Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review May 7, 2002 / 26 Iyar, 5762

Doug Bandow

Doug Bandow
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Paying a high price for befriending Saudi princes | Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah's visit to President George W. Bush's ranch will do little to ease the strain in the U.S.-Saudi relationship. Riyadh has always been among Washington's more dubious allies: the United States should take the initiative and put distance between the two nations, including pulling out its military forces.

Even though the relationship between Riyadh and Washington has been close, it has been rarely easy. For American administrations that loudly promote democracy, the alliance with totalitarian Saudi Arabia is a deep embarrassment.

Unfortunately, U.S. policies have identified Washington with the Saudi kleptocracy. Today the United States protects Saudi Arabia with units in Turkey and carrier forces in the Persian Gulf backed by roughly 5,000 air force personnel in Saudi Arabia and additional support for the Saudi National Guard. A desire to end America's backing for the corrupt regime in Riyadh and expel U.S. forces from the Gulf is one of Osama bin Laden's main goals.

The Saudi ruling elite is also paying for their dependence on the U.S. Dissatisfaction with the regime has merged with criticism of America: 15 of the 19 hijackers of Sept. 11 were from Saudi Arabia.

Yet the Saudi leadership has proved wary of aiding the United States even after attacks on Americans. Despite the White House's public expression of satisfaction, Saudi Arabia refused to run background "traces" on its citizens who committed the atrocities of Sept. 11, supply passenger lists of those on flights to America, and block terrorist funds flowing through supposed charities.

Although the Saudis have allowed use of the operations center at Prince Sultan Air Base, near Riyadh, they ostentatiously announced that no foreign troops would use Saudi facilities to stage attacks. Unfortunately, the refusal to aggressively defend cooperation with the West encourages the growth of extremism.

Still, the lack of public endorsement pales in comparison to Riyadh's support for the very Islamic fundamentalism that has spawned terrorism. Saudi money has flowed to bin Laden and the Saudi state, run by royals who often flaunt their libertinism, subsidizes the extreme Wahhabi form of Islam abroad.

By any normal assessment, Americans should care little about the future of the House of Saud. But Saudi Arabia has oil. Contrary to popular wisdom, however, the Saudis' trump hand is surprisingly weak. True, Saudi Arabia has about one quarter of the world's resources. However, this figure vastly overstates the importance of Saudi oil, which accounted for about 10 percent of world production last year. Were Saudi Arabia to fall, prices would rise substantially only if the conqueror, whether internal or external, held the oil off of the market.

Such a policy would, however, defeat the very purpose of conquest, even for a fundamentalist regime; in fact, bin Laden has called oil the source of Arab power. A targeted boycott against only the United States would be ineffective, since oil is a uniform product available around the world.

A new regime might decide to pump less oil to raise prices. Yet countries have long found it difficult to coordinate production and limit cheating.

In any case, the economic impact of such a step would decline over time. Sharply higher prices would bring forth new supplies, which have actually increased over the last two decades.

Countries, such as Kuwait, Iran, Nigeria, Russia and the United Arab Emirates, could pump significantly more oil. Energy companies today are looking for new oil deposits around the world, including the Caspian Basin, Russia and West Africa. There are also abundant alternative forms of supplies, such as shale oil.

In short, an unfriendly Saudi Arabia might hurt America's pocketbook; it would not threaten America's survival. And the risk to Persian Gulf oil must be balanced against the cost of maintaining forces used to protect Saudi oil, as well as the threat of more terrorism, inflamed by America's Saudi presence. Saudi stability is of value, but America's presence may undermine that.

As for renewed external aggression, most obviously by Iraq, even before Sept. 11, the Gulf states were working to resolve conflicts and improve their ability to defend themselves. The prospect of American disengagement would, like a hanging, help concentrate their minds, encouraging the Gulf states to develop an effective balance of power by forging defensive relationships with surrounding powers and to develop internal support by inaugurating serious political reform.

If they fail to act, however, the United States shouldn't worry unduly about the future of the Saudi regime. Should the House of Saud fall, Washington would finally be relieved of the moral dead weight of defending that regime. And consumers would continue to purchase oil in a global marketplace.

The United States must not retreat from the world. But it should stop undergirding illegitimate regimes, as in Saudi Arabia.

JWR contributor Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Comment by clicking here.


04/30/02: The price of postal monopoly
04/23/02: The war on charity
04/16/02: The forgotten human right
03/27/02: Cuba's struggle to be free
03/20/02: How to defeat Cuban communism
03/12/02: Junk science, redux
03/06/02: Axis of hubris
02/27/02: Washington-style campaign reform: incumbent protection
02/20/02: The grand Enron morality play
02/12/02: Rebuilding what?
02/05/02: Succumbing to the terrorist temptation
01/29/02: Democrats for what?
01/22/02: The Iraqi question
01/14/02: Profiling frequent flyers
01/08/02: Trade, not aid
01/02/02: Treason by any other name
12/26/01: Preserving freedom in an unfree world
12/17/01: Dealing with terrorism's aftermath
12/10/01: Emerging friendships?
12/04/01: Uncle Sam: Insurer of last resort
11/28/01: Expanding the circle of trade
11/20/01: Free to be stupid
11/13/01: The meaning of compassion
11/07/01: Patriotic scoundrels
10/30/01: The coming postal raid
10/16/01: First, do no harm
10/12/01: Good news from a suffering land
10/04/01: Defending whom?
09/25/01: The wrong solution to the wrong problem
09/21/01: The price of terrorism
08/28/01: Uncle Sam's retirement scam
08/21/01: Canberra's quaint naivete
08/14/01: Uncle Sam's false fuel economy
08/08/01: The Clinton administration in drag
07/31/01: The high cost of government
07/24/01: Kill the campaign reform illusion
07/17/01: Do as I say, not as I do
07/11/01: Lawyers at play
07/05/01: Western blundering, Macedonian disaster
06/26/01: How best to honor Bill Clinton?
06/19/01: A maturing Europe?
06/15/01: Tell Beijing to mind its own business
06/06/01: Ukraine's boiling cauldron
05/31/01: Protecting privacy from Uncle Sam
05/22/01: America's Balkan quagmire
05/09/01: The Taiwanese flash point
05/01/01: Globalization serves the world's poor
04/24/01: Who's cheating whom?
04/10/01: The NCAA scam
04/03/01: Balkan stupidities
03/27/01: McCain doesn't want a 'risk for our country'
03/20/01: Dubious Korean alliances
03/06/01: Coercive patriotism
02/27/01: Bombing without end
02/20/01: A dose of misplaced outrage
02/13/01: Psst: Tax cuts for taxpayers. Pass-it-on
02/06/01: Bridging the unbridgeable gap
01/23/01: Left-wing demagoguery
01/16/01: The drug war problem
01/10/01: Politics and trade
01/03/01: Hope for liberty?
12/27/00: The debris of war
12/19/00: What's the rule of law for?
12/15/00: Ending silicone breast implant saga
12/05/00: Election may yield victor, but there are no winners
11/21/00: A Bush presidential mandate?
11/07/00: Exprienced Gore? Yeah, right
11/01/00: Interventionist follies
10/17/00: America's brightening prospects in Ukraine
10/11/00: GOP budget scandals
10/03/00: How a pharmaceutical 'crisis' was created
09/27/00: Clinton's empathy has helped nobody
09/13/00: AlGore's risky budget policies
09/05/00: Military readiness and Korean commitments
08/29/00: Let sleeping hypocrites lie
08/21/00: Targeting a journalistic pariah
08/15/00: European garrison for Kosovo?
08/08/00: Journalistic cleansing at the Boston Globe
08/04/00: Junk science on trial
06/22/00: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty
06/15/00: The end of U.N. peacekeeping
06/07/00: The Clinton regulatory miasma
06/01/00: Administration stupidity, congressional cowardice
05/25/00: The silence of the international community
05/18/00: Protecting the next generation

05/11/00: Freer trade with China will advance human rights

05/04/00: How not to save the Constitution

04/28/00: American tripwire in Korea long ago disappeared: Why are we still involved?

04/18/00: Clinton administration believes the IRS is too gentle, wants more auditors

© 2002, Copley News Service