Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, CDHR, Washington DC

April 23, 2014

Saudis and Muslim Brotherhood, Competing Ideologues, Saudi Succession, Women’s Status and  Islam

Commentaries and Analysis

Perilous Intent of Recent Saudi Conduct  

CDHR’s Commentary: The Saudi regime’s recent domestic and regional risky conduct is indicative of its inability to absorb domestic demands for reforms and to deal with regional transformative developments (i.e., the Arab Spring). Domestically, the regime is being challenged by many of its disenfranchised subjects, including its power base, the dogmatist religious establishment. The regime’s unwillingness to recognize that evading domestic strife (revolt) depends on restructuring the archaic political arrangement to incorporate the people’s evolving aspirations.

The current religious and political structure bestows all powers on the Saudi and Wahhabi ruling dynasties. Given this arrangement, they believe that the country is their private property. With such a mindset, it’s unlikely that the royals would peacefully accept any change to the status quo even when common sense and pragmatism suggest otherwise.

However, demands for far-reaching reforms in the country are mounting and transcending regional, ethnic, gender and religious affiliations. Women are demanding the removal of the male guardian system (or modern slavery), the right to drive, release of their relatives from Saudi prisons, full employment and participation in the decision-making process. They are also defying the misogynistic religious establishment.

Religious minorities are demonstrating and dying to obtain social justice, religious freedom and elimination of all discriminatory state laws and policies. Prominent male and female human rights activists are demanding non-sectarian rule of law, freedom of expression, free elections, constitutional monarchy and government accountability.

Myopically, instead of responding to public demands for political and social reforms, King Abdullah issued and ratified “decrees and laws” which explicitly criminalize criticism of the state, its institutions and its  rulers.  Furthermore, the regime equates pro-democracy activists with atheism.

Regionally, the Saudi regime’s opposition to the “Arab Spring” and its concomitant geopolitical challenges demonstrates its unwillingness to acknowledge that the Arab revolutions are justified, for fear of facing the same fate as the former repressive regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen. Although the Saudi oligarchy is still in power, its influence in the region, especially in its own back yard, has significantly eroded as exemplified by the collapsing of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which the Saudis have doggedly tried to unite and control.

The GCC is splintering into opposing factions. The rulers of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain continue to show unity. Qatar and Oman decided to pursue their separate interests, neither of which is compatible with that of the Saudis’. Oman continues its beneficial relations with Iran while Qatar is embracing the Muslim Brotherhood (aka “Brotherhood”), which the Saudis helped overthrow and recently designated as terrorists and criminals, despite the fact that they were allies, both are Sunni Muslims and share repressive ideology. The rulers of the 6^th GCC member, Kuwait, are facing unprecedented challenges to their political survival.

After failing to intimidate Qatar into abandoning the Brotherhood and to shut down its critical, pro-Brotherhood pan-Arab satellite channel, Aljazeera, the Saudis withdrew their ambassador from Qatar with the intent of forcing the Qataris to capitulate.  The Saudis’ demands boomeranged. The Qatari rulers not only continue their support for the Brotherhood, but unmuzzled Yousaf Al-Qaradawi, a spiritual guide of that group and a harsh critic of the Saudi regime’s support for the Egyptian military government. In addition, the Qatari Emir flew to the Sudan, Jordan and Tunisia, countries home to strong affiliates of the Brotherhood, presumably to rally support for his loyalty to the Brotherhood.

Qatar is not the only country that embraces and supports the Brotherhood. The governments of Turkey, Iran and the Sudan are known allies of the Brotherhood. Additionally, the Brotherhood has influential affiliates in Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen, Kuwait and Syria. Hezbollah, Hamas and numerous supporters of the Brotherhood are spread throughout the Arab World, including Saudi Arabia  and other Gulf states.

Given the Brotherhood’s popularity among many Egyptians and its powerful supporters elsewhere, many people are wondering about the Saudis’ intention in designating the Brotherhood as a terrorist party, especially when significant numbers of the Brotherhood are members of parliaments in friendly countries like Jordan and Kuwait. Is it the Saudi rulers’ intent to instigate multiple conflicts throughout the region between governments and pro-Brotherhood segments of their societies that could potentially spill over and disrupt production and shipment of oil from the Middle East? If this is what impelled the Saudi rulers to declare the Brotherhood and its allies and supporters terrorists, then the questions that come to mind are what drove the Saudi rulers to take this action and what do they hope to achieve?

It’s no secret that one of the Saudi rulers’ overriding fears is of Iran’s rising power and spread of its influence in the Middle East. Consequently, decimating Iran’s capabilities as the Saudis’ major religious and political rival in Arab and Muslim states is one of the Saudis’ top priorities. Having failed to convince its Western allies and others to disable Iran’s military and economic infrastructure, as well as to rally support for the overthrow of Iran’s draconian proxy regime in Syria, the Saudis decided to “go it alone” as exemplified by their unprecedented public support for regime change in Egypt.

Another major factor that triggered recent Saudi rulers’ actions is their diminishing sway regionally and globally. However, they know that restoring their receding influence cannot be realized without eliminating major regional competitors, specifically Iran and the Brotherhood. The Saudis’ extensive efforts to enlist the West’s military intervention anywhere in the Middle East have been rebuffed repeatedly.    

The West (with the exception of France) has made clear it will not intervene militarily in the Middle East unless its economic and national security interests are under imminent threat, as argued by opponents of military intervention in Syria. However, if a major disruption of oil production and shipment from the Persian Gulf were to occur, it’s most likely that the West, specifically the US, will have no choice but to take military action. Given this probability, the Saudis may have decided to create an environment in which disruption of oil supplies is almost guaranteed. By designating the Brotherhood, its supporters and allies as terrorists, the Saudis hope to sow conflicts that will envelop oil supply and shipment with the intent of forcing the West to intervene military and in the process dismantle Iran, the Brotherhood and their proxies.

Due to their multitude of policy and diplomatic letdowns, dwindling influence and fears of being replaced as a major strategic and economic power in the Middle East, the Saudi rulers may have decided to play the most dangerous weapon in their arsenal: plunge the region into chaos from which they hope to restore themselves as an indispensable power broker in the region and beyond. Risky calculations, but desperation does not leave room for prudence or even for survival, especially in the Middle East.

Causes of Prince Bandar’s Demotion are More Than Policy Fiascoes 

CDHR’s Commentary: There is more to Prince Bandar’s relegation to the Saudi regime’s wastepile than the two issues put forward by pundits. Bandar’s policy fiasco of death and destruction in Syria and his inflammatory statements about his government’s intent to “sever  diplomatic relations” with the US due to the latter’s refusal to send its soldiers to topple President Assad from power are only partly to blame for Bandar’s disgrace-filled removal from his powerful post.  

An obscured, but significant reason assumed to have contributed to Prince Bandar’s downfall is his potential menace to the royal family itself. The current and aspiring ruling princes saw Bandar’s pugnacious attitude as a threat to the monarchy. Some princes were concerned that Bandar might organize disgruntled royals, especially his wing of the family, which has been marginalized by King Abdullah since the death of Bandar’s powerful father, late Crown Prince Sultan.

Current Saudi rulers fear that Bandar’s wing of the family, should they become powerful, might challenge the traditional methods of deciding royal succession. Despite his publicly proclaimed foreign policy fiascoes, it is reported that Bandar was gaining support among some peripheral and extremist members of the royal family and, more so, among anti Shiite religious zealots within the country. It’s likely that the royal family decided to preempt any action Bandar might take that could threaten its unity.

Discarding Bandar is just another example of the royal family doing whatever it takes to survive as Bandar himself made clear to President George W. Bush during a visit by then-Crown Prince Abdullah in 2002. In a statement attributed to Prince Bandar, then Ambassador to the US, he said “It is a mistake to think that our people {meaning the royal family} will not do what is necessary to survive, and if that means we move to the right of bin Laden, so be it; to the left of Qaddafi, so be it; or fly to Baghdad and embrace Saddam like a brother, so be it.”  

Ensuring Smooth Succession to Prevent Royal Discord

CDHR’s Analysis:  For the first time in the Saudi ruling family’s history, a living King has designated two successive heirs to the throne. King Abdullah’s decision to designate former Saudi head of intelligence, 69 year old Prince Migrin, second in line to inherit the Saudi throne after Abdullah no longer rules, was likely prompted by two major factors: first, lack of trust in the second and third generation princes’ willingness to adhere to the traditional methods of succession, and second, to prevent power domination by any single wing of the large ruling family.

Unlike the aging and ailing current ruling princes such as King Abdullah, his Crown Prince Salman and Prince Migrin, the second and third generations are more diverse and exposed to values their parents did not experience. The younger generations are mostly educated in Western institutions, are fiercely competitive, hardly know each other and are sentimentally disconnected from the nomadic traditions (seniority and personalities) that their forefathers have successfully utilized in times of succession.

Additionally, the second, but more so the third generation princes were raised by educated mothers, many of whom are non-Saudis, and have spent considerable time outside of the country. These realities lessen their attachment to the country and their loyalty to each other. The senior princes currently in charge recognize these differences among their offspring and are planning in advance to circumvent unmanageable family discord over succession that could end the rule of the House of Saud. 

The second major factor that likely propelled King Abdullah to choose a second successor to the throne is to prevent any wing of the ruling family from dominating the state’s major ministries and decision making-processes. This was the case when the Sudairi wing of the family (seven brothers from the same mother) held power. They controlled the Ministries of Defence, Interior and the governorship of the capital and its surrounding regions including the birth place of the kingdom and the power-base of the ruling family.

That era was marked by intense resentment of prominent members of the royal family who accused the Sudairi brothers, namely Defense Minister Prince Sultan and Interior Minister Prince Naif (both deceased) and current Crown Prince Salman of manipulating power, opposing reforms and of excluding senior princes from the decision-making processes. One can safely assume that the same princes who resented the Sudairis’ manipulation of power fear that Crown Prince Salman, the last of that powerful Sudairi generation, may revert to his former habits if he outlives King Abdullah. It remains to be seen if these precautionary arrangements will work, but given the large number of aspiring princes and the domestic and regional challenges facin g the country, it’s more likely that these arrangements will fall short of achieving their intended objectives.

“Islam is the Best Solution for World Peace?”

CDHR’s Commentary: According to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and to this novice Afghani commentator, Islam is the panacea for all human ills and confusions and is the best vehicle “for  solving” world conflicts. Given historical facts and current butchery in Muslim lands (Muslims killing Muslims), it’s difficult to comprehend the merits of these assertions. Muslims have been in perpetual conflicts since the 7^th century because of conflicting views over inheritance of leadership after the death of Prophet Mohammed. The Quranic stanzas cited here sound nice and com forting. The question that should be raised is why Muslims have not implemented the positive elements in their faith to solve their consuming religio-political wars as exemplified by the current carnage in Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan, just to name some?

All religious texts have great passages, not just Islam. However, before separating religions from states’ public policy (separation of church and state) in non-Muslim societies, conflicts thrived while peace, social justice and harmony languished. Muslims have to realize and accept that religions are beliefs and very personal. They must be left for the individuals to practice their beliefs as they see fit. States, through human history, have used religions to serve the ruling elites at the expense of the oppressed and starving masses.

A fast growing number of educated Muslims, especially women, are realizing that non-sectarian governing systems are more conducive to human development, religious tolerance and social justice. Muslims can benefit immensely from non-sectarian rule of law, unconditional freedom of expression, the free enterprise system, accountability, transparency, checks and balances, equality between genders and respect for human dignity.

These values have been implemented and have proven their unconcealed merits in many countries around the world. Like other peoples, Muslims can benefit vastly from what others have been able to create and develop under severe conditions. Realizing this is going to provoke irrational emotional turmoil and all kinds of accusations, but Arabs and Muslims don’t have to look too far to find an astounding example of what free people can achieve. Just look at what the Israelis (6 million people in a tiny piece of land with very little natural resources) have done in 60 years.

They have built one of the world’s most powerful economies, advanced technological projects and have created a second-to-none military organization that has defeated Arab armies 6 times. They can also throw tomatoes in their officials’ faces and don't even go to jail, let alone losing their heads for expressing their discontent with their ruling elites. One can also find a church, a mosque, a Baha’i temple, and a synagogue in the same neighborhood in Tel Aviv. And yes, Israeli women are fighter jet pilots. In short, the Israelis have something to defend while their neighbors are languishing under tyrannical regimes that deny them their most basic human right: a sense of belonging and ownership of their country.

The time for the Muslim masses to embrace new values is overdue. Everything is possible when people are free to explore their potential, conquer fear of the unknown and reject demonization of democratic values without which tyrannical rule will continue to stifle Muslims, turn them against each other and against non-Muslims.

Is Demonization of Women Intrinsic to Saudi Ethos?

CDHR’s Commentary: It has been argued by many Saudis and others that demonization of women is inherent in the Saudi desert tradition and religious teachings. While this argument is partially true, the state’s perpetuation of discrimination against women is largely responsible for the current marginalization of Saudi women. Government policies deny women the right to drive, study engineering, practice law in open courts, become  judges or travel without male approval (male guardian system).

Under the state’s institutionalized discriminatory policies against women, female citizens are subjected to severe abuses including molestation, beating, starvation and hanging by male  relatives. Sadly, these preventable atrocious crimes against women are not diminishing; on the contrary, they are escalating because they do not contradict the state’s laws and social mores.

However, women of all ages, regions and religious orientations are defiantly challenging the state and society to come to grips with modernity and its impact on Saudi society. By their courageous actions and outspokenness, Saudi women are changing Saudi Arabia for the better. For example, Saudi women are challenging the religious establishment’s position which opposes human rights as enshrined in international declarations.

Empowerment of Saudi women is not only in the best interest of the Saudi people, including its rulers, but is also in the best interest of the international community. Saudi women are promoting the rule of law, eradication of intolerant and hateful teaching in Saudi schools and the inclusion of human rights and sciences curricula.

Women are the key to the defeat of extremism and its byproduct, terrorism. They deserve support from Saudis and non-Saudis, not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because it serves a beneficial purpose that transcends cultural, religious and geographic borders.