but had forgotten about it. Thanks for the memories. I'm going to copy that and send it to the 'letters to the editor', of the local paper. The local liberals, and conservatives, need to read it...
It looks very bad now, but we can't be dependent on oil forever. And when that day comes we will turn on the Saudi's in an instant.
One of the main reasons Iraqi oil is not flowing is that Saudi Arabia is sending thousands of jihadists with millions of dollars to blow up the infrastructure and keep it out of action, as well as to kill our troops and engineering personnel. The Al Saud are appalled at the possibility of a Shia-run Iraq, and they will do anything they can to prevent that. Stay tuned...Hugh may yet get his wish. That will leave the Administration with the dilemma - who does the US support, the Saudis or the Iraqis?
Some experts say the tide will turn on OPEC in 25-30 years. I don't understand why we wait till then. Biodiesel could bring them down in 25-30 months!
>>It looks very bad now, but we can't be dependent on oil forever. And when that day comes we will turn on the Saudi's in an instant.
This is false. We are not "dependent" on Saudi Arabia. We buy oil from Saudi Arabia, at market prices. We buy Saudi oil at the same price that Libya or Iran or Nigeria or Ruritania would charge. The Saudis have never sold oil to the United States at preferential prices, and they never will. The Saudis are currently hoping desperately to expand production (right now Totalfina and Elf are looking for natural gas in the Rub al-Khali, and if they find it, it will have to be sent out via Oman, which raises all kinds of questions, given the historic Saudi bullying of all of its smaller neighbors, and its role in encouraging the Dhofar rebellion against Sultan Qaboos of Oman a few decades ago -- will they simply try to swallow Oman whole, or will the British on the ground protect Oman from Saudi rapacity?). They are hoping to expand production not as a "favor" to the Americans but to make more money.
End of story. No favors. No ally. Not now, not ten years ago, not in 1973, not in 1945. Saudi Arabia is not, never was, never will be, an ally. The United States is not "depednent" on Saudi oil. It buys Saudi oil. It could, if it wished, since oil is fungible, switch all of its purchases to non-Saudi producers.
And if it did, so what? The Saudis would sell the oil they have to sell to other buyers, and would still take in money, and that money would still pay for mosques, madrasas, Muslim propaganda, the buying up of small armies of Western hirelings -- ex-diplomats, ex-intelligence agents, journalists, academics, businessmen who have contracts dangled in front of them -- and the malevolent Saudis, without whose money the Jihad would of course still exist, but be far less potent, would still be a major threat.
One-third of a century has gone by and the American government and some journalists continue to misunderstand the oil market completely. Some keep talking about "our Saudi friends" and how we can, in the end, "rely on them." Rely on them to do what? To sell oil, at whatever prices the market will allow them to sell the oil, and in some cases pegging the price at a certain level so as to make sure that the value of their reserves in the ground is maximized. That's it. That's all it ever was.
Meanwhile, the failure to put a steadiy rising tax on gasoline at the pump (so that the price never goes down) and on oil itself (so that the price never goes down), to ensure that investments are made in other forms of energy, and in energy conservation, has not been done. And it has not been done because the myth that Saudi Arabia is "our friend" continues to appear, and to be believed. It is complete nonsense.
If the Saudis wished to help supply Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War, that was only out of hatred for the Shi'a that outweighed fear of fellow Sunni Arab Saddam Hussein. If the Saudis helped pay for some of the American military aid to the mujahedin in Afghanistan, that was not because of any shared belief in liberal democracy, or hatred of Soviet despotism, but only in order to help fellow Muslims fight the Infidels. There is no example of Saudi Arabia ever collaborating with the American government on anything for which it did not have entirely good and sufficient reasons of self-interest to explain its behavior.
But if the Saudis are not going the United States as a country any favors, the same cannot be said for individuals. Some people, and some corporations, are favored or can be favored, by the Saudis, and it is these individuals, and investment houses, and certain companies, that become the cheerleaders and propagandists for the Saudis, and convince our government and press that the Saudis hold all the cards, and we are "dependent on their good will" and there is "nothing else to do" but appease them.
Nonsense. Treachery, and Greed, and Nonsense.
We need to be more sensitive to the Bedouin culture. Imposing Western values on them is not fair. Extending the Western concept of property rights for example is manifestly inappropriate for desert nomads. They just need a few camels, sheep and illiterate women to keep them happy. So that's all we should trade to them for the oil. It has no intrinsic value in their culture so even a few camels would be a windfall in the context of their 7th century tribal nomadic world.
Here's a true story to illustrate:
Abdul Aziz raised a Bedouin army to conquer the Arabian peninsula. When he had consolidated his power he still had to keep the Bedouins happy. For one group he had a barracks built on the outskirts of Riyadh so they could be sheltered from the extreme desert climate. A British visitor was shown the building and had an opportunity to speak to the bedouins who had taken up residence there. One of the bedouins heaped high praise on the materials used for the trim work and furnishings in the barracks as hardwoods are non-existent in the Arabian desert. He said that they had never had better fuel for their fires. They had stripped it all and had even broken down all the furniture to cook. Only the mud brick structure remained.
Whom did Cheney kiss? Was he seen to hold hands with fat Arabs in robes?
How about prince Charles? And was Camilla allowed to wear a burkha?
Just dying to know!
Hugh's take on Saudi oil is supported here: http://eurota.blogspot.com/2005/08/big-oil-saudis-must-be-scarier-than.html
While it is a good idea to find other energy sources, it will not solve the problem. They would then complain that our superior technology is starving them, because they have nothing else of any value.
I am "dependent" on CostCo. You are "dependent" on Wal-Mart. He, she, it is "dependent" on BJ's. No, We, You, They are NOT "dependent" on any of those stores. The world of oil-consuming nations is NOT dependent on Saudi Arabian oil. It can, by taxing its own consumption of oil and natural gas, effectively depress the demand for oil and gas, and create a fund that might be applied to other forms of energy.
Why hasn't this been done? Because hirelings of the Arabs, hirelings of the Saudis, have continued to prate about how "dependent" we are on Saudi Arabia and how we must do nothing to antagonize the Saudis, but only dance attendance upon them, and hope for their good will.
This is nonsense. But ever since 1973 and the quadrupling of oil prices, the fear of offending Saudi Arabia has been an article of faith. And those profiting from the "recycling of petrodollars" are not inclined to tell the truth -- they are making out, not like gangbusters, but like gangsters.
All these Al Capones need to be seen for what they are. For the oil-consuming world to get out of this mess, all it needs to do is listen to my imitation of Eliot Ness.
Hugh's comments remind me of two depressing articles by Daniel Pipes, which basically say our government is indeed the best that money can buy:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/980
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/981
We should lobby our reps to pass a law that disallows "revolving door" government employees from jumping onto the Saudi dole for the first ten years after seving in our government. I am sure they'd find ways around it, but it SHOULD be an issue that we voice with these people. We do not hire them to sell us out, and just because they often do, we are still supposed to be as vigilant as possible against that kind of conflict of interest and basic corruption.
"the entire country cringed in disgust" - Robert said it perfectly.