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.