Part Two

Editor's Note:

We are pleased today to bring you the second part of our recent conversation with Mr. Thomas Lippman addressing developments in Saudi Arabia and in the US-Saudi relationship. He is author of "Inside the Mirage: America's Fragile Relationship with Saudi Arabia," an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington and former Washington Post Middle East bureau chief.

In the first part of our interview, Mr. Lippman talked about the significance of the 2005 Jeddah Economic Forum, social and political reforms in Saudi Arabia, development of relations with other major powers, the state of US-Saudi relations and the image of Saudi Arabia in the United States.

In part two, he discussed Saudi Arabia's role in the global war on terror, providing a frank assessment of the recent counter terrorism conference as well as progress in fighting the domestic terrorist threat; the historic meeting between President Roosevelt and King Abdulaziz, on the occasion of its 60th anniversary; and problems, progress and perceptions in the US-Saudi relationship.

Mr. Lippman talked with SUSRIS by telephone from his home in Washington, DC on February 25, 2005. Part one of this interview is posted on the SUSRIS Web site.

Insight on the Kingdom from the Author of Inside the Mirage --
A Conversation with Thomas Lippman

Part Two

SUSRIS: Saudi Arabia hosted a conference to discuss the global war on terrorism in February. Sixty countries showed up. What significance does the international counter terrorism conference in Riyadh hold?

LIPPMAN: I would say it is certainly a good sign on one level. It can't be bad that the Saudi state would commit itself to this effort, to participate with others who are committed to this effort, to put some resources into it and to take a clear public position. Who could object to that right? But there were a couple of negative aspects. I remember the big multi-nation summit conference in Sharm el Sheikh. As soon as the press tent folded the whole thing sank without a trace.

That was before 9-11 and I understand the situation is different now. But there has been some discomfort over Saudi policy at the conference because they said that they wanted everybody who has been a victim of terrorism to participate in this effort and then they didn't invite any Israelis. The fact is, you can argue that attacking Israeli military outposts in Gaza is not legitimately called terrorism. You can argue that. But you can't argue that blowing up nightclubs full of teenagers in Tel Aviv is not terrorism.

So people are uncomfortable at making common cause with the Saudis who can be perceived as equivocating when the cause terrorists are purporting to uphold is one that they sympathize with.

SUSRIS: Do you share the view that there are people of goodwill on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict who believe in their cause but don't condone some of the methods used?

LIPPMAN: Exactly, I just think that -- you know there are people who argue that Hamas does good work, and has legitimate political interests and all those things. I understand all that. I just know that some people are uncomfortable with the position that we found ourselves in and think that to a certain extent that the Saudi position is a little less forthright than it appeared to be.

SUSRIS: When an opening with Israel comes should it happen at such a narrowly focused event as a counter terrorism conference?

LIPPMAN: Well, no, I understand that. And I know that some people made that argument about letting women vote in the elections -- that it would have been such an incendiary thing to do that it would have stirred up more trouble than it was worth. I understand that. I also understand that the incendiary thing to do was Sadat's trip to Jerusalem. Sooner or later you have to stand up and show up.

I agree on balance the counter terrorism conference was a good thing to do and I'm happy that the Saudis did it. I just don't think we should allow ourselves to forget that this is a very complicated subject. It's tied in directly with other things that are going on in the region. Be that as it may, lets see what the outcome of the conference is going to be.

SUSRIS: What do you think of the recommendation that emerged at the conference to create a joint center where the international community could coordinate counter terrorism efforts.

LIPPMAN: Well that sounds like a good idea and you can immediately see all the pitfalls, heaven knows you don't need another institutionalized international bureaucracy. On the other hand, information sharing and joint efforts are vital. I think there is no doubt the Saudis have come a long way in a positive direction and I salute them for it.

Back in 1994, there was a terrorist named Imad Mugniyah [wanted for the 1985 hijacking of TWA 847]. You may have heard about an episode in which he was on a plane traveling from, I believe, Khartoum to Beirut and it stopped in Jeddah. The Americans asked the Saudis to go on that plane and get Imad Mugniyah, and turn him over and they wouldn't do it. Today they would. And we've all paid a terrible price. We and the Saudis paid a terrible price to get to this point but its good that we've gotten here.

SUSRIS: Let's look back a little further. You recently wrote about the 1945 meeting between President Roosevelt and King Abdulaziz at Great Bitter Lake. Tell us about that.

LIPPMAN: Yes, the Americans for Middle East Understanding organization published it in their magazine "The Link." It's really fascinating to go back and read the accounts of the participants in that event.

As I put it in the article, Roosevelt and Ibn Saud were analogous to the United States and Saudi Arabia. One of them was an Ivy League patrician from sort of the most advanced levels of sophistication, and the other was a Bedouin monarch who was marginally educated had never been anywhere. I described him as probably the world leader with whom Roosevelt had the least in common and yet look how they hit it off -- as individuals.

It's amazingly true the same thing was reflected in what happened between the two countries. You couldn't imagine two societies that were more different in every way putting together in short order a constructive relationship. One thing that you notice is that when the king went to that meeting, he went as an equal. It was one ruler to another.

SUSRIS: Could you draw the conclusion that each in his own way, in his own context was actually like the other, in that they were the grand masters of the game. Roosevelt had pulled the country out of a depression and led it through war; Ibn Saud had unified the kingdom. They were both widely respected by their respective countrymen.

LIPPMAN: That's correct, that's absolutely correct. They each had the self-assurance that comes with their own accomplishments. But, there was another context for the meeting. Let's put it this way, the difference between the way the king was received and talked to by Roosevelt and the way the king was received and talked to by Churchill tells you everything you need to know about colonial society.

When the King got back to Saudi Arabia he had a private audience with Colonel Bill Eddy, who facilitated the FDR and Ibn Saud meeting. Eddy's account has since been published. He said the King talked about his conversations with Churchill who all the while was blowing smoke in his face, literally blowing cigar smoke in the King's face. He was basically telling the King, "See here boy, you know we've been the big boys around the Gulf and we took care of you and now you have to take care of us in Palestine." And the King said, "If I do what you want me to do, it won't be good for me, it won't be good for Palestine and it won't be good for you, so buzz off," in so many words.

SUSRIS: As we mark the 60th anniversary of that historic meeting between FDR and Ibn Saud meeting -- regarded as the inauguration of a high-level relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia -- how would you characterize the current state of the relationship?

LIPPMAN: Compared to where we were a year ago I'm pretty encouraged. Certainly on the Saudi side the report of the 9-11 commission came as an immensely welcomed relief. I don't blame them for taking advantage of that by saying, look this is what your own commission said. Anyway, it was good that the commission did that -- it cleared the air and removed the cloud of suspicion that existed.

There is also the way the Saudis have confronted domestic terrorism. I read an interesting account the other day about the Jeddah attack in December that persuasively made the case it was an act of desperation. It was carried out by a group of people who are without leadership or planning capability. They have been cut down by the security forces and that's a good sign.

The Saudis are conducting themselves on the terrorism front in a seemingly upright way and cooperating around the world. I think a lot of the uncertainty has now been cleared up. On balance it reflects a better position than a year ago.

SUSRIS: How do you evaluate the reports of Saudi "Jihaddis" going to fight in Iraq? Is it really a significant problem?

LIPPMAN: First of all I think that some Saudi preachers, whatever you want to call them, are contributing to the collective debasement of the entire concept of Jihad. Every two bit, loud mouth stands up and calls for Jihad. It's ridiculous, but I don't like the concept that people who say unpleasant things should be silenced by the government. I don't know what the impact of this will be. Certainly there are plenty of restless young men in Saudi Arabia looking for something to do and some cause to get behind. So there's potential for trouble. But it seems to me the American government seems to be taking the position that the external problem in Iraq is more from Syria and Iran than from Saudi Arabia.

SUSRIS: But you remain optimistic about the relationship?

LIPPMAN: Encouraged. Lets put it that way. I'm never optimistic about the Middle East. I'm encouraged by where we are compared to a year ago. Lets put it that way.

SUSRIS: It seemed that 2004 was a rough year for the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia - it became an issue in the US presidential election, on movie screens and so forth. How would you evaluate the criticisms of the relationship? Are we past that chapter?

LIPPMAN: You mean Michael Moore's movie?

SUSRIS: That was certainly one of the vehicles used to bludgeon the relationship.

LIPPMAN: My impression is the answer to that question is yes, a lot of that stuff has subsided. For better or worse Kerry wasn't elected and the 9-11 commission report, I think, helped to diffuse a lot of the things that were flying around last year. As I said, on balance I think compared to where we were a year ago things are in much better shape.

SUSRIS: Parade magazine recently published, what seems to be an annual feature, the top ten list of the world's worst dictators by David Wallenchinsky. He placed Crown Prince Abdullah on the list again this year. Your reaction?

LIPPMAN: Look that's just ridiculous. What planet do these people dwell on. You know, if Crown Prince Abdullah is the world's worst dictator then the world is in better shape than it has been in my lifetime.�

You don't want to get into invidious comparisons but the fact is I would say that Crown Prince Abdullah doesn't even fit the category of dictator. He's not a dictator. He's a negotiator. That is what he is. That's the only way he can run Saudi Arabia.

I'd ask any American who has been to Saudi Arabia, do you see armies of regimented slaves starving and chained in the factories? I don't think so. Please. Just this morning I heard an interview with one of those journalists who had to flee Zimbabwe last week because they were going to charge him with treason for what he was writing.

Of course, in Saudi Arabia dissidents who get out of line get arrested we know that, that's true. But we also know that the references that we always see of Saudi Arabia as a quote absolute monarchy unquote, are just not correct. That's just not the way Saudi Arabia operates.

The metabolism there is one in which individual Saudis take on other individual Saudis in argumentation and discussion and questioning. And its one in which maybe what happens in the public arena is constrained, but that doesn't mean its an absolute dictatorship like North Korea, for heaven's sake.

SUSRIS: We recently spoke with Dr. Rachel Bronson, her interview is posted on the SUSRIS web site. She talked about her forthcoming book, "Thicker than Oil: The United States and Saudi Arabia." Are you familiar with it?

LIPPMAN: Yes. I sat in on one of the group sessions. Her book is going to be different than mine. By the way, the paperback of my book ["Inside the Mirage, America's Fragile Partnership with Saudi Arabia,"] is coming out soon, before hers, which is good because hers will draw a lot of attention.

She is focusing much more on the strategic relationship. In other words she is not interested in the elements of the relationship that I chronicled: what the Ford Foundation did, or how Americans assisted in agricultural developments, for example. She's more interested in geopolitical developments: who did what to whom over the AWACS sale to Saudi Arabia, what were the implications of the Cold War in the relationship -- that sort of thing.

SUSRIS: When is the paperback edition of "The Mirage" coming out?

LIPPMAN: It is scheduled to come out the end of April.

SUSRIS: We will be looking for it on the bookshelves. Thank you again, Mr. Lippman, for sharing your objective insight on the history, scope and current developments in the US-Saudi relationship.

LIPPMAN: It was my pleasure.

Part One -- More of our conversation with Thomas Lippman (Click Here)


About Thomas Lippman

Thomas W. Lippman, is an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington. In four years as the Washington Post's Middle East bureau chief, three years as the Post's oil and energy reporter and a decade as the newspaper's national security and diplomatic correspondent, he traveled extensively to Saudi Arabia. He is the author of Inside the Mirage: America's Fragile Partnership with Saudi Arabia, Madeleine Albright and the New American Diplomacy, Understanding Islam, and Egypt After Nasser. A writer and journalist specializing in U.S. foreign policy and Middle Eastern affairs, he lives in Washington, DC. He has recently returned from a week-long visit to the kingdom.