Saudi Arabia and Iraq  

Editorial

      Whatever the reasons for our involvement in Iraq, the problems in the Middle East effect us, and the world. Industrial civilization rests on oil. If that goes, so shall we. Other countries have oil, and Canada is supposed to have great quantities, but, at the moment, we are dependent on Saudi Arabia.

*****

      Saudi Arabia is a confusing country. The Royal family is friendly to the United States and regulates the supply of oil so there will be no chaos. On the other hand the country supports the Wahabbi sect of Islam that advocates the destruction of the United States, and others. The Saudis underwrite the cost of schools around the world, including in this country, whose goal is not only the destruction of the United States and Great Britain, and Jews of course, but the Western way of life. Their goal is to return to the simple life of the seventh century and to compel all people to be subject to them. Fundamentalist Islam aspires to the world conquest it enjoyed a thousand years ago. The world must be governed by the Koran, they say.

      The royal family could close down the promotion of radical schools around the world. Why do they not do so? They are afraid of the people who have been taught by their schools to hate and kill “infidels.” The anger of the people could lead to an overthrow of the monarchy, in spite of its rigid dictatorship. The royal family that enjoys the luxury that comes from money walks carefully between the love of money and the religion they have promoted.

      We read in The House of Saud, published in New Internationalist magazine, August 2000,

When Ibn Saud was consolidating the current royal family’s power over the Arabian peninsula back during World War One, British agent Harry St. John Philby referred to him as “the greatest Arab since the Prophet Muhammad.” This despite Ibn’s proclivity for roaring with laughter as he beat his servants with a stick in front of his guests, his dependence on a fulltime interpreter of his dreams, and his taste (also shared by his “modern” relatives) for public amputations and beheadings.

      The Arabian peninsula is 98.2 percent desert, with a little more than 23 million people. Arable land is 1.73 percent, in a harsh, sandy desert with great temperature extremes. The only source of wealth is oil, sitting on 25 percent of the world’s known supply. The country is ruled by the House of Saud, comprised of somewhere between 3,000 to 4,000 princes, each of whom receives an annual stipend of $500,000, plus other generous perks.

      In spite of enormous income, the country is in debt, running a deficit for the past 17 years (as of 2000) with a public debt 150 percent of annual income. Income for a Saudi citizen fell from $14,600 in 1982 to $6,556 in 1998. Every part of the national budget, which is controlled by the princes, has been severely cut—except for the royal family’s upkeep and military expenses. Prince Abedelaziz is building in Riyadh a grandiose replica of Spain’s Alhambra palace.

      The press is muzzled by the Saudi dictatorship and hardly dares tread on royal toes, but the public sees the public displays of wealth: Cadillacs, satellite dishes, plush homes with many servants. Bitter resentment grows among the poor, who are the vast majority.

* * * * *

      Modern Iraq began in 1979 when Saddam Hussein seized power and became the dictator of a totalitarian state, and he was utterly ruthless. With the nationalization of oil, the country prospered for a while but the economy declined after the war against Iran and further after the restrictions on the sale of oil following his invasion of Kuwait. The economy of the middle class degenerated to the poverty level and state employees were often not paid. Before the discovery of oil, dates were the largest export. Now even that is gone and the country is poor indeed.

      With Hussein gone, without economic and political infrastructure, Iraq is comprised of Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis. All are Muslims, with similarities and differences, and are ruled by Mullahs and clerics, who declare God’s laws. God’s laws are based on the Koran as interpreted by scholars and implemented by clerics. In the Christian tradition there is a separation of Church and State with the teaching of morality by clerics, but judgments are made by a judiciary which is separate from religion, though it may be influenced by it. Because of religious dogmatism in Christian states, and the persecution it produced, the growing secular conscience forbade religious persecution. The function of the church is now limited to moral persuasion. In Islam, religion and state are one, and the judiciary is ruled by clerics, with the rules enforced with a barbarous ferocity. Islam has not seen rationalism in opposition to dogma. Islam had no reformation, no renaissance, no absorption of the ancient classics of Greece and Rome, though the Islamic scholarship of the Middle Age was familiar with the classics and gave them to Europe for its scholarly rebirth. This has long since been suppressed.

      Much of the unrest in Islamic countries results from just what they call prayer. While there is genuine prayer in Islam, a call for repentance for sin and the promotion of compassion for those in need, some of their prayer is not prayer. Grown men put their heads on the ground and their bottoms in the air and chant, “God is Great. God is One and Muhammad is His prophet.” Such “prayers” produce violent reaction and screaming. The cultivation of violence in the name of religion strikes all but Muslims as a contradiction. A country with such habits finds rational behavior difficult. We should remember that the Muslim form of prayer was begun by Muhammad, who was a brilliant warrior who demanded obedience.         

      Government by clerics made sense in the seventh century. The effort of Muhammad was to gather Arabs into a conscious whole so they would renounce rule by blood. He wanted unity through a single language, awareness of common lineage, and a sense of belonging over a large area. He accomplished his purposes with religious dogma invented by himself, secular application in the name of God, and military power that suppressed opposition. His life was a brilliant success. The tragedy is that his followers cannot outgrow his brilliant beginning.

      Many societies begin as theocracies: the Hebrews, Tibetans, Egyptians, early American civilizations; the Papal states, Geneva under John Calvin, New England colonies under the Puritans. Monarchs in many European countries claimed to rule by “Divine Right,” though this belief lost ground after the sixteenth century. With theocratic governments in our recent past, we should not be too smug about our superior sophistication to the Muslims.

      Theocracies fail because clerics and those who rule the state have different tasks. Clerics have competence in the field of morality, or they are supposed to have competence in that field, but religious dogma does not give competence in economics. Many problems find resolution only in compromise or experiment where time and patience are the only solutions. The complexity of the modern society which searches for improvement where possible, and must reconcile various interests, is a world apart from theological dogmatism.

Clerics trained in religious dogma and jurisprudence are rarely skilled in economic matters and have difficulty mainlining a complex modern economy. . . . Resentment grows among the nonclerical populace when religious laws seem arbitrary or excessively strict and are enforced through civil power. In states controlled by one party, which theocracies tend to be, police are often tempted to resort to brutality and other harsh measures that undermine the legitimacy of the regime. (The Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion, pp. 733-735)

      The welfare of the Middle East demands that Muslims be allowed freedom to think outside what is considered religion. There are signs that this may be possible. Tariq Ali was one such, according to an article in the London Review of Books, dated February 7, 2003. He became an unbeliever as a child. He was told that “If you don’t do this Allah will be angry and punish you.” He didn’t do what he was supposed to do, and Allah never punished him. Tariq’s father was an unbeliever, and so were most of his relatives, though many went through the rituals at Ramadan. Few in the cities fasted for a month, probably less than a quarter. Of those who did, it was to take advantage of the free food doled out at the end of the month. Cafe life continued all through the fasting season. Country people fasted less than those in the city. Outdoor work was exhausting, demanding sustenance, and particularly hard in the summer when water was scarce.

            Tariq was compelled to study the Koran with a tutor, Nizam Din, but the Koranic verses were boring to the pupil and also to his tutor. Nizam had served a jail sentence, had become radicalized, spent time in left-wing politics. Truth, Nizam said, was a powerful force but had never been translated into practical life because the mullahs had destroyed Islam. So, Tariq and Nizam ignored learning Koranic verses and spent the allotted hour studying history: British imperialism, terrorism in Bengal and the Punjab, protests against repressive legislation.

            The journalist Craig tells us of recent events in Iraq. Robert Alayas, a 37-year-old fuel-injection technician, now has a dish for his television, which would have earned him six months in jail not long ago. He stopped to watch a program from the BBC, but his children were impatient. I want sports, said his 10-year-old son. I want English-language music videos said the 12-year-old sister. “Before it’s like I can’t see anything. Now I can see everything.”

      Iraq has already gone from a state where news was controlled to where news is pouring in at a dizzying speed. In addition to television dishes, once-banned cellular phones are being sold on the street. Calls to Europe that once cost $15 a minute now cost $5 for two minutes. The cost of the internet is prohibitive, but we may assume it will come down. If the Fax machine contributed to the failure of Communism in Russia, the Internet will do the same in Iraq. One prominent cleric, says Craig Gorden, has issued a religious edict calling on mullahs to fight the Western influence, telling them not to collapse morally before the Great Satan.

*****

      The future of Saudi Arabia and Iraq are uncertain, and so is the world economy. I do not doubt sincerity in the beliefs of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair that the war against Iraq was fought because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction, but we should be glad for the war if the long-range effect is the putting of oil in the hands of sensible people. Though the goal will be difficult to achieve, and success only probable, it provides a possibility for a continuity of economic security until we find substitutes for fossil fuels. We are moving our troops in Saudi Arabia to Qatar, where they will be separated from close contact with all Middle East countries but in a position to exert power to prevent terrorism. That is a splendid, brilliant action to ensure stability.   Ω