|
EDITOR'S NOTE:
This essay originally appeared on the Gulf Research Center Web site in October 2004.
America's social character is marked by a panoply of distinct attributes which seem odd to many societies today. Even those societies sharing historical and
civilization affinities with the American society find it hard to make sense of some features that make up the American mindset.
Ever since the U.S. chose to step out of its self-imposed isolationism during World War I, a rather strange streak has held America's mind as much within official circles as in the midst of the wider populace. Surprisingly enough, this streak has gained momentum over time. It seems to be endowed with attributes that seek to relentlessly single out a foreign foe that could be held responsible for all U.S. tribulations and even all the world's miseries.
This almost compulsive need to "personalize the enemy" will continue for some years, at least until an alternative emerges in lieu of the old -- perhaps a new political leader or a new state would have to be identified to bear America's official and popular inimical sentiments.
Throughout modern history, the evolution of this phenomenon has witnessed several individuals and countries promoted to the rank of "America's No. 1 enemy." Some have been political leaders of third world countries, whose interests either ran contrary to or sharply diverged from U.S. special interests. The roster of enemies started with Cuban leader Fidel Castro, passed through Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and Iranian cleric Ayatollah Khomeini, and will expectedly not stop at Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden.
Over the past three years, the government and the people of Saudi Arabia have topped the list of "personalized enemies" who allegedly pose a threat against Washington's security and interests. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a sustained smear campaign has been unraveling in the U.S. in a bid to project Saudi Arabia as the "key enemy" of the American state and society.
As soon as allegations began to float about 15 Saudi nationals being involved, Americans lost no time in pointing accusing fingers at the Saudi government and people, while the heinous torture at Abu Ghraib prison committed by U.S. troops on an officially endorsed mission in Iraq was sidelined as wayward acts committed by a few perverse individuals.
Americans wrongly assumed that the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks represent a large chunk of the Saudi society. Worse, many Americans believed that the perpetrators and those supporting them enjoy the backing of the Saudi state and ruling family. The truth however, is that those elements espouse and champion principles and values that are diametrically opposite to the values that animate Saudi society.
In the meantime, a number of U.S. political and media pundits, reputed for their long-standing animosity to everything Arab or Islamic, scrambled to capitalize on Sept. 11 by turning it into an open political and media war against Saudi Arabia and its people. These hate-mongering forces -- Zionist-Israeli lobbies and their Christian right-wing allies who nourish a range of interests with a common goal -- have achieved their long-cherished goal in identifying Riyadh as America's No. 1 enemy.
As such, Sept. 11 provided them with a unique occasion to try and enact a swift volte-face in front of the U.S. public by insinuating Saudi Arabia as a "terrorist state leading a terrorist society."
The groups that set into motion the anti-Saudi campaign could not have achieved much were it not for the huge resources at their disposal and the overwhelming control they exert on the various media outlets in the U.S.
In fact, Saudi institutions that deal with such matters, notably the Saudi Embassy in Washington, have realized that countering the campaign against the kingdom and confronting its implications is a mammoth exercise that exceeds their capabilities. Even the political and media challenges facing Saudi Arabia in the post-Sept. 11 era lie beyond Riyadh's limited powers. The Saudi establishment has found itself maneuvering within a constricted space against a raging and fathomless ocean agitated by boundless inimical sentiments, not just at the official level, but also at the popular level.
Saudi authorities have woken up to the reality that the voices of reason and rationality have been muted by the deafening squeaks and screams of a carefully devised plot which has managed to manipulate the emotions of ordinary Americans and transformed them into naked animosity against the Saudi government and people.
Surprisingly, it seems as though Saudi Arabia's presumed friends, both within the U.S. administration and among Americans, have become volatile overnight. Perhaps some of them feel uncomfortably embarrassed, or their personal and partisan interests hold them back from speaking up for what is right, even though their inner voice certainly calls upon them to do just that. This might explain why the efforts deployed by the Saudi Embassy and other Saudi organizations have had no perceptible impact, while the anti-Saudi campaign has.
On the third anniversary of Sept. 11 - in spite of the diligent efforts by Saudi Arabia in the U.S.-led "war on terror," in spite of the kingdom and the Saudi people becoming victims of deadly terrorist acts, and in spite of the publication in July 2004 of a report by the U.S. Congress investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks that clearly and conclusively confirmed that neither the Saudi government nor its people nor any member of the ruling family played a direct or indirect role in the attacks - the kingdom remains in the accused box, with its name in bold on the U.S. list of foreign enemies.
As the U.S. electoral campaign reaches a fever pitch, presidential hopefuls appear to find it necessary to portray a negative stand toward Saudi Arabia, lending a blind eye to the findings of the past three years. A U.S. friend commented on the situation by saying: "You need to understand the position of the presidential candidate, John Kerry. He certainly cannot swim against the tide of American public opinion, which continues to hold the Saudi state and society in negative light. Lashing out against the kingdom has become an electoral 'must' in order to boost the popularity of the presidential candidate and cast him in the image of a politician determined to fight terrorism."
Given this increasing tendency to voice anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Saudi positions by any presidential candidate, one cannot help but ask: Who stands in the dock now?
[This item originally appeared in October 2004]
About the Author
Abdulaziz Sager, a Saudi national, is founder and chairman of the Dubai-based
Gulf Research Center.
|
