Too Much To Dream

Weird spam

Someone apparently has confused me with the State Department, or a member of the Trilateral Commision, or... I have no idea why "Michael@hotmail.com" has sent me these two email messages:

This one, subject-headed "The Saudi Government" :

The Saudi Government: Is it or is it not linked to terrorism? It’s a question that attracts more questions than answers.

If a link as tenuous as a donation from a charitable organisation finding its way into the hands of a person who may have committed a terrorist act, then quite possibly so. However, that connection is as remote as an American citizen’s purchase of a soft drink and the sales tax finding its way to finance terrorism in El Salvador, sponsored by the US government. The well known patriot Colonel Oliver North knows a bit about that sort of stuff!

The essence of the analysis is whether the donations by charitable organisations to individuals were made knowing that the money was to be used to support terrorist actions. On the micro level, the final use by the end user of every riyal or dollar from a collection box can’t be traced or followed or confirmed with 100 percent accuracy.

So far, nothing useful has been said, insofar as speculation, pages missing from reports and op-ed pieces in the media provide more heat than light and facts are woefully short.

The 27 deleted pages from a congressional are alleged to contain “very direct, very specific links that cannot be passed off as rogue, isolated or coincidental.” They are said by senior US officials to depict a Saudi Government that “not only provided significant money and aid to the 9/11 hijackers, but potentially allowed hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts.”

Potentially? Depict? Potentially, getting out of bed leads to death; safer to stay where you are. Much in the manner of the “weapons of mass destruction” debate and Tony Blair’s much vaunted but now entirely discredited Dossier on Iraq, potential is all that is offered. Depiction or description isn’t the production of fact.

The same congressional investigators that described these “potentials” also admit that they “found no specific evidence” proving that Saudi top officials – notably members of the Royal Family – conspired in any way to fund the Sept. 11 attack or other acts of terrorism.”

Not only has the Saudi government called for the release of the missing pages from the congressional report, so have several dozen US lawmakers.

Speculation feeds the media. Opinions are cheap and plentiful and descriptions of “potentials” very often repackaged and sold as fact at worst or at least knowledgeable comment.

Whilst this feeds up the August news famine, it’s time for some hard, checkable facts....please?

And this one, titled "Confusing accusations" :

Sultan Bin Abdulaziz is something of a hate figure to many western commentators. One of the more confusing accusations is that “he spends more than he earns, and borrows from the Saudi government at will and gives away billions of dollars to his constituents.”

In the west, where that criticism emanates, that is known as ‘deficit budgeting’ and accounts for the National Debt – a feature of every developed economy. Held up for ridicule as “the Saudi modus operandi,” it applies equally well to the rest of the world from whom Saudi Arabia learned how to model its economy. Is this a case of the teacher telling the student that he has taught him the wrong thing – yet continues to practice it while offering ridicule?

These are confused messages. They show a lack of understanding of the traditional social structure of the Kingdom and the Arab/Islamic world. Centralized government – which is on the large scale what tribal government was on the small scale – is the “modus operandi” of the Kingdom.

The ruling family does direct operations – but is subject to the checks and balances operated through the council of ministers and the Majlis Ash Shoura – a body of selected academics and committed professionals from industry and commerce who serve for a four year term. They stay where they are because they fulfil the operational and religious requirements of the Saudi constitution – which, if critics in the west ever chose to read it, is the Qur’an. It allows for the removal of rulers if they do not meet strict demands and cater for the welfare of their people.

Prince Sultan’s personal wealth is often targeted – “he has made more than $60 billion between 1976 and 1993.” If, as his critics say, he spends more than he makes, perhaps that should read “he has given away more than $60 billion between 1976 and 1993.” It would make Bill Gates and his charitable foundation give pause for thought. It would also be anathematic to the Kingdom’s detractors to look at expenditure in any other way than corruption.

Even the detractors admit that to anyone that knows him; Prince Sultan’s outstanding feature is generosity. This is reported as “Prince Sultan is willing to pay in order to keep everyone in check.” Is then charitable donation or salary or commission for services now to be described as bribery? If that’s the case, who is innocent? Certainly not the detractors.

It is quite true that Prince Sultan operates a horizontal management style – is reluctant to delegate. What is odd is that this is offered as a criticism, whereas the “hands on manager” is usually praised in other countries. A review of his early childhood and the kind of environment and tradition he was brought up in would illuminate the reason for this style.

His early years age six to fifteen – were spent in the court of his father, King Abdulaziz – receiving education in the traditional Najd style and learning the realities of political manoeuvring and deal-making from visiting western businessmen with interests to develop – for their own profit. They gave examples of the techniques and these lined up well with the traditional way of governance in the Kingdom.

Tradition is the key word; Saudi traditional society relied on alliances and deals, family bonds and marriage as a way of cementing them. That doesn’t sit too well in the western world – although monarchical and political dynasties abound. However, techniques used by the west in the search for oil-sources only reinforced Saudi traditional social management technique, they didn’t corrupt it.

The truth is that Saudi Arabia and one of its highest profile leaders is an obvious target for shrill criticism, frequently using unsupported allegation, smears and entirely un-defendable personal attacks.

It’s part of the price of leadership.

Thank god for copy-and-paste; through the magic of click-and-drag I can transfer both wads of boring text from my email to this blog without actually have to read any of it. What, is FreeRepublic.com down?