|
"The Saudi Time Bomb"
With Martin Smith
Producer/Filmmaker, "Frontline"
Friday, Nov. 16, 2001; 11 a.m. EST
President Bush says that if the nations of the world are not with us in the war on terrorism then they’re with the
terrorists. But what about Saudi Arabia, the U.S.'s supposed ally? After Sept. 11 many Saudi citizens reportedly applauded native son Osama bin Laden as a hero. Then the monarchy hesitated to renounce the Taliban, and they are still reluctant to allow U.S. warplanes to fly from their bases.
Why have Saudi and other Gulf charities sent money to support Islamic fundamentalist schools that are encouraging jihad? And are the Saudis dragging their feet when it comes to assisting U.S. law enforcement agencies that are tracking down terrorists? Whose side are the Saudis on? "The Saudi Time Bomb," airing on PBS Tuesday, Nov. 15 at 9 p.m. EST, explores the fragile alliance with this ultra conservative fundamentalist kingdom upon which the U.S. depends for fifteen percent of the country’s oil needs. The program is a "Frontline" co-production with the New York Times.
Award-winning producer and reporter Martin Smith produced the program. He was online to talk about what he learned Friday, Nov. 16.
Smith, who served as Frontline's senior producer from 1990 to 1994, produced, directed and co-wrote "Hunting bin Laden," which was re-broadcast on PBS on Sept. 13. (He later discussed the film on washingtonpost.com.) For Frontline, he also produced the Emmy Award-winning "Drug Wars," in 2000, a look at 30 years of American drug policy; "The Real Life of Ronald Reagan"; "Who Pays for AIDS?"; and "The Bombing of West Philly." He also investigated private funding for the Nicaraguan contras in "Who’s Running this War?" and produced "Revolution in Nicaragua" for the Peabody Award-winning Frontline series "Crisis in Central America."
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Nutley, N.J.:
When you asked Prince Bandar about the Saudis' refusal to let the US interview the families of the 15 Saudi hijackers, I thought his response was quite lame. Do you have any opinion about what it is that the Saudis are trying to hide?
Also, given the beating Saudi Arabia is taking in the press, do you think it possible that their support for the religious schools abroad will change?
Martin Smith: I think that still they listen first of all to what the man on the street says in Saudi Arabia. And that they get bad press abroad certainly affects them, but I think, or at least what Prince Bandar says, is that they care more about what the mood at home is than what the mood abroad is. And as far as allowing U.S. law enforcement to interview suspects in terrorism cases, it's unclear how much they might be cooperating today. What is clear is that they don't want to appear, for internal political reasons, as cooperating too much. That may be why Bandar's answers seemed lame.
Chapel Hill, N.C.:
Aside from the oil, why are we afraid of destabilizing Saudi Arabia? They have been destabilizing the middle east and beyond for a very long time. Is our president and his advisors beholden? What is wrong with Scowcroft and Holbrooke? They seemed weird.
Martin Smith: I think we are concerned about maintaining good relationships with the Saudi elite for the reason you state: oil.
Casablanca, Morocco:
The ruling family of Saudia Arabia seems to tolerate terrorism in order to protect her throne.
Is it true that many mosques in the U.S. are built by Saudi funds? If yes, they could be school of anti-Western values. "Saudi Islam" is known to be very intolerent.
Martin Smith: It's a very good question. We don't know how much Saudi money has come into the United States. But a significant amount of mosque building has gone on. We know about the $8 million King Fahd in Culver City, Calif., and there are many other examples. The important thing to point out is that just because Saudi money is coming into the United States and building Saudi mosques, it doesn't mean that the form of Islam that is being preached in these mosques. Not all wahhabis are extremist.
Durham, N.C.:
I am interested in how Saudi Arabia's past relations with Afganistan will effect their future relationship with the United States.
Martin Smith: Our relationship would probably not exist to any great degree if it weren't for oil. Therefore, I don't think anything quite trumps oil, and it's important in the relationship. We've been uncomfortable with the closeness between the Saudis and the Taliban in the past, but it hasn't gotten in the way of our economic interdependence. On the other hand, the Saudis are very impatient with the lack of progress in Israel and the West Bank, and they're currently putting as much pressure as they can on the administration to re-start the peace process. I think this will have more serious impact than the former relationship with the Taliban.
New York, N.Y.:
If Egypt and Jordan and the Palestinians get large amounts of annual U.S. money and other countries as Saudi Arabia get U.S. troops and bases to protect them should we demand they at least teach tolerance for the U.S. and our allies in their schools? At least that there is absolutely no excuse to kill any civilians purposely targeted anywhere? Especially when we see many terrorists come from them?
Martin Smith: I think we should encourage people to teach tolerance in their schools in every country, including our own. The question is, how do you do that? We're dealing with age-old religious traditions, and in the case of the Saudis a very insular tradition.
In the case of the Saudis, we don't have a lot of leverage like that because we don't supply them with aid. We don't supply them with bases as much as they purchase them from American companies.
Virginia:
James Adams mentioned is his book "The Financing of Terror" that Saudi Arabia gave millions of petrodollars to the PLO since the 1970s. Were there ever a terrorism attacks in Saudi Arabia before 1991?
Martin Smith: Bandar addressed this in the program last night (and on the Web site). He admits that they gave money to the PLO and other terrorist organizations. He denies that they did this in order to get terrorists to leave them alone. But the suspicion lingers. Saudi Arabia prior to 1991, as far as I know, saw very little terrorism. There was one exception. In 1979, extreme Wahhabi militants, with support from within Saudi Arabia's national guard, took over the mosque at Mecca.
Maryland:
Hello. What is Saudi Arabia more worried about? Arab nationalist or the appearance of an alliance with the U.S.?
Martin Smith: These are not Arab nationalists. These are religious fundamentalists. The government does not rule in Saudi Arabia without the support of the clergy. It's unlike anything we know of in the West. There is true power sharing. The country is split.
What they are worried about is appearing to be too allied with the U.S., which puts them at risk internally of appearing to be traitors to Islam.
Brooklyn, N.Y.:
The royal family must be aware by now that Wahhabism is counter to their stay in power, is there any encouragement on the part of the Saudi government to create and fund moderate schools and support Muslim Clerics that preach tolerance? Should not the U.S. and other allies encourage this as part of an "alliance."
Martin Smith: I think that there is an effort inside the government to fund moderate Wahhabi institutions. In the '80s, they tried to export radical Wahhabism. That has backfired. The problem is the government is not monolithic. There are many within the royal family with sympathy toward some of the more extreme Wahhabis.
Pittsburgh, Pa.:
Mr. Smith, I watched the Frontline report on Saudi Arabia last night and I found it absolutely chilling. In your view, how serious is the threat of a fundamentalist revolution or a civil war in Saudi Arabia?
Martin Smith: I think that the only answer I can give to this question is that I don't know. I tend to believe, from speaking to Saudis, that there is no imminent threat. But long-term, I'm not so sure. On the other hand, prior to the downfall of the Shah of Iran, there were many American policymakers who believed that an Islamic revolution was not in the cards. They were wrong. As long as Saudi Arabia remains as closed and as secretive, it's impossible for me to give an answer to your question with great confidence.
Arlington, Va.:
Why don't we overthrow the Saudis? It will happen someday and if we act we can put in place leadership that is favorable to us instead of radicals. With friends like the Saudis who needs enemies!
Martin Smith: I don't think that we've proven in the past that we are able to overthrow governments and install friendly ones with any great record of success. I think there are also questions about whether that's the kind of role that we should be playing in the world.
Washington, D.C.:
Are the poor people or the wealthy people in Saudi Arabia more likely to become anti-Western extremists?
Martin Smith: My experience in reporting from poor countries is that it is usually not the poor people who are likely to become extremists. They're too busy surviving. But those people who have had their expectations raised through some education, through some work, but who are frustrated by their inability to truly advance -- it is from that group that you're more likely to see terrorists arise. The poor sometimes are enlisted to work for terrorists, because they have no hope of anything else. But the true leadership of these terrorist organizations -- in the case of Osama bin Laden, we know he's anything but poor. The 15 of 19 hijackers who were Saudis appear to have mostly come from middle-class backgrounds. One is thought to have been a preacher.
Herndon, Va.:
The U.S., U.K., France and others have sold Saudi Arabia billions of dollars worth of weapons. On paper, the Saudi military is large and well equipped. Despite this, the U.S. had to come defend the Kingdom during Desert Storm and still has a bunch of troops and military bases out in the Saudi Arabian wilderness to deter the Iraqis and Iranians.
What is the story with the Saudi military? Are they not very good, or is the royal family scared of giving them too much power?
Martin Smith: That's an excellent question. This is one of the points that the fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia make. They have called, in open letters to the king, for the Americans to be thrown out and for the Saudi military to be strengthened.
San Francisco, Calif.:
The prince claimed his family is not politically stupid, yet it would seem they are digging themselves deeper and deeper into a political trap. Did it seem to you they are interested in finding ways to turn their people away from extremism, or are they happy with the way things are going?
Martin Smith: I think they're aware that they have a problem. And I think that they know that they've underestimated it in the past. They have been confident that they could control their extremist Wahhabis. What they have said to us is that now they've had a wake-up call. I think they're thinking really hard about what they're going to do. As I said before, they in the past tried to export Wahhabism -- get it out of their country. But that has backfired. Secondly, they have made deals with the clergy, giving them more power over the last 10 years, because they needed their support of U.S. troops and their support of strong U.S. ties. The point being that the U.S.-Saudi relationship has forced the royal family to domestically share more power with the Wahhabi clergy.
washingtonpost.com:
That was our last question today. Thanks to Martin Smith, and to everyone who joined us.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
