27 January 2003
The Times of India
Dateline Jeddah
Saudis eye India, but Gujarat scares them
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
JEDDAH: With Saudi-US relations mired in distrust following 9/11 and
the freezing of bank accounts thought to be linked to terrorist
activity, an increasing number of Saudi businessmen are asking whether
their investments in the US are really secure.
When last year, the wife of the Saudi ambassador in the US was
investigated for having donated money to an individual whose relatives
might have known one of the 9/11 hijackers, the business elite here
kept their fingers crossed. "You never know, your family name shows up
on some list somewhere and, boom, all your money is the US could end
up frozen for nothing," a leading Saudi businessman said.
The stakes are enormous — for both Saudi Arabia and the US. Though
there are no firm statistics, Saudi citizens are estimated to have
parked as much as one trillion dollars in the US. The market rumour is
that $200 billion of that has been pulled out in the past year or so
but Saudi officials and businessmen insist this is highly unlikely.
"As a general rule," said Khalid al-Shelail, deputy director general
of the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority, "we do not feel our
money there is threatened." For example, Walid bin Talal, the richest
Saudi investor, has said he is not afraid and is not considering
withdrawing any funds.
If there is a financial exodus, say officials, this is likely to be
very, very low-key. Pulling out money in an open way would itself make
the US authorities suspicious, they say.
However, two trends are discernible. Property prices here have begun
to rise as Saudi money returns home; and Saudi investors have begun
actively looking for investment opportunities outside the US,
particularly in Asia. China, Korea, Malaysia and India are considered
attractive destinations.
Last December, the first Saudi business delegation in 25 years visited
India. "We were really impressed with what we saw in Hyderabad, Delhi
and Mumbai," said Walid Fitaihi, a US-returned doctor and businessman
who is building Saudi Arabia's first paperless hospital. Fitaihi even
published a laudatory article on the Indian economy in influential
Arabic daily Okaz.
But even as they wax lyrical about the Indian IT and pharma sectors
and express keenness to do business, Saudi businessmen say they are
troubled by what happened in Gujarat.
"As businessmen, we will go where there is profit and stability," said
Ziad al-Bassam, who headed the Saudi delegation. "And so when we read
about Gujarat, this worries us. What would have happened if I had
built a factory there and it had been burned down because I am a
Muslim?"
"You cannot separate economics and politics," said Fitaihi. "If India
wants money from here, it should simply be true to its own democracy
and treat its Muslims as equal citizens. You should use the Muslims of
India as ambassadors to help bring Arab money in for the development
of the country rather than pushing them aside."
25 January 2003
Dateline Riyadh: Stung by 9/11, Saudis turning their backs on U.S.
January 25, 2003
The Times of India
Dateline Riyadh
Stung by 9/11 response, Saudis turning backs on US
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Riyadh: Hussein Al-Athel, secretary-general of the Riyadh Chambers of Commerce and Industry, has visited the US every year since Last year, like thousands of other influential Saudi citizens, he decided not to. “Why should I take the risk of being accused of some wrongdoing? They may even misunderstand my name. A tribal name like many of the 9/11 hijackers had can be shared by up to 250,000 Saudis, and then there are thousands of Alis and Mohammeds,” he said.
“There is a feeling here of not wanting to always prove you're innocent.”
A suspicious' name or the whim of the immigration authorities can lead to a Saudi visitor at a US airport being fingerprinted and photographed on arrival. “It's really quite random”, said a Saudi businessman.
“One prince that I know sailed through immigration. Another was taken aside and photographed like a criminal.”
With 15 of the 19 hijackers hailing from Saudi Arabia, the Bush administration seems keen to place obstacles in the way of Saudis visiting the US.
It put pressure on Canada to end its visa free entry for Saudi citizens and even got its southern neighbour, Mexico, to shut down its embassy in August 2002.
So obsessed is Washington with the idea that Al Qaida works on tribal lines that it has introduced a form where visa seekers must spell out the full details of their family, clan and tribal affiliations.
“For us Saudis, that can be complicated,” joked Farooq Luqman, editor of the Jeddah-based daily, Malayalam News, and an Indophile of long standing. “It's much better to just be a Malhotra!”
A senior Saudi official who asked not to be named said Washington's response to 9/11 has undermined an alliance that provided stability to the entire region.
“We have had a long relationship with the US for so many years and look how they treat us now,” he said. Wallahi (By God), I will never visit the US again unless I am required to do so for my work,” the editor of a top-circulating Arabic daily declared at a dinner in a smart restaurant on Jeddah's corniche. “We have all studied in the US and loved that country. But this is the feeling we have today.”
“The way the US is treating Saudis shows that civilised, democratic values are not deep-rooted there,” a businessman said. “Once they are finished with the foreigners, they will start targeting their own people”.
The Times of India
Dateline Riyadh
Stung by 9/11 response, Saudis turning backs on US
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Riyadh: Hussein Al-Athel, secretary-general of the Riyadh Chambers of Commerce and Industry, has visited the US every year since Last year, like thousands of other influential Saudi citizens, he decided not to. “Why should I take the risk of being accused of some wrongdoing? They may even misunderstand my name. A tribal name like many of the 9/11 hijackers had can be shared by up to 250,000 Saudis, and then there are thousands of Alis and Mohammeds,” he said.
“There is a feeling here of not wanting to always prove you're innocent.”
A suspicious' name or the whim of the immigration authorities can lead to a Saudi visitor at a US airport being fingerprinted and photographed on arrival. “It's really quite random”, said a Saudi businessman.
“One prince that I know sailed through immigration. Another was taken aside and photographed like a criminal.”
With 15 of the 19 hijackers hailing from Saudi Arabia, the Bush administration seems keen to place obstacles in the way of Saudis visiting the US.
It put pressure on Canada to end its visa free entry for Saudi citizens and even got its southern neighbour, Mexico, to shut down its embassy in August 2002.
So obsessed is Washington with the idea that Al Qaida works on tribal lines that it has introduced a form where visa seekers must spell out the full details of their family, clan and tribal affiliations.
“For us Saudis, that can be complicated,” joked Farooq Luqman, editor of the Jeddah-based daily, Malayalam News, and an Indophile of long standing. “It's much better to just be a Malhotra!”
A senior Saudi official who asked not to be named said Washington's response to 9/11 has undermined an alliance that provided stability to the entire region.
“We have had a long relationship with the US for so many years and look how they treat us now,” he said. Wallahi (By God), I will never visit the US again unless I am required to do so for my work,” the editor of a top-circulating Arabic daily declared at a dinner in a smart restaurant on Jeddah's corniche. “We have all studied in the US and loved that country. But this is the feeling we have today.”
“The way the US is treating Saudis shows that civilised, democratic values are not deep-rooted there,” a businessman said. “Once they are finished with the foreigners, they will start targeting their own people”.
22 January 2003
Dateline Riyadh: In Arab heartland, no appetite for US war on Iraq
22 January 2003
The Times of India
Dateline Riyadh
In Arab heartland, no appetite for US war on Iraq
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
RIYADH: As the build-up of US troops in and around Iraq continues relentlessly and the region waits uneasily for the inevitable, it is clear that Saudi Arabia wants no part in any war against its Arab neighbour.
Saudi Arabia was once considered Washington's most dependable ally, but public opinion here is strongly ranged against the idea of an American attack.
Even members of the ruling elite are emphatic that if and when Iraq is invaded, US forces should not be allowed to use Saudi territory or even airspace for their operations.
"We are very firm that our stand is against war," said Badr Korayme, a ranking member of the Majlis-e-Shoura, the nominated body that is often described as the kingdom's parliament. "We are for change in Iraq provided it is from within. No external attempt to change the regime there is acceptable. Hence, we have very clearly told the US our territories cannot be used against Iraq in any way."
Korayme said that Riyadh would not even allow US bombers from Diego Garcia to overfly Saudi airspace on their way to Iraq.
A senior Saudi economic official, who did not wish to be identified, said that the situation today was "totally different" from the Kuwait crisis of 1991 when Riyadh backed Washington.
"This war is not about Saddam", he said. "After Iraq, the US will turn to Iran. It is all about oil. Wallahi (By God), I worry about the future of Saudi Arabia. You even have people in Washington who talk about the break-up of my country... After 10 years, everything will be against Saudi Arabia. That is why we are concerned, we have to take care of stability in our region."
Saudi apprehensions are largely fuelled by the manner in which the US seems to have turned against the kingdom in the aftermath of 9/11. Stringent visa restrictions - including the finger-printing of many Saudi male visitors to the US - as well as the suspicion that the strategic map of the entire region is somehow being redrawn have rung alarm bells within the Americanised elite.
The leaked Rand Corporation report presented by Laurent Murawiec to a Pentagon panel last August envisaging the "targeting of Saudi oil and financial assets abroad" is seen by Saudis as an augury of the tough times that lie ahead.
Officially, therefore, the normally reticent Saudi government has staked out a fairly rigid public position on the question of a war against Iraq.
Crown Prince Abdullah has said that even if the United Nations were to approve the US plans, diplomacy must be given time to work. Other ministers have said that Riyadh would deny all military and logistics facilities, including overflight rights.
On Thursday, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal will travel to Ankara for a six-nation meeting called by Turkey to explore ways of averting war. Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iran will also participate in the meet.
Though a number of Riyadh-based Western military attaches told Times News Network that the Ankara meeting and the Saudi stand were mere "posturing", it does seem as if this public display of opposition to the US approach has worked to limit Washington's options.
In the absence of explicit authorisation from the UN Security Council, Saudi Arabia and possibly even Turkey would find it difficult to go along with any invasion of Iraq.
Militarily, this means that were the US and Britain to go it alone, the only guaranteed frontage they would have access to for a ground invasion would be the 240-km Kuwaiti border with Iraq. And for that, military experts felt, the US still needed to augment its already fearsome presence in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the Persian Gulf.
The alternative would be to push for explicit UN authorisation, something that would be difficult to secure in the absence of a dramatically adverse report by the UN weapons inspectors on January 27.
The Times of India
Dateline Riyadh
In Arab heartland, no appetite for US war on Iraq
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
RIYADH: As the build-up of US troops in and around Iraq continues relentlessly and the region waits uneasily for the inevitable, it is clear that Saudi Arabia wants no part in any war against its Arab neighbour.
Saudi Arabia was once considered Washington's most dependable ally, but public opinion here is strongly ranged against the idea of an American attack.
Even members of the ruling elite are emphatic that if and when Iraq is invaded, US forces should not be allowed to use Saudi territory or even airspace for their operations.
"We are very firm that our stand is against war," said Badr Korayme, a ranking member of the Majlis-e-Shoura, the nominated body that is often described as the kingdom's parliament. "We are for change in Iraq provided it is from within. No external attempt to change the regime there is acceptable. Hence, we have very clearly told the US our territories cannot be used against Iraq in any way."
Korayme said that Riyadh would not even allow US bombers from Diego Garcia to overfly Saudi airspace on their way to Iraq.
A senior Saudi economic official, who did not wish to be identified, said that the situation today was "totally different" from the Kuwait crisis of 1991 when Riyadh backed Washington.
"This war is not about Saddam", he said. "After Iraq, the US will turn to Iran. It is all about oil. Wallahi (By God), I worry about the future of Saudi Arabia. You even have people in Washington who talk about the break-up of my country... After 10 years, everything will be against Saudi Arabia. That is why we are concerned, we have to take care of stability in our region."
Saudi apprehensions are largely fuelled by the manner in which the US seems to have turned against the kingdom in the aftermath of 9/11. Stringent visa restrictions - including the finger-printing of many Saudi male visitors to the US - as well as the suspicion that the strategic map of the entire region is somehow being redrawn have rung alarm bells within the Americanised elite.
The leaked Rand Corporation report presented by Laurent Murawiec to a Pentagon panel last August envisaging the "targeting of Saudi oil and financial assets abroad" is seen by Saudis as an augury of the tough times that lie ahead.
Officially, therefore, the normally reticent Saudi government has staked out a fairly rigid public position on the question of a war against Iraq.
Crown Prince Abdullah has said that even if the United Nations were to approve the US plans, diplomacy must be given time to work. Other ministers have said that Riyadh would deny all military and logistics facilities, including overflight rights.
On Thursday, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal will travel to Ankara for a six-nation meeting called by Turkey to explore ways of averting war. Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iran will also participate in the meet.
Though a number of Riyadh-based Western military attaches told Times News Network that the Ankara meeting and the Saudi stand were mere "posturing", it does seem as if this public display of opposition to the US approach has worked to limit Washington's options.
In the absence of explicit authorisation from the UN Security Council, Saudi Arabia and possibly even Turkey would find it difficult to go along with any invasion of Iraq.
Militarily, this means that were the US and Britain to go it alone, the only guaranteed frontage they would have access to for a ground invasion would be the 240-km Kuwaiti border with Iraq. And for that, military experts felt, the US still needed to augment its already fearsome presence in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the Persian Gulf.
The alternative would be to push for explicit UN authorisation, something that would be difficult to secure in the absence of a dramatically adverse report by the UN weapons inspectors on January 27.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
