Despotic Saudi regime now a threat to stability

Published on Saturday 9 August 2003 01:00

THE relief of the seven Britons released from prison in Saudi Arabia yesterday can only be imagined. But now that they are home and free, we should be asking tough questions about the Saudi regime and Britain’s attitude to it.

The seven were accused of involvement in the car bombing that killed Christopher Rodway, an engineer, in December 2000. They were supposedly fighting a gang war over illegal alcohol sales. Relatives and friends claim that some of the men were tortured. Two, including Sandy Mitchell from Kirkintilloch, made televised confessions which they later retracted, and were sentenced to be publicly beheaded, a horrifying prospect in itself.

Campaigners on their behalf are naturally jubilant. But yesterday’s volte-face owed nothing to the Saudi justice system and everything to an act of royal clemency. Either the gesture was an admission that the men were innocent, or the Saudis are taking a strangely relaxed attitude to suspects charged with a serious crime. Mr Rodway’s widow, understandably, wants to know who was responsible for her husband’s death. Was it an al-Qaeda bomb, as some have claimed?

It looks as if the sudden change of heart owed more to diplomacy than justice. In the wake of 9/11 and the Iraq war, the Saudi regime is under pressure and keen to please. Saudi links with terrorism have been highlighted by a recent report from the United States Congress - even without the publication of the most incriminating pages. Saudi funding for groups such as Hamas is belatedly coming under scrutiny. Now that Saddam Hussein has gone and the US is pulling out of its military bases in the kingdom, Saudi strategic importance in the Middle East is declining.

With a real chance for democracy in Iraq, King Fahd’s crumbling and despotic monarchy looks ever more anachronistic. Far from being a force for stability and moderation in the region, which was how the Foreign Office traditionally saw it, Saudi Arabia is now a threat to stability. Resistance to reform has made the kingdom, where 60 per cent of the population is under 20 and unemployment is high, a recruiting ground for extremist Islamic groups.

The Saudis say they are offering unprecedented co-operation in the war on terrorism, inviting the CIA and FBI to help interrogate suspects. The three car bombs in Riyadh in May, which killed 34 people, appear to have shocked the regime out of a state of denial and impelled it to pursue al-Qaeda with more vigour. Without changes in culture and governance, however, terrorism will continue to flourish.

The lack of democracy and neglect of human rights is glossed over by diplomats and experts accustomed to treating the Saudis with kid gloves. But the reality is brutal. More than 20 executions have taken place this year. Amputation is used as a punishment. The religious police are so strict that, when a girls’ school caught fire in Mecca, they drove pupils without headscarves back into the burning school and prevented male rescuers from entering.

The treatment of Saudi women, who cannot drive or travel unaccompanied by a man, is nothing short of shameful. Mrs Rodway’s stepson was consulted about the release of her husband’s supposed killers: she, as a woman, was not.

President George Bush and the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, like to stress that the desire for freedom "transcends race, religion and culture", as Condoleezza Rice, Mr Bush’s national security adviser, said this week. That should apply as much to women in Riyadh as in Kandahar, as much to citizens in Jeddah as in Basra.

How would we feel if the new Iraqi governing council refused to allow "the practice of any religion which contradicts Islam"? Yet that is the Saudi position.

Hence the reluctance to assist in the war against Iraq. It was not just a question of solidarity with fellow-Muslims. The Saudis were conscious that regime change in Baghdad could hasten regime change at home.

Voices in the US foreign policy community are already urging President Bush to reconsider his supportive attitude to the Saudis. They object to the failure to crack down on Islamic charities which may be financing terrorism, a point reinforced by Colin Powell this week. They observe that 15 of the 19 hijackers involved in the attacks on 11 September were Saudi. The unpublished section of the recent Congressional inquiry is thought to disclose that a Saudi citizen who lent money to the hi-jackers may have been an intelligence agent, or had links with Saudi officials.

Thus far, the Bush administration has shown great restraint, shielding the Saudis by refusing to publish the offending section. It may be that, with Iraqi oil proving slow to come on the market, the president feels he needs their help to keep oil prices low. But in the longer term, a friendly Iraq will help reduce dependence on Saudi oil.

The British government is free to draw its own conclusions. The release of UK citizens who appear to have been wrongly detained should prompt a reassessment of relations with a state where the desire for freedom has been too long suppressed.