U.S.-Saudi
Relations: The Path Ahead
Ambassador Chas Freeman Interview
Part II |
|
In the first
part of his interview with SUSRIS, Ambassador Freeman
discussed the changing landscape of U.S.-Saudi relations,
addressing the bilateral interests that served as the
basis of the close connections between the countries for
over 60 years. He described the erosion of the
relationship in a discussion of each of the fundamental
elements.
Part II
SUSRIS: What
must be done to reverse these
trends?
Amb.
Freeman: From the point of view of the interactions of
the two countries, I would say a couple of things. There
is a real danger, given the negative trends that I've
outlined, that if there is not intelligent intervention by
the new administration in the United States, whoever leads
it after November 2, that is some sort of effort made to
sit down with Crown Prince Abdullah and with his brothers
to reassess and redefine the relationship along all of the
axes that I have discussed, that the relationship will in
fact drift permanently into a mutually disadvantageous
mode.
| Therefore,
one of the most important things that both sides
need to be doing is to think about how to
overcome the legacy of the last three years and
the negative campaign rhetoric that has been
voiced by Mr. Kerry and how to restore a more
balanced relationship.
Both
sides need to recognize that their new
relationship will not be the relationship that
existed in previous years. It will not have many
of the qualities of "specialness" that
the previous relationship had. It will be,
perhaps, the most important relationship for
each country -- in terms of relations with the
outside world for Saudi Arabia and in terms of
the Middle East for the United States, but it
will merely be one such relationship among
several other relationships, which may be
growing to become relatively greater in
importance.
|
Both
sides need to
recognize that their
new relationship will
not be the relationship
that existed in previous
years. It will not have
many of the qualities
of "specialness" that
the previous
relationship had.
|
The two countries
will find that we need to have a clearer understanding of
how to manage regional security issues. We need to address
the question of the relationships between the Islamic
world and the Arabs with the United States in order to put
these relationships on a sustainable basis.
At the moment, they are on a deteriorating basis.
If we can't do
these things, we will not be able to manage some of the
regional security issues or continue the effective
cooperation against terrorists that we have begun over the
last three years. So, there is, I think, a great deal at
stake for both sides, and I hope that the leaders on both
sides after January 20 will rise to the challenge.
SUSRIS: What
other challenges face those who recognize the importance
of U.S.-Saudi relations?
Amb. Freeman: A
great deal of what is driving the relationship on both
sides is a negative image of the other. There exist often
ignorant and uninformed stereotypical popular attitudes by
one side toward the other. I think a great deal more has
to be done by both sides to educate the public in the
other, and there's room for cooperation between us to
ensure that our own public is educated by us.
It
would be a very positive move for the United States to
consider some sort of effort to educate our citizenry
about Islam and the Arabs in a more systematic way than we
have done because the consequences of misunderstanding for
our country are very grave. Similarly, in Saudi Arabia, as
a new generation arises -- that did not study in the
United States and which knows us more from Hollywood
movies rather than travel here on vacation or study here
-- there is going to be a much greater requirement for the
United States to explain itself. We need to work with
Saudis who are friends of the United States to improve our
image in Saudi Arabia and more generally in the region.
This requires
something much deeper, though perhaps lower key, than
mounting public relations campaigns. It is a kind of
grassroots effort in which there is a continuing important
role for organizations like the Middle
East Policy Council. There is also a need in Saudi
Arabia for counterpart organizations that don't yet exist.
That is to say institutions that put arguments about
relations with the United States and the West before the
Saudi public as the Middle East Policy Council puts before
the American public arguments regarding U.S. interests in
the Arab and Islamic worlds and for strong ties to support
those interests.
| In
our case, we argue from an American point of
view; in the Saudi case, the case for improved
relations would be argued from a Saudi point of
view. But, the fact is that there needs to be
more effort by those who do understand and
support the relationship on both sides to make
the case to skeptics and hostile critics. This
is a very different task than the one of spin
control or spin doctoring as events occur or
putting out press releases when positive
developments happen, important as it is to do
those things too. |
..after
the inauguration,
the two sides need to
sit down at a high level
and seriously review our
interests and redefine
our relationship to fit
the new circumstances
so that the relationship
can be sustained..
|
Frankly, I don't
think a public relations effort can succeed in the long
run unless it is addressing a better-educated and more
sympathetic public than the one that we now have on both
sides. So, I would argue that in sum that after the
elections, after the inauguration, the two sides need to
sit down at a high level and seriously review our
interests and redefine our relationship to fit the new
circumstances so that the relationship can be sustained
and can grow in a healthy manner. Second, we need to
consider how to address the problem of popular
estrangement and ignorance in a sustained fashion on both
sides.
SUSRIS:
I'd like to pick up on one of those themes -- the one on
image. In January, you were cited by Arab
News as saying that Saudi Arabia needed a
long-term strategy to refurbish its image in the U.S. In
early October, a
conference was held in Riyadh on Saudi Arabia's image.
They set out to study and work out strategies to improve
their image overseas, in the West and especially in the
United States. Some of the things talked about included
creation of think-tanks in Saudi Arabia, more
introspection as to what the outward appearance of Islam
and Saudi Arabia's role in Islam, and using economic clout
to discipline countries that unfairly portrayed Saudi
Arabia in the world. Is this a step in the direction of
meeting the long-term need?
Amb. Freeman: I
think the conference and the ideas that it brooded about
were a very positive development. As I said, the Saudis
need to develop institutions in Saudi Arabia that can
connect them to the outside world more effectively. A good
example is think-tanks. Saudis are not present at many
international scholarly and policy gatherings because
Saudi Arabia does not have institutions that connect to
similar organizations -- think-tanks and university
audiences -- that organize and go to those conferences.
Therefore, Saudi Arabia is absent, and its voice is
silent. Its influence is zero or even less than that. So,
that's clearly an important point, and one that needs to
be addressed.
I
would argue that the returned students from the United
States, the alumni of American universities could, if they
can find the appropriate way of organizing themselves,
play a greater role in outreach to their alma maters in
the United States or for that matter, in the U.K. They
could exercise a measure of influence that they have not
done in terms of raising Saudi Arabia's profile. They
could ensure that university endowments are present for
studies of Saudi Arabia or the Gulf as well as for ancient
history or other less immediately relevant topics.
Clearly, there is a lot that needs to be done in Saudi
Arabia along this line.
SUSRIS:
There are organizations in the U.S. that seek to inform
Americans about the Arab world, and occasionally public
information campaigns such as those recently conducted by
Saudi Arabia. Are they effective?
Amb. Freeman:
Although Saudi Arabia has started a sort of public
diplomacy effort through hired public relations companies
in the United States and in the U.K., and this is a step
in the right direction, there is a real danger that in the
process, other things may be neglected or lost.
I
will say honestly that I am concerned about the future of
American institutions which make arguments on behalf of
Americans for better relations with Saudi Arabia and the
region, like the Middle
East Policy Council or the National
Council on U.S.-Arab Relations or the Middle
East Institute or AMIDEAST.
All of them, to one degree or the other, share the
characteristic of being American institutions arguing for
stronger relations with Arabs. These organizations may in
fact go under because of the combined impact of lack of
funding, lack of attention, and an increasingly hostile
atmosphere for their work domestically. I think that if
they do go under, if the grassroots efforts and
constituency consolidation role that they perform is
neglected, then it will be impossible to reinvent them,
and America and Saudi Arabia will have lost something very
fundamental in terms of resilience and vitality of our
relations.
So, I think what
is required is a strategy that's balanced and includes
several elements. First is building institutions to
connect Saudi Arabia with similar institutions abroad.
Second is sustaining or putting on a sustainable basis,
endowing if you will, or otherwise putting on a firm
long-term basis, organizations in places like the United
States or the U.K. that support a better understanding of
the Kingdom and the region. Third is a better-focused
public relations effort. Some effort to build, within the
Saudi diplomatic service, a public diplomacy function that
is more proactive and less concerned with preventing
information getting out than putting it out. In other
words, I think the Ministry of
Information, which has begun to move in this
direction, needs to make significant further moves.
There is quite a
range of things to do. It is not enough to do one thing
and neglect others. Unfortunately, I would have to say
that historically, the Kingdom has had a hard time putting
together comprehensive, strategic approaches to issues on
any issue. This one is a particularly difficult one to get
a hold on intellectually or organizationally.
SUSRIS:
You mentioned your concerns about the U.S. organizations
that work to support Arab-American relations. What are
their prospects for contributing to the work that needs to
be done?
Amb. Freeman: I
think it is very likely that one or more of us will be
gone in a few years because, among other things, of the
perpetual fascination in Saudi Arabia with doing new
things. You do new things, and then forget about the old
things.
To put it very
bluntly, I think there is a direct trade-off between
buying influence in public relations -- you buy staff time
at a public relations company, and if it's a good one, you
get a good deal for that money, but, the minute you stop
paying, that's it -- versus sustaining friends who are
doing things on their own. They look to find ways to do
things for mutual interests and they try to do that
regardless of whether you help them or not.
|
If
you let the self-motivated American institutions
that believe in strong U.S.-Saudi relations as
something that is good for the United States go
under, then you're not going to be able to
substitute for that by hiring public relations
executives. Quite aside from the fact that those
of us -- I can't speak about other organizations
particularly -- my presidency of the Middle East
Policy Council is a part-time function. It's
volunteer -- I don't get paid very much at all
for doing this. Our staff is very lean. Our
entire budget is less than the take home pay of
senior officials of public relations companies
in Washington -- the whole organization's
budget. The bang for the buck is vastly larger.
And the credibility of having Americans make
arguments from an American perspective is
invaluable.
|
The
requirement for the
work that organizations
like the Middle East Policy
Council, the National Council
on U.S.-Arab Relations, the
Middle East Institute -- do,
has never been greater.
But
the level of financial
support from the region has
never been more erratic
and less reliable.
|
SUSRIS: So,
in addition to the challenges of educating Americans among
other tasks, they are also faced with struggling to
survive financially?
Amb. Freeman:
The requirement for the work that organizations like the Middle
East Policy Council, the National
Council on U.S.-Arab Relations, the Middle
East Institute -- do, has never been greater.
But the level of financial support from the region has
never been more erratic and less reliable. The size of the
American business community there, which has been an
important source of support, is declining rather than
expanding, so our base is not what it was.
It is very
difficult for us to operate in an environment where
governments in the region, not just the Saudi government,
but other governments in the region, don't really know
what they're doing, they're constantly reassessing. There
is no confirmed strategy, no reliable base of financial
support for work that all acknowledge is in their own
interest as well as that of both sides.
In
the long run, the only answer for the U.S. organizations
is some sort of endowment. But, I see no effort being made
by benefactors in the region to organize such an approach
even though the amount of money that would be spent to
provide an endowment for any one of these organizations
would be probably less than is being spent on some
specific public relations activities. It would be a once
and for all, one time and forever investment.
We come back to
the point that there needs to be a comprehensive strategy.
Putting Saudi Arabia's existing friends and institutions
that support the relationship on a sustainable long term
basis has to be part of that strategy.
SUSRIS: Shifting
gears a little at the end -- this is crunch week in the
presidential campaigns. How do you see the role the
U.S.-Saudi relationship is playing in presidential
politics.
Amb.
Freeman: Well, it's the first time in a long time, if
ever, that U.S.-Saudi relations have actually been an
issue in a campaign, where the challenger is accusing the
incumbent president of having failed to act forcefully
against the Saudis.
Even if critics
don't take as extreme a line as Michael Moore in Fahrenheit
911, there are those who hold to the position that
Bush is in bed with Bandar and Prince Bandar and the Saudi
royal family call the shots in the U.S.-Saudi
relationship. This is a ludicrous parody of reality and
has no credibility at all with anyone who knows anything.
Yet, this has been very warmly received by segments of the
public and it is now an article of faith among many. It
reflects the facts that I mentioned that there is a deep
level of estrangement between the United States and Saudi
Arabia at the popular level.
|
There's
a great deal of suspicion by Americans of the
Saudi royal family, a lack of understanding of
Saudi society and a fundamental
misunderstandings of Islam. These
misunderstandings have come together to produce
an atmosphere where this sort of political cheap
shot is good electoral politics.
After
the election, whoever wins is going to have to
govern. And whoever governs is going to have to
deal with the interests I mentioned. This means
energy security in which Saudi Arabia is an
important factor; a relationship with the
Islamic world in which Saudi Arabia plays a key
role; the management of security issues in the
Persian Gulf and adjacent regions in which again
Saudi Arabia is a key; and of course the
question of cooperation against terrorists, many
of whom focus their attention on Saudi Arabia as
much as, or even more than they do on the United
States.
There
are these things plus the interests of the
American business community in remaining
competitive internationally. There are the
interests of the American labor unions that
there be jobs, that produce U.S. exports. These
things are among the realities that anyone who
governs is going to have to deal with.
|
After
the election,
whoever wins is going
to have to govern..
..whoever governs is
going to have to deal
with the interests..
..This means energy
security.. ..a relationship
with the Islamic world..
..the management of
security issues in the
Persian Gulf.. ..the
question of cooperation
against terrorists..
It
means that the
gratuitous insults and
rhetorical slights of
the campaign will have
to be put aside.
|
It means that the
gratuitous insults and rhetorical slights of the campaign
will have to be put aside. It's a vital part of retuning
the struggle against terrorists internationally to put the
U.S.-Saudi relationship back on a firm, solid, long-term,
sustainable basis, and that requires a measure of thought
and a measure of politeness, in mutual dialogue that has
been lacking in the campaign.
SUSRIS:
Thank you, Ambassador Freeman for your consideration today
in sharing your insights and experiences.
Amb. Freeman:
Not at all.
Click
here to read Part I of this interview.
Ambassador
Chas. W. Freeman, Jr. succeeded Senator George
McGovern as President of the Middle
East Policy Council on December 1, 1997.
Ambassador Freeman was
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Affairs from 1993-94, earning the highest public service
awards of the Department of Defense for his roles in
designing a NATO-centered post-Cold War European security
system and in reestablishing defense and military
relations with China. He served as U. S. Ambassador to
Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert
Storm). He was Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
State for African Affairs during the historic U.S.
mediation of Namibian independence from South Africa and
Cuban troop withdrawal from Angola.
Chas. Freeman served as
Deputy Chief of Mission and Charge'Affaires
in the American embassies at both Bangkok (1984-1986) and
Beijing (1981-1984). He was Director for Chinese Affairs
at the U.S. Department of State from 1979-1981. He was the
principal American interpreter during the late President
Nixon's path-breaking visit to China in 1972. In addition
to his Middle Eastern, African, East Asian and European
diplomatic experience, he served in India.
Ambassador Freeman earned
a certificate in Latin American studies from the National
Autonomous University of Mexico, certificates in both the
national and Taiwan dialects of Chinese from the former
Foreign Service Institute field school in Taiwan, a BA
from Yale University and a JD from the Harvard Law School.
He is the recipient of numerous high honors and awards. He
was elected to the Academy of American Diplomacy in 1995.
He is the author of The Diplomat's Dictionary (Revised
Edition) and Arts of Power, both published by the United
States Institute of Peace in 1997. Ambassador Freeman is
Chairman of the Board of Projects International, Inc., a
Washington-based business development firm that
specializes in arranging international joint ventures,
acquisitions, and other business operations for its
American and foreign clients. He also serves as Co-Chair
of the United States-China Policy Foundation and Vice
Chair of the Atlantic Council of the United States. He is
a member of the boards of the Institute for Defense
Analyses, the regional security centers of the U.S.
Department of Defense, and the Washington World Affairs
Council.
Previous Positions
- 1995 - Present Chairman
of the Board, Projects International, Inc.
- 1994-95 Distinguished
Fellow, United States Institute of Peace
- 1993-94 Assistant
Secretary of Defense, International Security Affairs
- 1992-93 Distinguished
Fellow, Institute for National Strategic Studies
- 1989-92 U S. Ambassador
to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
- 1986-89 Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, African Affairs
Recent Honors
- 1995 Elected to
American Academy of Diplomacy
- 1994 Distinguished
Public Service Award (Policy innovation in Europe)
- 1994 Distinguished
Public Service Award (Contributions in Defense Policy)
- 1994 Order of 'Abd Al-'Azziz,
1st Class (Diplomatic Service)
- 1991 Defense
Meritorious Service (Desert Shield/Storm)
- 1991 CIA Medallion
(Desert Shield/Storm)
- 1991 Distinguished
Honor Award (Desert Shield/Storm)
Recent Major
Publications and Writings
Source: MEPC.org
|