U.S.-Saudi Arabia - Conference - CIT / New America Foundation

Home > Articles > 2009 > Item of Interest

ITEM OF INTEREST
May 8, 2009

U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium
Conference Transcripts -- Session 1
Questions and Answers

Editor's Note:

Last week a major forum addressing the state of and prospects for the relationship between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was convened in Washington by the New America Foundation (NAF) and the Committee for International Trade (CIT) of the Saudi Chambers of Commerce and Industry. Distinguished speakers spent the day providing perspectives and insights on what the relationship should look like, how economics was shaping the national security picture vis a vis the relationship, the challenges for America in the region and how the perspective on these challenges look from the Saudi Arabian point of view.

Today we are pleased to provide the transcripts from the question and answer period of the first session, "A Forward Projection of What the Saudi-U.S. Relationship Should Look Like and Needs to Achieve." The panel included: Senator Chuck Hagel, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Prince Turki Al Faisal, Dr. Rita Hauser, Minister Abdullah Alireza, Mr. Peter Robertson, and Mr. Steve Clemons.

Separate emails will provide each panelist's remarks and the question and answer period transcript. Transcripts for the remaining panels and luncheon remarks will be provided over the next few days. You can find all of the conference materials and related links at a new SUSRIS Special Section. [ "U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium" - Conference Special Section ]

Video MP3

U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium
Conference Transcripts -- Session 1
"A Forward Projection of What the Saudi-U.S. Relationship Should Look Like and Needs to Achieve" - Panel Q and A

[Steve Clemons] Thank you very much. Thank you. Now we have some time for discussion. Dr. Brzezinski has an appointment and will be leaving a bit early. So I'm going to begin to open the discussion with him and throw it out there a bit.

Not too long ago, Prince Turki wrote a very provocative op-ed in the Financial Times. And in that op-ed, he basically said, our patience is being tested that there is a time limit as it were, on the so-called King Abdullah Arab peace initiative. And President Obama stunned a lot of people by giving his first formal press interview to Al Arabia and in his comments he referred specifically not to Prince Turki but to the notion that that might be taken off the table. He basically requested patience.

There's a bit of a difference how Zbigniew Brzezinski has said this, the Arab-Israeli peace arrangement is really neither about the Palestinians nor the Israelis; it's about our geostrategic future. And Rita has said that's the wrong place to start. But Dr. Brzezinski, when you look at Asia, and you look there, we have an ASEAN regional forum, which is sort of a loose network, not alliance, but at least a talking foundation among states with competing interests. What do you think when you look through the portal of the Arab peace initiative this question about perhaps growing impatience of the process? Do you think it's possible to shoot forward to something like an ASEAN regional forum with the key stakeholders in the Arab region and that is the prospect of what might be lost if we don't move the Arab initiative forward?

[Dr. Brzezinski] I'm not quite sure I really quite understand the analogy with the ASEAN aspect. It seems to me that in the Middle East we have very specific two problems, which are paramount and the others are associated with it. One is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which of course brings to the surface a lot of historical memories and issues and problems. And these are not easy to resolve and we have to overcome that by working together.

And second, of course, is the question of the regional role of Iran, which happens to have different cultural definition, but at least in some respects is even, to some extent religiously differentiated from the Arab Middle East.

Now these two problems I don't see the analogy to the ASEAN Regional Forum, for dealing with them. I think they have to be resolved, largely on the basis first of all for the collaboration of key players. And we are included for better or for worse, as a player, in part because we stumbled, I think unintentionally, into an excessive assumption of a role previously played by Great Britain in the region. In recent years the way we manifested that reinforced impression then in some respects we are a foreign intruder that is trying to impose our will on the region. This was not our subjective inclination but it was the objective consequence of some of our acts. In that setting it seems to me, it's simply essential that we what we need to do, which is to act as the real mediator between Israelis and the Palestinians, along the lines of what Chuck Hagel was saying. That is to say we really are the mediator but not a mediator who is doing this out of some charitable inclination, but because we have a vital interest in that problem being resolved. And if it is to be resolved, it has to be resolved fairly. If it is resolved fairly there is a chance that reconciliation will take root and endure. If it is not resolved fairly, it will not endure.

The two basic problems that have to be resolved in order for it to be fair is the problem of the right of return -- and here I think we have to be realistic, even though it is painful and difficult for our Palestinians friends to accept this. There is not going to be a right of return in any real sense, except the most limited and symbolic right of return to Israel of the descendants of the Palestinian refugees. But there can be some compensation and there can be arrangements for their settlement elsewhere. There can be some acknowledgement of responsibility for what happened to them. That's one issue that has to be resolved.

The other issue that has to resolved is, of course, Jerusalem. Jerusalem has to be shared fairly between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That is to say, two capitals in one city, a special regimen for the old city. Because if that isn't settled, one of the major sources of conflict, between the Palestinians and the Israelis, but more generally the Arabs and the Israelis, is going to continue festering.

We can only do that. And that is an issue that we have to address. If we address it, more or less along the lines that I have mentioned, then the entire international community will support it. I trust the Arab League will support it. And I think that that will create a degree of momentum that can actually create a breakthrough in the Middle East.

On the Iranian business, I think the key issue to realize is that it's a long term process which will require progressive accommodation. Eventually over time a political evolution, which should not be put up front as a slogan -- regime change -- because actually that delays the change. But a political evolution which gives a legitimate role in the region to the country of 70 million people with some significance, great historical traditions, but not as a revolutionary dominant force.

That will require patience. We have to be involved in that but the region has to be supportive and helpful. This is why there is significant geostrategic room for a genuine American-Saudi Arabian alliance for peace in the Middle East.

And that means commitment by both sides. And not rehashing past disagreements. Were we too passive? Were we over partial to Israel? Were the Arabs slow in forthcoming? We can each have our list of disappointments with the other.

We have to work together on this geostrategic for the sake of the region, because otherwise this region will replicate in the 21st century what Europe experienced in the 20th century, but in the nuclear age with potentially much more destructive consequences.

[Steve Clemons] I'll work on my ASEAN regional forum, distracting metaphor another day. Rita?

[Dr. Hauser] Well I share Zbigniew's view. We have also talked about it for decades it seems to me. I'm not as optimistic as he that just by outlining affairs solution.. I know the solutions have been outlined also for decades and I think everybody understands what they are. The problem is getting the parties to that solution. That has always been the dilemma. So I don't think as Prince Turki said, we need more solutions. We have them.

I am still very skeptical about whether or not we are going to have a willing partner in the current Israeli government in any meaningful way, whether or not there is a Palestinian partner, because at the moment it is fractured.

[Steve Clemons] Can I push you on that for just a moment? Dr. Brzezinski said on Scarborough's show that to some degree the leadership in Israel but also the Gaza crisis essentially removes the fig leaf, if you will, the notion that you can earnestly achieve this balance. Because neither side can achieve any balance on their own. So doesn't having Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman actually help convince people..

[Dr. Brzezinski] Since I have to leave can I just clarify one point in response to Rita? The issue is not that the solutions have been articulated, because they have been dribbled out in bits and pieces, here or there. Kind of sotto voce.

The need is for an explicit American position of the highest level on the fundamental issues indicating what in our view the fair solution is. That has not been stated, ever. We didn't do it in Camp David I. We didn't do it in Camp David II. We have never done it.

Bush has written various letters to Abbas, to the Israelis, but we haven't articulated our position. Once we did, the ballgame would change significantly.

[Steve Clemons] We're going to continue .. Let's give a quick round of applause to Zbigniew Brzezinski. Thank you for being here.

Thank you, Dr. Brzezinski. Rita, can you pick up from there?

[Dr. Hauser] Yeah, I sorely hope Zbig is right. I have some hesitancy about whether that is the real answer. Any lawyer in the group here will readily recognize that you have parties to any kind of dispute -- we all know what the end game is going to be. You can tell the clients on both sides, this is how it's going to wind up. And you can never bring them to accept.

That's always the hardest dilemma. How do you bring people to what is fairly self evident proposition? So I start with the difficulty of how do we get players to the table here on the Palestinian side and on the Israeli side. I think it's going to be a hard go, but as I said in my opening remarks, people may disagree with me. I would start on the Palestinian side, which I think is simply the most dysfunctional.

It is in total dysfunction at the moment. And there is an opening because Hamas must accept some outside help in large amounts to begin the reconstruction of Gaza which has been totally and completely decimated. So you do have an opening there that can bring them perhaps, or some elements of Hamas, into a working relationship with Fatah. So I would spend a lot or time on that end. Yes, talk to the Israeli government, of course, and I said to all the other partners, I don't see the Israeli government being broadly forthcoming at this point. Not certainly this government but I would begin that process.

And I think anybody who thinks that it's just going to happen very quickly is not realistic about the state of the facts in the region. If we make some small gains over this next period it will be great.

It's very interesting George Mitchell spoke to a good friend of mine, who Prince Turki knows well, when he took on this assignment, and he said, "My wife was not too keen about this because it took me five years in Northern Ireland."

I said to her, "Don't worry dear, I'll be back in a year." I think that is probably as he, George, himself admitted, the most wildly bizarre optimism. I think if George could get Hamas and the Palestinians together in the course of the year, I would say [inaudible].

[Steve Clemons] Prince Turki.

[Prince Turki Al-Faisal] There are several issues here that are interconnected. One of course is the issue between Hamas and Fatah. There are two reasons in my view of why there are more difficulties today, particularly after the Gaza conflict recently.

One is that if you look at the surveys that were done after that conflict, the popularity of Hamas on the West Bank skyrocketed. And of course, with Fatah plummeted. And in Gaza it wasn't that clear, but quite clearly what was indicated was that Hamas did not gain as much support in Gaza as it did in the West Bank.

So in terms of legitimization in the eyes of Palestinians and particularly the average Palestinian, the Hamas came out winner from this Israeli assault on Gaza.

The other side, Mahmud Abbas Fatah, has been suffering from consistent and persistent Israeli denigration. As such, its legitimization in the eyes of the Palestinian people as a promoter of a peaceful solution to the Palestinian problem with Israeli has not been received well among the average Palestinian population.

So there are things that can be done practically on both sides to encourage more legitimization if you like for Fatah by conceding to Fatah demands on issues like the freeing of prisoners, the lifting of road blocks, more increased economic and business activity in the West Bank and other indications that what Mahmud Abbas has espoused a philosophy, which is peaceful engagement with Israel, is paying dividends to the average Palestinian.

On the Hamas side I think what Senator Hagel, Dr. Hauser and Dr. Brzezinski have mentioned, you have to engage with Hamas. You cannot simply ostracize and keep apart a legitimate representative of Palestinian opinion. And it is from that aspect as well that by engaging with Hamas, you draw them into the various channels and the talks that are taking place.

I would go further than what Rita mentioned, simply leaving it to the Europeans to do that. I think there is a requirement, an imperative rather than a choice on the United States to do that. And you're right, the United States has dealt with the Lebanese government which has Hezbollah within it. Why not with a Palestinian Authority government that was elected in, what was it, 2005, 2006, and yet the U.S. ostracized that government. There's no justification for that whatsoever. Whether legislatively or politically within the United States, that is something for the administration to push for and to get through.

I would add to Brzezinski's comments on the two issues that he mentioned, Palestine and Iran, which is still festering, which is the issue of Iraq. I think Iraq deserves the attention and the continued, not just support, but clear definition of where the interests are -- not just of the United States, but of the area in general.

The Kingdom has supported all regional inclusive talks on Iraq. It was the first to call for the neighboring countries to come together in 2003 soon after the fall of the Saddam regime. And to invite Iran and Turki and other countries in the area to sit down together on that. That's expanded now and it includes the United States and Great Britain and other players including the United Nations and the Iraqi government.

I think more has to be done on that sense as well too. My government has been reluctant in engaging with the Iraqi government, particularly in sending representation to Iraq. Because if there is going to be a Saudi ambassador in Baghdad, he's going to be the target of immediate hijacking efforts, assassination efforts, you name it. No government will risk the lives of its own citizens as representatives and send them, as it were, to slaughter in a place like Baghdad.

But nonetheless I think there are ways that Saudi Arabia can do that, either by having intermittent representation in Baghdad for specific periods of time just to show that we are sending a representative for the Iraqi people. And not leave the stage, as it were, free for the Iranians to do whatever they wish for.

Iran, let me just say something about Iran, if I may. The platform from which the negotiations between the West and Iran on the nuclear issue started on the wrong foot. It started on the foot of carrot and stick. That's a term I think that should be expunged from political and diplomatic language.

When you come to a people and say I'm going to give you a carrot or I'm going to wield a stick on you, the first thing they're going to do is they're going to slap you in the face and tell you go to hell. So please for American politicians and any administration, just remove that phrase from your lexicon. And make it, on the issue of the atomic energy, a proposal that includes all the countries by declaring the Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. You can provide incentives and sanctions for the countries that join or do not join. The incentives are a nuclear umbrella of protection like Europe and Japan enjoys today from the United States including economic and technical aid.

And for the sanction side, for the countries that don't want to join that grouping, you can have not just economic and other administrative sanctions, travel sanctions et cetera. But also the proposition and the potential for the use of military force. And I think that can be justified if everybody comes on board.

[Steve Clemons] I may invite you to guest blog at the Washington Note on that. That might be interesting. We're under some time pressure and I'm going to apologize in advance to everyone. But I want to quickly ask and ask for brief responses from Senator Hagel and Abdullah Alireza.

Senator Hagel has often said that when you go around the world, you meet world leaders, you talk to people, that there's some doubt about America's ability to achieve its objectives today. That there are countries that have been allies who feel like our mystique has been punctured somewhat, so they can't quite count on us as much and enemies are moving their agendas. And this was very much, when you were speaking, this was very much in my mind when we titled this "In a World without Equilibrium."

Do you think that the various measures we're talking about today are substantial enough and that the United States can play a winning hand in this enough to get back to being a believable nation with leverage in the world?

And to Minister Alireza, there's a lot of talk, and let's just be candid, about Iran's meddling in the region. And to some degree if you go back to the old Cold War days and the Soviets would talk about correlation of forces, things haven't looked that good for our side, your side, in the sense that if people begin feeling as if the influence of Iran is clearly on the rise. That the meddling inside other countries is on the rise. The Taliban is on the rise in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Are there things that Saudi, in your world, commerce, industry, technology, can do that are genuine that affect the broader gulf region in an inspiring way to sort of be more compelling as an alternative vision? Now I've asked you a big question, but I'm going to ask for a very brief response. Senator Hagel?

[Senator Hagel] Steve, thank you. I began with this point. I think we, the world, are all living through one of the most defining times in the history of man. I think we are seeing a reorientation of world affairs and dynamics we have never seen before at a rate of change we've never seen before. I think we are seeing a diffusion of geopolitical economic power that we have never seen before. That then, if any of that is right and I think it is, is creating a new geopolitical center of gravity.

Nations, events, issues, influences are all now coming together, what I noted in my earlier remarks, at a historic convergence that history rarely sees. Now we can enter, we the world, American leadership, an era of engagement and accommodation. Or we can go the other way and see an era of chaos in the world. And I think we are right on the line.

The region of the world that we're talking about here represents that center of gravity. Because Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian issue, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan are all folded into the same envelope. They are woven into the same fabric. You can't disconnect any of these issues from the other issues. Why? You have religious issues, ethnic issues, cultural issues, geopolitical issues, economic issues.

So to your question I think America has an opportunity to regain and recapture that high ground of leadership. But it has to be on the basis, and I noted this again earlier, of reorienting our frame of reference, listening, turning our receivers on, turning more transmitters off, developing partnerships, alliances, relationships defined by common interests.

It will be raggedy, it will be imperfect, it won't be exactly like we want all the time. But we can no longer go around the world and dictate to mankind, and invade and occupy, and say you'll do it our way. If for no other reason than this reason, every relationship in the world is maturing. Look at our relationships with Turki and South Korea. They are not the same countries, nor do they have the same relationship with America today that we had 25 years ago. They have now graduated into their own realms. Relationships are that way and those relationships must be relevant to the dynamics of the day's challenges and today's world.

So, yes, I detected what you have noted. I've written about it, I've spoken about it. I think we have an opportunity to change that, but I do think that the time here is now right on the line on how much time we have to do that.

[Steve Clemons] Thank you.. ..Mr Minister.

[Minister Abdullah Alireza] Let me just say something that pertains to Iraq and the initial stages. Please do not fall for the same trap that you fell into, going to Iraq - that the road to Jerusalem goes through Baghdad. That's how you embarked, probably, on your biggest folly that you have ever made. If we do the same thing now by saying the only way we can get to Jerusalem is through Iran, then we have really opened up a wild west, if you will, in the Middle East.

The question that either we ask ourselves: do we have the capacity that the United States, with Saudi Arabia and its allies in the region, to work out a plan by which we will be consulted like we were not consulted on the Iraq situation -- even when we were consulted, it was put aside. So whatever we do that we have to do it together and recognize that our interests are in keeping the region in a stable situation so it does not go into a destructive mode through a push of a button. Saudi Arabia probably would be one of the first casualties in an attack on Iran by certain quarters. This is the only thing that they could actually do and be heard. And I think it is important that this consultation takes place at the highest level, and I am happy to see that it is being done. Like tomorrow, Dennis Ross is going to be there; George Mitchell was there. But that consultation, especially with King Abdullah, he knows the region. He has the respect of the leaders in the region, and the region will follow him because they recognize that Saudi Arabia will do what is best for the world community.

[Steve Clemons] I know we are pushing it. I am going to get the support of all of you in this marathon day. I don't believe in ever having a program without questions..

[Questioner] ..Al Watan newspaper, Saudi Arabia. Prime Minister Netanyahu is coming to town in a couple of weeks. What should the president tell him? This is a question for Senator Hagel.

[Steve Clemons] Thank you. Excellent, and there was a gentleman right here. Grab the microphone. Go ahead.

[Questioner] Yes, Senator Hagel, this question is about U.S.-Saudi relations. How do you value your own personal position on the fact that the U.S. has really been in bed with the Saudi government for such a long time, a government that everybody knows is xenophobic, against women, against Shi'a, and to the degree that the practice of marrying children, made popular by their own family, is the only country that legalized that? So I want your own personal position given that extremists have said the U.S. has been hypocritical about being a democratic nation and have spent time supporting this medieval government. Thank you.

[Steve Clemons] Thank you. A works question. One other question over here.

[Questioner] Thank you. I guess this would be for Prince Turki. Not withstanding everyone's desires for the Obama administration to kind of push a settlement between Israelis and Palestinians, we're also hearing a lot, especially since King Abdullah of Jordan just visited, about possibly trying to institute some kind of incremental step by step approach where while you are pushing negotiations, you also have the Israelis take some steps such as halting settlements or easing the daily hardships that the Palestinians face so that the Arabs could then take some reciprocal steps. And as the minister has said, perhaps Saudi Arabia could lead something like this because the Arabs would follow him. Do you think that that is something that the Arabs would be willing to do while you push forward on negotiations?

[Steve Clemons] My piggyback question is, does sequencing the Arab initiative help it or kill it? So, Senator Hagel?

[Senator Hagel] Which question?

[Steve Clemons] Any you would like. This gentleman here who asked about.. ..this is something that I thought about a lot in having this relationship is I am very familiar with questions raised, and I think it is one of the reasons why.. ..I was watching Harry Potter the other day, and the bad guy in Harry Potter, I'm not very good at pop culture, is the guy whose name can't be mentioned or can't be talked about, and this is ridiculous. The U.S.-Saudi relationship is vital at every strategic turn that we take, and we hide it. So, to some degree, that's my response. But, Senator Hagel, your view?

[Senator Hagel] I will be very brief and direct. I generally noted in my earlier comments that nations have differences. We, the United States, have differences with other countries, with other governments. It is my opinion that the world can achieve mutual objectives if we work on some kind of cooperative plane to develop influences within a government, within a country, within a society to try to correct certain issues that we think are important.

So those differences we have on social matters, with any country, including Saudi Arabia, will be there, but I have always believed that what is most important is the larger dynamic of the relationship. What is most important? Essentially trying to avert blowing up the world? And some of the big issues that we have got to deal with up on top, or constantly redefining relationships based on differences down at a society level?

Doesn't mean they are not important, not at all, and there will be differences, continue to be differences, but I also think, as Prince Turki said, and I think he is right, you don't exhibit or develop influence in a country with another government by beating the hell out of them publicly or embarrassing them.

There is an entire inventory of instruments that you use to try to develop influence for your country, your values, your standards. You do it the smart way or you do it the dumb way. Now, there is a question over here.

[Steve Clemons] ..Netanyahu..

[Senator Hagel] I would say that as the Prime Minister comes to talk with President Obama, first, I would listen carefully, if I was President Obama. What do you think, Mr. Prime Minister, is the course of action? Where do we go? How do we do it?

We are going to do something, if for no other reason than there is not a country in the world that the reconciliation, the efforts to achieve some stability and security in your area of the world, is more important than for Israel. Israel is the biggest benefactor of any country in the world to find a new dynamic of peace.

I would say to the Prime Minister, "We all, the community of nations, intend to lead a new effort, and I, President Obama, am going to put my own imprimatur on this. I am going to engage myself on this. I have put some of the best people we have on this. But this is not just a press conference or press op every 30 days. This is getting it done, and it is going to be based on the common interests of the region and your countries." And I would make that very clear, and I would listen to the Prime Minister and work it from there.

[Steve Clemons] Prince Turki, quick response on whether sequencing the Arab initiative helps or hurts.

[Prince Turki Al-Faisal] [inaudible] described the Arab Peace Initiative as the result of negotiations and not a negotiating tool. It is a vision of where the world will be once the negotiations are finished between the Palestinians and the Israelis, Syrians and Israelis, and the Lebanese and Israelis -- countries that still have territories occupied by Israel.

So my answer would be that sequencing in this matter, and particularly when it comes to issues like borders between Palestine and Israel, Jerusalem, as Brzezinski said, and the refugee problem, is not going to be a sequential arrangement whereby if Israel, for example, lifts a roadblock in the West Bank in trying to show some kind of good will towards the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia will establish a consulate in Jerusalem. That's not going to work. And it's going to complicate matters rather than make them easier.

[Steve Clemons] So I think the answer is it will hurt.

[Prince Turki Al-Faisal] Definitely it will hurt. Now I would just say something, if I may, in response on the question that was posed to Senator Hagel about what Netanyahu should expect to hear. I never thought I would disagree with the Senator on anything, but on this case I would. And that is when Netanyahu comes and begins to talk to Mr. Obama and begins to say, "Mr. President, this is what I.." the President should shut him up immediately and say, "Mr. Netanyahu, you have to listen to me first.." and this is what I think should be done to make the proposal come true. And the same with Arab leaders, as well. This is, I think, what has been missing in this American, Arab, and Israeli dispute. There has not been an American position put forward, as Brzezinski said, as an end vision for peace in the area.

[Steve Clemons] I'll just paraphrase Lisa's comment real quick and paraphrase Scowcroft whose comments last night were on the record, where he basically addressed this and said beware of process and code words that undermine the objectives and goals that are out there. Rita Hauser, any final comments?

[Rita Hauser] Well, I would, like my friend Turki here, I would be very blunt with Bibi. I would say I'm committed to a two state solution. Are you? We believe the Annapolis accords are binding. Do you? Since during the course of the campaign there was a lot of blather about they're not bound by the Annapolis accords.

And what concrete steps are you prepared to do to alleviate the plight in Gaza so that something could be announced positive at the end of their meetings to say, the Israelis are going to open some border crossings, let food and other things move in and so on.

I think Bibi needs to know, and there I do disagree with you Chuck. I think Bibi needs to know that the president means business. If he doesn't know that, he has his own business and will figure out very quickly how to wiggle around any president as has been done before.

Now settlements, you'll get the same stuff. We're not expanding. We're enhancing. We're enriching. It's population growth, any number of metaphors and expressions that the Israelis have used to constantly expand the settlements. I personally wouldn't get involved in that mish-mash now, because I don't think that the President's going to get anything on it.

I would concentrate on a concrete resolution of some of the pressing issues in Gaza, which would give a very strong statement to the Palestinians that the President of the United States understands their plight and what has to happen next. But it would also be something that he won't get a tremendous amount of flack from from the Congress, which is always a problem for any American president in this business.

[Senator Hagel] May I just respond quickly, because I did emphasize in my second point, Rita, the absolute, I used the word I'm going to put my imprimatur on that. I want to make sure you're not confused by that.

[Steve Clemons:] You're not saying that Obama should be casual through this.

[Senator Hagel] No, I made that pretty clear. But I do think it is important to listen.

[Dr. Rita Hauser] Yes, of course.

[Senator Hagel] And that's I think a matter of just courtesy. When President Obama bowed to the king, that was a gesture of courtesy.

[Prince Turki Al-Faisal] Absolutely.

[Senator Hagel] And I do believe, and maybe it was my mother who reinforced this, I don't think it costs much, a little courtesy. And I think when you're dealing with an elected official of another country, and they are your guests, you listen to them. Then you can say what you want to say, but don't make any mistake about..

[Steve Clemons] You're saying drop the swagger.

[Senator Hagel] My serious point is don't make any mistake that I backed off where I've been publicly on this many many years. The absolute leadership of an American president saying we are going to do it. I'm going to be involved in it and laying out those parameters.

[Steve Clemons] I'm going to ask Peter from his chair, and also as we close this up. Are you, we had a forum a couple of years ago at New America Foundation with some very important international economic thinkers and players and people who are in the Obama administration now. And we had our geostrategic discussion. Our geostrategic discussion was about as gloomy as Rita Hauser's prognosis on things. Our geoeconomic forum three years ago, people saw no trouble on the horizon. And it was fascinating. I said either our world's going to be a lot better, or your world's going to get a lot worse. So from, for both of you just very quick, a commerce and the economic viewpoint, would you be investors in your neighborhood? Do you see things really improving on the political and geostrategic side? The hope for that and is the hope sincere, or is why you're here today is you're worried about further deterioration?

[Peter Robertson] Well, we are investors in the neighborhood, and we certainly are going to continue to be investors in the neighborhood. The only thing I'm not going to try and match these giants. The only thing I would say at the end here is that for myself and my company Chevron and my council, the U.S.-Saudi Business Council, we're proud to have been a part of this discussion.

The two things that I heard were partnership for peace, which I think is a wonderful concept that I could feel very strongly about. And the other one really is get to know each other better. I mean I just don't think we know each other sometimes. The public of our country and the public of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

And getting to know each other better is critically important. There's no better way to get to know each other than through trade and investment. And we are part of that just by the nature of our business, the U.S. - Saudi Business Council, obviously that's their role. But trade and investment, there's a blight of people moving to Saudi Arabia today to invest in Saudi Arabia.

The opportunities to invest there are fantastic. I think that getting to know each other and people getting together in public and talking about this issue is the only way forward.

[Steve Clemons] Thank you so much Peter. Minister, last word.

[Minister Abdullah Alireza] What I'm saying very simply in today's world, it's people to people, civil society working with each other. Organizations work together in order to enhance the understanding. There's got to be more of a glue, and the glue can be provided through trade and investments. It would be a mistake to think that trade and investment are not that important.

The more people you have, there's a huge multiplier effect, as more Saudis are here -- we have 20,000 students now in the U.S. These are people who will understand the United States and will understand how to deal with it. Likewise, you have to understand how to deal with us. You know, you cannot impose exogenous values on any country without having a backlash developing that would create animosity and mistrust. In the last eight years that animosity and mistrust was very apparent. And it's got to take a long time to be able to unwind that misconception that we went through.

The idea that you could impose democracy, that was synonymous with lets have chaos, so that we can continue to do what we want.

[Steve Clemons] Thank you very much, please give a round of applause to Senator Chuck Hagel, Prince Turki Al-Faisal, Rita Hauser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Abdullah Alireza, and Peter Robertson. I want to thank our panel very much.

[Visit the SUSRIS Special Section "U.S.-Saudi Relations in a World Without Equilibrium" for the transcripts from this and other panels and additional resources.]

Session One Video

Courtesy New America Foundation

Video MP3

Speaker Biography:

Senator Chuck Hagel
Former United States Senator
Distinguished Professor in the Practice of National Governance, Georgetown University
Chairman, Atlantic Council of the United States

The Honorable Chuck Hagel is a distinguished professor at Georgetown University and the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Hagel served two terms in the United States Senate (1997-2009) representing the State of Nebraska. Hagel was a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations; Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; and Intelligence Committees. Hagel is the author of the recently published "America: Our Next Chapter," a straight forward examination of the current state of our nation that provides substantial proposals for the challenges of the 21st century. Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate, Hagel was president of McCarthy & Company, an investment banking firm in Omaha, Nebraska. In the mid-1980s, Hagel co-founded VANGUARD Cellular Systems, Inc., a publicly traded corporation. He is a Vietnam combat veteran and former deputy administrator of the Veterans Administration.

AGENDA

Panel I: A Forward Projection of What the Saudi-U.S. Relationship Should Look Like and Needs to Achieve

Related Items - US-Saudi Relations:

Saudi-US Relations Information Service
eMail: [email protected]
Web: http://www.Saudi-US-Relations.org
� 2009
Users of the The Saudi-US Relations Information Service are assumed to have read and agreed to our terms and conditions and legal disclaimer contained on the SUSRIS.org Web site.