Interview - Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Today we are pleased to present part one of a two part interview with Dr. Rachel Bronson, a senior fellow and Director of Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.  She is author of the forthcoming Thicker than Oil: The United States and Saudi Arabia, a History.  

Doctor Bronson talked with SUSRIS in February on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of FDR's and Ibn Saud's meeting, sharing her insights on that historic event.  Her on-line discussion with the Washington Post was also featured on SUSRIS last July.

SUSRIS talked with Doctor Bronson by telephone from her office in New York on May 18, 2005. 

SUSRIS: Thank you for sharing your time today, Doctor Bronson. We last talked about US-Saudi relations in February when you provided an account of the FDR and Ibn Saud meeting on the occasion of its 60th anniversary. Since then you have visited Saudi Arabia. Can you share with us your appraisal of the relationship?

Rachel Bronson: The overall US-Saudi relationship went through a very difficult period after September 11th but at the highest levels, exemplified by the recent meeting at Crawford, it is being repaired.

That being said, it is a very troubled relationship. There is a lot of frustration on both sides. There is anger about September 11th, about what's going on in the region, about who's responsible for terrorism and a host of other issues.

If you go below the highest echelon -- let's say to the working levels in government -- there is a sense of shared goals in the war on terrorism, shared goals on regional politics and so forth.

Oil has always been very important in keeping the two countries together -- the world's largest consumer and the world's largest producer. Things work better if the two can work together. More accurately, the world works better if the two can work together. However, what analysts over the decades have missed is how important the Cold War was to US-Saudi relations.

That is the point of my book -- that Saudi Arabia, the House of Saud, depends on religion in many ways to legitimize their political order. The Soviets, atheists and communists, were against religion and that posed an existential threat to the Saudis. The threat was different from that posed by the Iraqi or Egyptian nationalists.

Because of the atheistic Soviet threat it was very easy for the United States to partner with Saudi Arabia. Religion was a good cause. We were on the side of the Muslims. It was useful that the Kingdom could speak as the custodians of Mecca and Medina. It was useful that their legitimacy rested on religion. It made it a very easy relationship.

The point is, that having a lot of oil does not make you a good friend of the United States. There are other things that put Saudi Arabia and America into a partnership -- not despite oil but in addition to oil. The Cold War is gone now so that buffer is no longer there. So, I think the relationship is going to be rockier than others might think, only because the way I view what kept the two countries together all this time may be a different perspective.

SUSRIS: What do you see as new common interests the two countries share now that the Cold War is over? What can be the basis of the relationship if the common ground has shifted?

Rachel Bronson: I think there will be cooperation around the issue of oil pricing in order to preserve a stable economic order, with prices coming down but not tanking. The other issue is the war on terror. Here, I think, it is not clear that we are really in the same camp. When it comes to the Saudis fighting the war -- rooting out Al-Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia -- America is very supportive. We are working very closely with the Saudis in that tactical war on terror. But I think the bigger issue that is going to continue to haunt the relationship is whether Saudi Arabia is making sufficient strides to make sure, where possible, that money doesn't flow to terrorists --including not just domestic charities but from Islamic NGOs as well.

SUSRIS: Most who follow terrorist financing believe the Saudis have done a good job policing that up. You still see that as an issue?

Rachel Bronson: I do. I'm concerned that there are still NGOs that aren't directly under Saudi control that have received a lot of money in the past. They have operated in Saudi Arabia but they are not being policed in the same way as the domestic charities. The Saudis will say, "Look they're not Saudi organizations. There is a limit to what we can do." That is true, but I don't think they are aggressively pushing within the limits of what can be done. It should be said, though, that in the war on terror Saudi Arabia is going in and rooting out Al-Qaeda cells and that is terrific.

SUSRIS: Let's talk about your recent trip to the Kingdom. What impressions were you left with?

Rachel Bronson: I was in Saudi Arabia in February. People I met were talking about how the Crown Prince was doing a remarkable job putting forth his National Dialogue, allowing society to start talking about issues like diversity and tolerance. That was on everybody's lips when I was there. They were talking about how to inject the new dialogue into schools and society. They were talking about how to move beyond the 1980's when Jihad and fighting in Afghanistan were factors. You know, the Americans really encouraged it. We were behind the politicization of religion around the war in Afghanistan and the end of the Cold War. So now, how do you step away from that and start rebuilding the tolerance and diversity that was within society. That was one of the biggest takeaways from the trip.

I heard many people saying Sept 11th forced Saudis to come to terms with the negative effects of many policies of the 1980s and 1990s. I was very much struck by that and how important the Crown Prince's National Dialogue was to them. As I presented in my recent op-ed, the need for changes in the educational system, not just what's being taught but how it's being taught, are going to be very important to this war on terror. It is one of the things I think America should be looking at to assess whether Saudi Arabia is fighting with us in the war on terror.

SUSRIS: Are you optimistic to hear that many Saudis feel they need to take action in areas like the National Dialogue?

Rachel Bronson: After Sept 11th there was an initial period of surprise and denial. After the May 2003 bombings and certainly after November 2003 there was a real movement toward trying to change, trying to introduce new ideas, trying to talk about diversity and tolerance -- I think that really does mark a very positive change. You know, the Crown Prince can't do everything he wants to do. He is in a battle with others in the government about how fast to move through these reforms. Obviously the United States wants them going faster and Saudi Arabia wants them going slower and so they too are struggling with how quickly to move.

I do think there was an awareness, at least among some, that something had changed. I heard statements that there was a cancer that needed to be cut out -- that the patient was sick. I was surprised to hear statements by Saudis that the system was sick and it needed to be healed. People told me the society after 1979 and throughout the 1980s really veered off in the wrong direction.

SUSRIS: What happened in 1979 to reshape Saudi society?

Rachel Bronson: There were three major events that took place, all within just weeks of each other: the Islamic revolution in Iran - American hostages were taken and the Ayatollah Khomeini was in power; the attacks at the Grand Mosque at Mecca and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. For all of those developments religion became the antidote to the problems they posed for the Kingdom.

All of these events combined to rock Saudi Arabia in 1979. Increasing religiosity, of a certain kind, was very useful as a countermeasure. I think for the past twenty years the Saudis have been on a path they set starting back in the period 1979 through 1981. In 2001 there was a realization among those who had been uncomfortable or hadn't been paying attention to the real politicization of religion that it had gone much too far. I think we are seeing a course correction now -- a correction to policies taken in the early 1980s.

I think the Saudis are right to be disgruntled with Americans for not fully accepting responsibility in the calls for Jihad and aiding the anti-Soviet religious fight in Afghanistan. The United States played a major role in the politicization of religion - training religious thinkers and promoting religion. It was a role we had throughout the Middle East that we have to acknowledge.

SUSRIS: Do you see some Saudis as thinking they were working for our interests -- supporting the war against the Soviets and even in the case of forming a bulwark against Iranian expansionism -- and now are left holding the bag?

Rachel Bronson: Well, what I heard was, "We did America's dirty work." I don't think they did it so much for us as they did it for their own national interests. But we very much were in this together and we are now reaping what we have sown.

I think the Americans got wise to it a little sooner than the Saudis. In the 1990s we really started to see the problems it created, but it was only in the late 1990s. I would say the bombings in Africa in 1998 were the events that caused the American administration to fully start focusing on the problem of Islamic radicalism and international networks. It took a few years, until Sept 11th for Americans to really understand the implications. I think the Saudis are still coming to terms with it.

SUSRIS: Why didn't the bombings in Saudi Arabia in 1995 at OPM-SANG in Riyadh and 1996 at the US Air Force dormitory in Khobar focus American and Saudi attention on the problem?

Rachel Bronson: I think Khobar turned on some lights for those who were on the ground and for those directly responsible to those on the ground. I don't know that they turned them on for the White House at that point. It wasn't until 1998 that Vice President Gore went over to talk to Crown Prince Abdullah about the problem. It didn't reach the highest levels until just a few years before Sept 11th.

There are some in Saudi Arabia who see the need for a course correction, but everyone does not share that view. Quite frankly, I think the Saudis are in a domestic battle about the future of the country. I think there is a faction in the government who sees the need for change, led by Crown Prince Abdullah. However, he has powerful brothers as well as powerful religious figures in society who limit how fast he can move.

The fact they couldn't get women to vote in the recent municipal elections is just one example, and probably not the best example, that the Crown Prince can't do everything he wants to do at once.

Saudi Arabia is in a battle right now for the future of the country. There are many who are hopeful about reforms not because America wants the reform but because Saudi Arabia needs the reforms. They have to change the education system so their kids can get jobs. They have to change the religious indoctrination system so they are not ripe for going off to get killed in Iraq.

American policymakers see the battle and it's unclear who's winning. You have to figure out how do you help your friends and not hurt them in the process. I'm not sure if there is anything the US can really do.

SUSRIS: That dilemma, the "do no harm" problem surrounding America's role, was addressed by Colin Powell last year. He said, 'We know that there is a need for reform across the Middle East but it is best taken upon at the rate consistent with the culture and society where it's occurring.' Are the Saudis satisfied with that approach -- hands off, letting them move at the own pace?

Rachel Bronson: No. I think there is a lot of anger at the United States.

SUSRIS: Over pushing reforms?

Rachel Bronson: Over our response to Sept 11th, over the way we're pushing reform, over the hypocrisy they see in how we push reform with our friends versus our enemies.

There is still a lot of anger about the fact that among Americans, all Saudis were considered to be associated with the hijackers. There is anger about the difficulty of getting visas and the harassment they face from US Immigration officials once they reach America's shores. All of that rankles those who we want to work with more closely.

Where we can focus our help, and that is the point of my op-ed, is in the education arena. That has been a place where the Saudis have depended on the United States, have benefited from the United States, and have very good feelings about the United States. That is one avenue where we have an opportunity to rebuild those ties.

I think President Bush gets it. He made it clear it's a priority with him. Just look at the statement out of the Crawford summit that education is an area that we can do something about. We must make sure all the wrong people stay out of the United States, but the right people must be allowed to come back. I think the fact that our Secretary of State was the former Provost of Stanford University is also helpful.

You can see this is where the Saudis want to come for education. Their parents came here. Their siblings came here. So they do want to come back and live in the US for a few years. I think that is something we very much want to be encouraging and I think the President is doing that.

When I was in Jeddah people were talking about the fact that Effat College got a $100,000 grant from USAID. It was good public diplomacy for the US. It cost us $100,000 - a relatively small amount. Yet, that is the program that I kept hearing about, that the US partnered with the college. There are many ways we can continue to do that, to help support liberal institutions that are admired and valued in society. I think that is very useful.

Another area where we might want to be helpful is with those who won the municipal council elections. You know there has been a lot of cynicism that they are not responsible for very much. Nevertheless if there is a way we can bring the newly elected council members together with municipal council members in other Gulf states, Arab states or other countries, it would be very interesting and useful, and a good way for America to be on the right side of things. The process should avoid "cherry picking" the participants and acknowledge that those elected are who the Saudis chose so we should just figure out how to make it work.

SUSRIS: So education and to a lesser extent development of political culture through education would be a less intrusive way of influencing reform?

Rachel Bronson: Well it will always be perceived as intrusive, but yes, it is the obvious way for the United States to be engaged. We can translate books into Arabic, and make the pictures in the books appropriate for the local context. Those are the kinds of things we can do. You would have people coming to the US and deciding what kind of books they want. I believe there would be a great interest in programs like that.

Part II - Next Week..  more on the US-Saudi relationship.

Also See:
President Roosevelt and King Abdulaziz - The Meeting at Great Bitter Lake:  A Conversation with Rachel Bronson

The Saudi System is the Problem by Dr. Rachel Bronson

Rachel Bronson

Rachel Bronson is a senior fellow and Director of Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations where she is concluding research on her forthcoming book Thicker than Oil:  The United States and Saudi Arabia, a History, under contract with Oxford University Press (2005).  She co-directed  the January 2003  report “Guiding Principles for US Post-Conflict Policy in Iraq,” co-sponsored by CFR and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University.  She has testified before Congress’ Joint Economic Committee on the topic of Iraq’s reconstruction, and the President’s 9-11 Commission on whether or not the US is involved in a “Clash of Civilizations.”

Dr. Bronson is the recipient of the Carnegie Corporation’s 2003 Carnegie Scholars award.  She has served as a consultant to the Center for Naval Analyses, as a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., and as a Fellow at Harvard's Center for Science and International Affairs. Her writing has appeared in publications such as Foreign Affairs, Survival, The New York Times and The International Herald Tribune.  She has commented extensively in the media including CNN, BBC, NPR, Washingtonpost.com and al-Jazeera and is a consultant for NBC news.  She received her doctorate from Columbia University in Political Science in 1997. 

Thicker Than Oil: The U.S. And Saudi Arabia: A History
by Rachel Bronson

Book Description - from Amazon.com

For fifty-five years, the United States and Saudi Arabia were solid partners. Since 9/11 this partnership has been sorely tested. In Thicker than Oil, Rachel Bronson shows why the partnership became so intimate and the problems that it spawned. This normally secretive relationship comes alive with stories of American diplomats heaped on the floor before the Saudi King--and a bizarre request for the Saudi government to subsidize Polish pork exports, a request the U.S. Ambassador refused to deliver. Drawing on a wide range of archival material, declassified documents, and interviews with leading Saudi and American officials, Bronson chronicles a long history of close contact. Contrary to popular belief, Bronson shows that the relationship was never just about "oil for security." Saudi Arabia's religiously motivated foreign policy was deemed an asset when fighting "godless communism," as was Saudi Arabia's geographic location. From Africa to Afghanistan, Egypt to Nicaragua the two worked to beat back Soviet influence. Overlapping strategic interests helped compartmentalized differences around issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict. But decisions taken for hard headed Cold War purposes left behind a legacy that today enflames the Middle East. In today's fight against terrorism, Saudi Arabia is both part of the problem and part of the solution. Not withstanding real troubles, Bronson outlines the dangers of allowing the relationship to further deteriorate. Saudi Arabia, she notes, faces a violent and zealous opposition. If this opposition gains complete control of the state's huge resources, it will direct its efforts towards destroying the United States, auguring a true clash of civilizations.