Monday, December 21, 2015

National Post View: We have no true friend in Saudi Arabia

The Middle East, incredibly, just got more complicated, with Saudi Arabia announcing an “Islamic Military Alliance” to combat terrorism.
It is hardly surprising that such a thing should happen. Geopolitics abhors a vacuum as thoroughly as nature herself. And the failure of American leadership in recent years, combined with the failure of European leadership over recent decades, made it inevitable that someone or something should rush into the void.
Saudi Arabia’s new military alliance claims it will fight terrorism. We have a hard time believing that
Indeed, several somethings. Russia under Vladimir Putin has charged into Syria, seeking to displace Western leadership, attacking minor military targets with its latest weapons, from submarine-fired cruise missiles to T-90 tanks and SU-34 “Fullback” strike aircraft. And now here come the would-be Saladins of Riyadh.
The Saudi ploy raises a series of obvious questions starting with: is it serious?
The Sunni Saudis are certainly eager to counterbalance their Shi’ite rivals in the region given America’s feebleness of late. But the alliance of 34 Islamic members includes many whose capacity to fight terrorism is as dubious as their desire. The response of the Palestinian Authority,  on learning of the Saudi initiative through the media, was a baffled and plaintive, “How can we fight terrorism? We need someone to help us.”
The question of seriousness has two aspects.  First, does the coalition have operational effectiveness? The track record of Arab military efforts is extremely poor, fortunately so given that their main target has been Israel. It is not clear that these 34 allies (not all of which are Arab, we grant) are willing to put troops in the field under Saudi operational control, nor that they would have the capacity to defeat ISIL, or Russian troops in Syria, or whatever they intend to do.
Second, does the alliance intend to confront “terrorism” as that term is understood in the West? Does the PA, for instance, want help fighting Hamas/Hezbollah/PLO-style terrorism, or help committing it against Israel, which both the PA and the Saudis regard with loathing?
The Saudis are playing a dangerous double game, not just in this initiative but in their foreign policy generally. Though they pose as a friend of the West, they have for many decades energetically spread the noxious extremist Wahhabi ideology through the world by heavily financing radical mosques and academic programs. Germany’s intelligence service recently warned that Saudi Arabia was a destabilizing factor in the Middle East, a warning echoed by Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, who accused Riyadh of funding extremism. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, expressed deep frustration at the Saudi government’s reluctance to stem the flow of cash directly to terrorist groups.
This reluctance stems partly from fear that the tiger they are riding might turn on them if they try to dismount. But it also stems from the very radical Wahhabi ideology that has driven the House of Saud intellectually and politically since the late 18th-century alliance between preacher Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and sheikh Muhammad bin Saud.
The statement announcing the coalition declared that Islam forbids “corruption and destruction in the world” and called terrorism “a serious violation of human dignity and rights, especially the right to life and the right to security.” At a news conference, Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammed bin Salman said, “Currently, every Muslim country is fighting terrorism individually … so co-ordinating efforts is very important.” The new alliance would tackle “any terrorist organization that appears in front of us.” But these words almost certainly do not mean what they seem.
Typically, the Obama administration is spinning the initiative as a welcome response to its call for Arab nations to do more to combat radicalism and terrorism. Supposedly the coalition will take the place of the Syrian “moderate rebels” who have so signally failed to materialize during the conflict. Britain has offered air support, information and command-and-control assistance for the troops it will supposedly deploy.
We remain unconvinced. Various renditions of “freedom fighters” in the Muslim world have disappointed the West again and again, from Taliban opposition to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, to sectarian squabblers in Iraq, and the Muslim Brotherhood that took power in Egypt’s version of the “Arab Spring.” None has shared western goals or capacity for effective action. The ultimate dream of the Saudis would be to rid the Middle East of all non-Muslims, which to them includes Shi’ites as well as Jews and Christians. In 2004, when a former Archbishop of Canterbury complained to the Saudi ambassador to the UK that it was against the law to build a church in Saudi Arabia, and was told Christians should embrace Islam and pray in mosques. In the Middle East, our enemies’ enemies are generally not our friends.
In considering the new Muslim army, consider whether it would be appropriate to assemble a similarly armed Christian coalition. That is precisely what ISIL, Al-Qaeda and other such groups claim is already happening, with their endless diatribes and threats against “Crusaders.” But if a Christian army is shocking, sectarian, divisive and so forth, why is not a Wahhabi-inspired Muslim one regarded with at least equal suspicion and dismay?

No comments: