Fahd bin Abdul Aziz
Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz
Naef Bin Abdul Aziz
Salman Bin Abdul Aziz
Ahmad Bin Abdul Aziz
| |
Our Folkloric Ambassador, CACSA, July 7,
1996
ANALYSIS OF THE INTERVIEW ON ABC's "THIS WEEK WITH
DAVID BRINKLEY" OF BANDAR BIN SULTAN
If you were lucky enough to be sitting by the television on Sunday July 7,
1996 and be living in North America, you would have been able to see a
news show called "This Week with David Brinkley" on ABC News.
That show has quite a following among those who want to know what
Washington is thinking. Traditionally, the show has attracted the Who's
Who of politicians and has sustained a reputation for hard bi- partisan
discussions that, over the years, has enlightened many of us who feel
darkness in simplicity and light in complications.
On this particular Sunday, the show embraced the hot topic of security in
Saudi Arabia. The guests that appeared all had something to share and
light to shed on the recent events. We heard from Bill Redecker, the ABC
correspondent who experienced first hand the ugliness of the Saudi regime
in the form of detention and suppression of his reports. One thing
reporters do not like and that is to be stopped from reporting. Bill
Redecker expressed his frustration very well. Next came Secretary Jim
Baker who reiterated in a forceful way the need to protect our vital oil
interests in the region by positioning U.S armed forces. Any pulling out
will invite competitive friendly forces to fill the vacuum, something oil
companies do not want to see happen.
Next were Senators McCain of Arizona and Senator Lieberman of Connecticut.
They both shared the same bi-partisan view even though armed investigation
committees will start hearings into the last bombing in Saudi Arabia soon.
Both gentlemen expressed concern about American lives but also supported
the U.S. interests by standing for leaving American armed forces stationed
in Saudi Arabia.
Then came the best fifteen minutes of the segment. The last invitee on
that show was none other than Bandar bin Sultan, our dear, beloved,that-day-folkloric
Ambassador. Dressed in his $25,000 Bijan suit and fresh from a long
overnight trip from Saudi Arabia, he extolled the third generation of
Saudi politicians. After being sorry for the lives of the dead Americans
from the last blast, he went on to avoid the poignant question of why the
F.B.I was not allowed to interrogate the four terrorists who were beheaded
publicly. A little bit of diplomacy here and a little bit of garbage
there, Bandar could not explain why the F.B.I was not allowed to question
the four considering they have taken American lives. What he failed to say
was that there are doubts in the intelligence community about the true
guilt of those four Saudis. The truth lies in the fact that the royal
family, so scared of that bomb, wanted to send a quick signal to the
public at large of how swift their justice is. Their logic reasoned that
if we kill somebody for that bomb, we will avoid any future bombers. THAT
IS WHY THEY DID NOT ALLOW THE F.B.I. TO INTERVIEW THE FOUR ACCUSED
TERRORISTS.
Bandar was asked would the Saudi authorities cooperate with F.B.I Director
Freeh should they find the culprits that committed the last act. Bandar
tried to avoid that question knowing well that the key is the word
cooperation. A new battle is raging in Saudi Arabia as you read this that
is creating new tensions between Washington and Riyadh. Washington wants
to extradite the culprits when caught, Riyadh wants to behead them
publicly again. Imagine the consequences should Washington win this battle
or the consequences should Riyadh win it. The extremists will become more
extremists, the friends will be suspicious of each other, the innocent on
the grounds will suffer more. The more likely scenario would be to say we
found them and we had to battle with them and they are all dead. This will
not get the F.B.I. or the American justice system involved, this will
avoid embarrassment to Prince Naef who is afraid that the truth about the
networks of these people get to be public knowledge, and it will certainly
solve the problem of : what will the fundamentalists do if we extradite
those Saudis to the U.S.
One of the worst segment of the show came when Bandar tried to justify the
work of his non democratic government. George Will asked the question
twice : "Will we ever see democracy in the Middle East ?" and
"When will we see democracy in Saudi Arabia ?". Bandar's
interpretation of that term showed how far the Saudi government is from
understanding the concept of democracy. He characterized democracy as
people complaining about the Saudi government actions : "If we
squeeze, you accuse us of human rights abuses. If we relax, you accuse us
of not being in control". This statement showed Bandar's origins, way
of thinking and lack of control of his government actions. It is the old
Bandar all over again, making mistakes and committing blunders that are
unforgettable.
At one point, Bandar himself asked the George Will a question : "Do
you think Israel is a democracy?". This, in our opinion, is the third
bomb that Saudi Arabia offers the U.S.. There are two reasons why this
questions is out of place. Reason number one : Bandar maybe has not heard
of the law of relativity. If Israel is democratic compared to Saudi
Arabia, the answer is obvious. For Bandar to complain about Israel's
democracy is hypocritical and nasty. Bandar needs to be awakened from his
long dream that has lasted since 1984. Reasons number two : Bandar is
offending every attempt by any nation in the Middle East to try and
achieve democracy by criticizing that democracy. His goal and that of his
masters is never to allow democratic values to take hold in Saudi Arabia.
They even criticize Kuwait for having a parliament.
All in all, the show was an embarrassment to our folkloric Bandar. On
national television, the world was able to see what we have been saying
all along : Bandar is unintelligent and not fit to govern. As Ambassador
he questions Israel's democracy, as anything else, he will fight that
democracy. |
|