Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 15:29:02 -0400 (EDT)
To: gulf2000 list
From: Juan Cole

Commentary on Hanson, "Our Enemies, the Saudis" in Commentary
Re: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/hanson.htm


I don't mind so much that Hanson is a specialist in ancient Rome who knows
no Arabic and has never lived in the Middle East, and yet delivers himself
of judgments on Middle East foreign affairs. I suppose I wish more
academics were willing to range beyond their narrow specializations,
assuming they educated themselves on the subject. After all, few
politicians or policy makers of the sort who actually decide on U.S.-Saudi
relations know Arabic or have lived in the Middle East. Of course, there
are State Department Arabists, but most of them are not at a policy making
level.


What I mind is that Hanson is guilty of muddled thinking and illogic, and
that he is advocating an extremely dangerous and irresponsible course of
action. None of *these* attributes of his piece are what I was hoping for
when I said I wished more academics ventured outside the ivory towers.


Hanson's prescription that the U.S. should deliberately attempt to "spark
disequilibrium, if not outright chaos" in the Middle East is the most
frightening thing he says, and one can in this case be glad that academics
are usually without much power or influence in this country. I thought
conservatives were supposed to want *order* and radicals were the ones who
wanted to spark chaos? Or maybe Hanson is one of a new breed of radical
U.S. conservatives? In any case, his logic is the same as Brezhnev's in
1979 when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, a decision that
destabilized the region around it and indirectly led to September 11.
May we please have less disequilibrium and chaos? We've had enough of
that in the past year.


Hanson's reference to the Saudi system of princes ruling being like an
Ottoman court only serves to reveal his dire ignorance about the history
of this region. The Ottoman court evolved in a completely different way.
Princes were not prominent as ministers or governors under the Ottoman
sultans, since in the Central Asian system any male of the chiefly family
had political charisma and could potentially succeed. Rival princes
tended therefore to be rudely shunted aside when they weren't (in later
centuries) blinded or killed. Why compare a contemporary royal oligarchy
to an early modern absolute monarchy? And some say that Edward Said's
*Orientalism* is old hat! We are the presence, friends, of the real thing
here.


Hanson neglects to make a basic distinction in this piece between levels
of Saudi society. Some of his attack is directed against the Saudi
government (i.e. the royal family). Other barbs are directed against
fundamentalist activists who oppose the royal family. Yet other attacks
are launched against Saudi cultural customs. Mentions are made of events
occuring on Saudi soil, such as the Khobar Tower bombings, which appear to
have little to do with any mainstream domestic Saudi force and which
implicitly targeted the Saudi Establishment as well as the U.S. All of
these levels are rolled as an undifferentiated mass into an illogical
argument for cutting off relations with Saudi Arabia and declaring it a
terrorist state on the lines of Syria or Libya.


I do not know whether it could be proven that the Saudi government has
recently supported terrorism per se. It has in the past been a partner
with the United States in supporting reactionary guerilla movements, such
as those in Eritrea and Afghanistan. The communists in Ethiopia and
Afghanistan would have seen this as support for terrorism, I suppose, but
where does that leave the U.S.? It is true that the Saudis recognized the
Taliban. But even the United States was essentially urged to do so by
Zalmay Khalilzad (current NSC staffer and envoy to Afghanistan) in 1996,
and the history of Taliban-U.S. covert and other contacts in the late
1990s and very early 2000s will not support an argument for Saudi
exceptionalism if it ever comes to light.


So is it being argued that the U.S. should break off relations with Saudi
Arabia because of its treatment of women? Has *Commentary* magazine been
in the forefront of the fight for women's equality? Gee, I missed that.
Is it being argued that the U.S. should break off relations with Saudi
Arabia because there are radical anti-U.S. fundamentalists in Saudi
Arabia? Since these fundamentalists are at daggers drawn with the Saudi
government, what sense would that make? It would be like cutting off
relations with France because a sixth of the French support the
proto-fascist party of LePen. Should the U.S. cut off relations with the
Saudi state because it has been unhelpful in the Mideast peace process (as
Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Libya have been?) But the Saudi state has put
forward the most far-reaching plan for a peace settlement in the region
ever broached by an Arab power, one which fully recognizes Israel and
normalizes its relationships with all Arab states, including Saudia.
This landmark plan is churlishly tossed aside by Hanson, who presumably
does not want Arab-Israeli peace or thinks it unimportant to U.S. policy
in the region. The ways in which the Saudis have kept petroleum prices
low at key junctures (as after the Gulf War and after September 11),
giving immense help to the U.S. economy, are completely ignored.


As I think I have made clear, I don't like the lack of democracy in Saudi
Arabia, because I think it makes a key country unstable (on the whole,
democracies are stable in the long run and dictatorships are not). I
don't like radical fundamentalism in any religion because it is
reactionary and threatens the liberty of us all. I don't actually object
to Hanson's characterization of the Saudi system of gender segregation and
discrimination as a form of Apartheid. And, I think Saudi foreign policy
and covert operations have often been a disaster for the region (though
the track record of my own country has been mixed, as well). But the
Saudi state is not like the Iraqi Baath Party or a sponsor of
international terrorism as that is currently defined by the Bush
administration--such as would make it appropriate or wise to break off
relations--and suggesting that it is only reveals the ignorance or malice
of the author.


Those who seek disequilibrium and chaos in the contemporary Middle East
are no friends of the American people, or of any people.


Sincerely,



Juan Cole
U of Michigan