Prince Saud Al Faisal: High Treason
I thought we have kings that can lead the men behind them
Shame to such kings if kings are so low
By god, their crowns are not fit to be shoesoles
We are the ones who will protect the homeland and heal its wounds
Abu Salma, late 1930s
On Sept 15, news outlets gleefully announced that according to Prince
Saud al Faisal, foreign minister of Saudi Arabia, his country will allow the
U.S. to use military bases on its soil for an attack against Iraq, provided
the the security council had authorised the use of force.
The U.S. has built an ultra modern base on Saudi soil, the Prince Sultan
Base, which it intended to use to attack Iraq. Recently however the Saudi
government has declared that it will not give permission for this, and the
U.S. was forced to look elsewhere[1] for a bridgehead.
But as the time for the attack approaches, the pressure is obviously rising.
Prince Saud was obviously threatened that if Saudi Arabia didn't dance to
the tune of the U.S., it would see its turn coming after Iraq[2].
But a man charged with the international representation of a country of 20
million people, such as Prince Saud al Faisal, should be able to look beyond
appearances and threats to the real facts (we are of course not talking
about principles here, as the statements of this man show he has none). And
the fact here is that the best interests of Saudi Arabia - whether one looks
at them from the vantage point of its people, of the Arab nation as a whole,
or of its royal family - would dictate that it supports totally and
unconditionally Iraq, instead of siding with the aggressor.
In fact, for those who can read between the lines, it is clear that the
attack being prepared against Iraq has nothing to do with "weapons of mass
destruction" - even Bush has repeatedly admitted this. What is at stake is
the furthering of imperial control of the Arab world by the U.S. If the U.S.
manages to defeat Iraq[3], it will be able to dictate
its terms and impose a "regime change" not only in Iraq, but also in the other
Arab States. Will the Saudi Royal family have the guts to fight for its
existence, if the U.S., after defeating and dismembering[4]
Iraq, decides to seize as well the Saudi oil fields and assets, as analyst
Laurent Murawiec has suggested before a session for the Defence Policy Board
at the Pentagon back in July 2002? Prince Saud al Faisal's stance points to a
negative answer.
Very often, the only effective way to counter a threat is to oppose it steadfastly.
As soon as one embarks on the road of negotiating with the aggressor and ceding
ground, he is doomed. Every inch one cedes, instead of assuaging the hunger
of the aggressor, makes him stronger and more aggressive[5]
The same thing will inevitably happen to the Saudi royal family, if the U.S.
manages to impose its will in Iraq. Plagued by a terrible economic crisis,
with most major corporations operating at a loss (Worldcom and Enron are just
the tip of the iceberg), soaring unemployment and constantly shrinking markets,
the U.S. elite has only one way out - resorting to piracy: they will thus
attempt to occupy regions rich in natural resources (first of all oil),
destroy the existing states, and place the resources under their DIRECT
control. Having puppet regimes in place is no longer good enough for them.
This is the true meaning of Bush's terrorist war on humanity.
Under those circumstances, the worst thing an Arab regime could do (worse,
that is, even for its own narrow interests, not only for those of its
people) is to cooperate in the global crusade of Bush. There is NO ROOM for
maneuver. Every step backward brings the Arab regimes closer to the wall.
The only rational thing they could do is resist with every means at their
disposal the imperial plans of the US. The tactics of Prince Saud al Faisal
can only have one outcome: the deposition of the Saudi royal family - either
by a popular revolution, or by imperial occupation. In the former case, the
heads of its principal members will probably roll in the streets of Riyad.
In the latter, they will be paraded in the Hague as a proof of the absolute
victory of the U.S., pleading their cases in front of closed microphones,
just like Milosevic, erstwhile "responsible statesman", is doing now.
The only sensible thing left for Saudi Arabia is to repudiate Prince Saud al
Faisal's statements, relieve him of his duties as foreign minister,
arrest him as soon as he sets foot to the kingdom and try him for two counts of
high treason (against the Arab nation and the Saudi state). I sincerely hope
that Crown Prince Abdullah will take those painful but necessary steps.
best regards,
A Reader from the Arab peninsula
NOTES
- More specifically, to the Al Udeid Base in Qatar.
- U.S. plans for the occupation of Saudi Arabia after - or
even before - Iraq, have been persistently leaking during the last few months.
Some of them present various pretexts (terrorism etc). Others bluntly state
that the target is Saudi oil and assets.
- It goes without saying that such an outcome, regardless
of what Prince Saud al Faisal and his likes may think, is far from certain, to
say the least. A far more probable outcome is that Iraq will prove to be for
the U.S. what Afghanistan was for the Soviet Union.
- The dismemberment of Iraq has been a pet project of zionists and Americans
alike for decades. In a famous 1982 resolution, the World Zionist Organisation
proposes the dimemberment of Iraq into three different states: a Kurdish state
in the North, a Shi'a state in the south, and a Sunni state in the middle.
The Southern and Northern no-fly zones imposed unilaterally by the U.S. and
Britain (without even a shred of international legitimacy), are drawn along
exactly those lines. Dr Abd al Razaq al Hashemi, president of the Iraqi Organisation
for Friendship, Peace and Solidarity, speaking to a solidarity delegation
in March 2001 said, obviously referring to the Kivunim document: "If you think
that the U.S. want to split Iraq into three parts, you are mistaken. Their
plans call for a separate state in every single oil field. Have a look at the
map: How big is Bahrain? How big is Qatar?"
- The recent history of Yugoslavia is very instructive
in this respect. When the Serbs of Bosnia and Krajna were fighting against
the local puppets of the U.S., Milosevic, then president of New Yugoslavia,
sold them out by signing the Dayton accords. He obviously believed -
and had certainly received assurances - that by "playing ball" with the
U.S. he would be able to remain in power, and keep the remnants of his state
intact (at the time he was hailed by world media as a "responsible statesman").
Soon enough he was awakened to the real value of U.S. promises, when the U.S.
started bombing Belgrade - this time to "liberate" Kosovo. But it seems he was
organically incapable of drawing the lessons. So again instead of resisting
to the end, Milosevic, who had in his hands one of the strongest armies of
Europe, signed a 'peace accord' just at the time when the US would have to
invade with ground forces, an operation that many western analysts had
described as doomed to failure. Again it was obvious that he had received
personal assurances. Everyone knows how this affair ended: Milosevic was
kidnapped from Belgrade, dragged to Hague in a Roman triumph-like operation,
and is now being tried in the cangaroo court whose birth certificate he
signed in Dayton.
Back to FAV Articles and Readers' Corner
