VOL. XLVI
No 33
The Political Scene (18 August 2003)
Saudi Arabia’s campaign against Islamic militants in the kingdom has resulted in yet more arrests – and deaths on both sides. The Lockerbie crisis looks to be on the point of resolution after 15 years, releasing Libya from the yoke of UN sanctions – but not US ones. The UN Security Council has passed a resolution that “welcomes” the establishment of the Governing Council in Iraq. And Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazin is under pressure after the eruption of violence once more.
Saudi Arabia’s Long Battle
Since the bombing of the Riyadh housing compound last May, the Saudi authorities have taken the fight to Islamic militants in the kingdom. The task is turning out to be much more of a long and drawn-out battle than they could have imagined. Lifting the lid has apparently exposed an extensive network of armed and committed militants. The extent of the network is borne out by the sheer number of suspects arrested or killed so far.
In June last year, Saudi Arabia said it was holding seven members of al-Qa΄ida suspected of planning terrorist attacks. In February this year it arrested another eight militants and said that 90 of its nationals would be put on trial for belonging to al-Qa΄ida. After the Riyadh bombings in May, nine more al-Qa΄ida suspects were detained in two separate operations. In June, five suspected militants were killed and seven other arrested during a shoot-out in Mecca (five policemen were also killed, and five more wounded). Later a further seven militant suspects were arrested. In the last week of June, the mastermind of the Riyadh bombings was reportedly arrested. In early July another key suspect and three other “wanted terrorists” were killed in a shoot-out. A fifth man gave himself up. Then in late July, the Saudi authorities arrested 16 more militants linked to al-Qa΄ida who were said to be planning terrorist attacks. On 28 July, six Islamic militants and two policemen were killed in a gun battle at a farm in Qasim province. And most recently, on 12 August, four Saudi policemen and one Islamic militant were killed in a pitched battle during a raid on a militant stronghold in Riyadh. Seven al-Qa΄ida suspects were arrested.
A rough tally of the above suggests that at least 150 suspected Islamic militants have either been arrested or killed in shoot-outs over the past year. Even so, there is no indication of whether the Saudi authorities are anywhere close to eliminating or even breaking the back of the network of Islamic militants. Perhaps the authorities themselves are unclear. But the task is clearly not complete. On 13 August, British Airways cancelled all flights to the kingdom after Saudi intelligence uncovered an apparent plot to attack an aircraft from the UK at Riyadh airport. Saudi Arabia later denied that there had been a threat.
Despite the difficulties, the Saudi authorities’ determination to pursue the current policy seems clear enough – even though the operations against the militants have sometimes been costly. The latest raid in a residential area of southern Riyadh resulted in a four-hour gun battle that left four Saudi policemen dead. At least seven policemen have been killed in similar operations over recent months. And while detractors of the kingdom will say that the crackdown proves what they believed all along – that Saudi Arabia has been a haven for the militants – they can no longer accuse the authorities in Riyadh of doing nothing about the problem. Crown Prince 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz said on 14 August that “he who protects or sympathizes with a terrorist is himself a terrorist and will receive his just punishment… We will continue on our path, believing and trusting in God, confident of victory.”
With the confrontation with the militants continuing, wider questions are starting to be asked about the developments in Saudi Arabia and what link, if any, there may be with the US presence in Iraq. Some commentators are suggesting that the war in Iraq was planned immediately after the 11 September 2001 bombings to serve as a warning to the kingdom to root out Islamic militancy and introduce liberal reform – or face the consequences. The closing of US military bases in the kingdom and the securing of Iraqi oil reserves, the argument goes, was meant to increase that pressure. How to respond to it – beyond the crackdown on Islamic militants – is the challenge facing the ruling family today.
Lockerbie Solution Imminent
Little short of 15 years ago, in December 1988, the mid-air bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland killed all 270 people aboard. After lengthy investigations – leading to the handover of two Libyan suspects for trial in 1999 and the suspension of UN sanctions on Tripoli – and years of diplomatic wrangling, the last chapter in this depressing saga is nearing its close. It was revealed at UN headquarters in New York on 12 August that Libya, the US and the UK had signed off on a deal under which Tripoli would accept responsibility for the bombing. Lawyers for the Libyan government signed an agreement with attorneys representing the families of the victims to set up a $2.7bn compensation fund. “All that is left now are the practical steps,” a diplomat said. One of these involves Libya sending a letter to the UN Security Council admitting responsibility for the Lockerbie bombings and renouncing terrorism. Once the letter had been delivered and the money paid into an escrow account – steps that were expected to be taken on 15 August – the UK was to present a resolution calling for the lifting of sanctions. But its endorsement may not be just a formality. France is displeased about the fact that Libya’s $2.7bn payout to the Lockerbie families makes the $33mn compensation for the relatives of the victims of a French airliner bombing in 1999 look derisory. Paris, therefore, may seek to delay or even block the resolution unless Libya agrees to match the level of payment to the Lockerbie relatives.
Aside from the UN measures against Libya there is the issue of US unilateral sanctions – a ban on imports of Libyan crude imposed in 1982 that was expanded in 1986 to include a ban on direct trade, commercial contacts and travel-related activities, plus the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA), passed in 1996 and amended in 2001. Even if UN sanctions on Libya are abolished, a Washington official said on 12 August, the lifting of US sanctions would not happen “for a long time.” Libya remains on the State Department list of countries sponsoring terrorism, and the Bush administration has an instinctive distrust of Col Qadhafi’s regime and will need much convincing that it has broken all links with terrorism. Until Washington lifts unilateral sanctions, US oil firms will be unable to return to their operations that have been covered since 1986 by a standstill agreement with Libya’s National Oil Company. So the day when Libya is able, without any restrictions whatsoever, to rejoin the international community could still be some way off.
UN “Welcomes” Iraq Council
The UN Security Council on 14 August approved by 14-0 (with Syria abstaining) a resolution that “welcomes the establishment of the broadly representative Governing Council of Iraq on July 13, 2003, as an important step towards the formation by the people of Iraq of an internationally recognized representative government that will exercise the sovereignty of Iraq.” The resolution also authorizes the setting up of an assistance mission to oversee UN efforts to help rebuild the country and provide political advice.
The US would have preferred that the wording was more specific – it had suggested that the UN should “endorse” Iraq’s Governing Council. Nevertheless, Washington seemed happy enough with a form of words that, while stopping short of formal recognition, accords the fledgling council in Iraq broad international support. Addressing the Security Council after the vote, US Ambassador John Negroponte said the adoption of the resolution “hastens the day when the people of Iraq are in full command of their own affairs” and sends “a clear signal to those who oppose the political transformation under way in Iraq that they are out of step with world opinion.”
The passage of the resolution poses a dilemma for Arab states – with the Arab League on 5 August having refused to recognize Iraq’s Governing Council. Six days later, the foreign ministers of the three most influential Arab states, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria, endorsed the Arab League view, but said they would not boycott the Governing Council. “We cannot recognize this council,” said Egypt’s Foreign Minister Ahmad Maher, “because it is illegitimate, but we are ready to deal with its members as we deal with the rest of the Iraqi political forces.”
But the decision of the Arab League ministers was criticized by former Iraqi foreign minister and chairman of the Iraqi Independent Democrats Group, Adnan Pachachi, who wondered if their aim was either to sanctify the US occupation or see the return of Saddam. Dr Pachachi said the Iraqi people, more than anyone else, wanted elections so that a legitimate government could be formed. But he wondered how this was possible in the absence of a constitution or election procedures. “Should we leave it to the Americans to draw up the constitution and prepare for the elections, or is it better to have a Governing Council?” he asked. He added that the Arab League should shoulder some of the responsibility for the occupation in the first place, having failed to act on the suggestion of UAE President Shaikh Zayid bin Sultan Al Nuhhayan made on the eve of the Sharm al-Shaikh summit in early March, that Saddam be persuaded to step down, thus avoiding a war. As for calls for armed resistance against the Americans, Dr Pachachi said this would merely prolong the occupation. Several Arab states, including Kuwait, Bahrain and the UAE, have agreed to receive Governing Council delegations – as have Iran and Turkey.
Abu Mazin Feels The Heat
“Israel will not be able to continue in the peace process despite its strong desire to do so, if terrorism does not stop completely and the Palestinian Authority does not fulfill all its obligations.” So said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 13 August, a day after two Palestinian suicide attacks killed two Israeli civilians.” Also reacting to the attacks, US National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice said “the Palestinian Authority must act now to dismantle terrorist networks that perpetuate such attacks and to prevent future attacks.”
In short, Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazin is feeling the heat. “The Palestinian Authority will work hard to maintain the truce and quiet,” he said in Doha on 12 August, before cutting short a Gulf tour to deal with the crisis at home. His challenge is to persuade militant groups not to respond to the murder of their leaders by Israeli security forces – as happened on this last occasion. (The Israeli killing of a top figure in Islamic Jihad in Hebron on 14 August will not have improved Abu Mazin’s chances of success.) The only other – almost unthinkable – option is to try to disarm the militants by force. For the moment at least, both Israel and the US are giving the Palestinian leader more time. “The US is committed to the peace in the Middle East and determined to implement the roadmap,” US Middle East envoy William Burns said on 13 August after a meeting with Abu Mazin. But it is the Palestinian prime minister who is being handed the unenviable burden of ensuring that the roadmap does not collapse.
Gerald Butt
(Charles Snow is on holiday)