Last October I met with a Danish journalist at a hotel in New York. We were discussing some issues related to the Saudi royal family. After our official meeting we had a long and friendly conversation about updated international politics.

Three months have now passed, and one issue still remains vivid in my mind. The journalist posed the question, "Who's the master and who's the slave in the Saudi-American relationship?" He laughingly continued, "I'll pay $1,000,000 to the person who can answer that question!" He said, "When I look at the fact that the Saudi government obeyed American orders to destroy oil prices until it became cheaper than water; when I read about the billions of dollars spent on army deals at ten times the fair share; when I see how the Saudis open what they call their "holy lands" to the American military and pay for the construction of bases (usually paid for by the occupying country), I say to myself, 'no doubt the American is the master and the Saudi is the slave in this relationship'.

However, on the other side of the coin, when I see official American silence on critical matters such as the Saudi government's support of worldwide terrorism and its failure to condemn the royal family for drug trafficking in the Middle East; when I see how America allows the Saudi government to destroy their media credibility by letting them own and control the Associated Press and allowing them to use gold watches to buy off some American journalists; when I see how America is silent when the royal family crushes any move toward democracy in the region; when I see American human rights organizations criticize a nuclear power like China but close their eyes, ears, and mouths in the face of Saudi human rights violations, I tell myself that my first conclusion is inaccurate. The reverse is true, America is a slave to the Saudi royal family.

The big question asked by this journalist is not just in his head. It is on the minds of all who are concerned and affected by this delicate relationship between the Saudis and the Americans. Nobody, myself nor the American administration I think, has the answer to this question.

If democracy, free trade, and human rights are the main elements in the "new international order", that means the present Saudi-American relationship is one of the biggest threats to this new order. Theoretically, this relationship should not exist. The United States, as described by most international analysts, is the world's freedom leader and the globe's democracy advocate. She is also the key figure in the free market and is supposed to be the biggest supporter of worldwide human rights. The American media is currently the most independent in the world.

Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is the world's leader for autocracy and is the biggest enemy of democracy including the freedoms related to it. She is also known to have the most corrupt financial regime on earth and the most corrupt throughout the history of the world. Saudi Arabia has the world's worst reputation for human rights abuses and violations. Such an illegitimate relationship can't give anything but negative consequences for the people of both countries. It is the "cancer" of the democracy principle and the "aids" of human rights.

For decades, the American administration, both democratic and republican, stated that their foreign policy was based on the national interest and not on the democracy principle. They stated their interests and priorities to be national security first, the economy second, and lastly, human rights. However, even these priorities are not always upheld when it comes to the Saudi relationship. No doubt however, the Saudi government bows to America when it comes to the major issues like their foreign policy, their oil policy and military agreements or "understandings" as some politicians on both sides would like to describe it. This bowing has come at great cost to America. The Saudi government, and to be more specific, the royal family, involved America to protect them until protecting them became part of the American national security. Prince Bandar would have America believe that if the royal family collapses, America, as a superpower, will also collapse. Even though Bandar is the illegitimate son of the Saudi Defense Minister, and is internationally known as Mr. 20% for being financially corrupt, he built a strong net among the American politicians and the American media. He successfully damaged the independence of the American media and involved many politicians in his schemes to the point where their defending him became part of defending themselves. Some went so far as to damage America's national interest just to protect him.

The Saudi-American relationship started changing dramatically after the Second Gulf War. With the failing Saudi economy and a deficit of $150,000,000,000, the royal family no longer has the money to make payoffs to sweeten the deals they want. They can't and don't have the money to affect on the American media and cannot continue their extensive propaganda campaign. Also, they have less affect on the American politicians and industry men since they can't make deals of similar magnitude as they did before. Besides this, the Saudis lost another card. Previously, America had only one base in the region. This was located in Dhahran and the American army has been using it since 1957. To date, there are many military bases located in the Gulf area and this Saudi base no longer holds the same strategic importance as it had before. Egypt, Jordan and Israel, through the peace process, demanded more political and media attention from America. As a result the spotlight was not on Saudi Arabia as it had been before. Saudi Arabia then became a secondary political power in the Middle East. The problems of the loss of political power, a sick and incompetent king, a divided royal family, the rise of the opposition movement, the Sunni Islamists, the Shiite and the liberals have all surfaced at the same time putting the Saudi government in the biggest dilemma ever. They are now playing the last and most dangerous card they have---terrorism!

The Saudi government has a long history of terrorism in the Middle East. They are now using this experience for international terrorism. The royal family thought that by involving the United States in this issue they would regain the credits they lost in their relationship. They decided to use terrorism against America through two mainstreams. On one hand the Saudis tried to ensure America that Saudi Arabia would cooperate by giving secret information to which America was not privy. This included giving inaccurate or twisted information to deliberately mislead America in the regional affairs. From the other hand, it is very well known to the international community and to the American government as well that the Saudi government indirectly supports the military groups which work against American interest in the region. In the last few years the Saudi government has been directly involved in terrorist activity against America. The following Saudi terrorist facts have been reported between 1994 and 1997 by very credible sources such as The New York Times, The Washington Post and Reuters. The Saudi government refused official American requests to arrest a Lebanese fugitive wanted by the American Justice Department because of his role in the attack against American marines in Lebanon during the 1980's. This attack killed more than 200 marines. The American authorities arrested a navy official, after having concluded that he was passing very sensitive computer disks which were taken from a nuclear ship, to the Saudis. At the same time, the Saudi government submitted a huge amount of money, in Manila, to Ramsey Yussef, the master brain behind the World Trade Center bombing. When the former American Ambassador to Riyadh, Mr. Mabus, asked the Saudi government for an explanation about some of their policies, they sent an intelligence team, under a religious cover, to punish his wife in a public place. This occurred the very next day. The Saudi level of terrorism rose to a new height of violence on November 13, 1995 when an explosion targeted an American military building in the heart of Riyadh at midday. Before the American investigating team could begin their probe, the Saudi government suddenly announced that Saudi militants were responsible for the bombing. Four boys were beheaded without allowing the FBI to meet with them. Even though the Saudi-Yemeni border was extensively surrounded by both armies because of the border crisis at that time, the Saudi authorities claim that the explosives were smuggled from Yemen. This is highly unlikely. Seemingly, the Saudi political short goals are to keep America busy with its own security, to blackmail Yemen and the Saudi opposition and finally, to mislead America in thinking that her only source of valid information regarding the region comes from Saudi Arabia.

While the Americans were tightening up their security on the bases in Saudi Arabia, even before they could get clearance to extend the fences, a second bomb went off in Dhahran on June 25 taking the lives of 19 American servicemen. The size of this bomb came as a great surprise to the FBI. It was the largest to go off in the Middle East in the 90's. America did not meet with full cooperation from the Saudi government when a request to be involved in the investigation was denied. Prince Naef, the Interior Minister who just about completed elementary school, blamed Iran for the explosion. He supposedly submitted some kind of evidence to the FBI but when the American media reported this, he officially denied any Iranian involvement and urged Afghanistan to arrest Bin Ladin claiming that he was involved. All this proves that the Saudi government is hiding the complete truth about what really happened.

The Saudi-American relationship in the 90's is like the weather. That is, it is changing every day. I predict a huge storm is coming. Finally, during my career as a Saudi diplomat to the United Nations, I heard many different opinions about this relationship. The majority describe the Saudis as trained dogs for America. Some western journalists who I met with after my defection, have gone so far as to say, "We don't know who's in charge of The White House, Clinton or Bandar"! Some also added, "When it comes to the Saudi-American relationship, The White House should be called The White Tent"!

Mohammed Al Khilewi

New York