[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 116 (Thursday, August 1, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1436]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD SAUDI ARABIA

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. JIM KOLBE

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 1, 1996

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I found this article by Mr. David Dunford in 
the Tucson Citizen to provide an illuminating analysis of the United 
States policy toward Saudi Arabia. I commend it to your attention:

                [From the Tucson Citizen, June 28, 1996]

   United States Asks Too Much of Saudis, Who Sacrifice Peace at Home

                         (By David J. Dunford)

       Tuesday's terrorist bombing in the Eastern Province of 
     Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 Americans and wounded hundreds 
     of others, forces us to focus again on our critical 
     relationship with Saudi Arabia.
       It is critical because Saudi Arabia is the world's largest 
     oil producer and the United States is the world's largest oil 
     consumer. It is critical because Saudi Arabia is the most 
     important of the Arabian peninsula monarchies and provides 
     the major platform from which we project our military forces 
     to defend against Iraqi and Iranian threats to our interests.
       Since the successful end of the 1990-91 Gulf War, our 
     policy toward this part of the world has been on automatic 
     pilot. We look to Saudi Arabia to take a forthright stand in 
     favor of the Middle East peace process and we look to Saudi 
     Arabia to provide assistance to the Palestinians and the 
     Bosnians which our Congress refuses to provide. We also look 
     to Saudi Arabia to buy our civilian and military airplanes 
     and our telecommunications equipment. Although we pledged in 
     1990 that as soon as the crisis was over, we would leave, 
     almost six years later we still have 5,000 U.S. Air Force 
     personnel in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government pays their 
     expenses.
       What we have failed to recognize is that Saudi Arabia has 
     changed and, as a result, the Saudi monarchy may no longer be 
     able to respond to the multiple demands that we place on it. 
     Gone are the days when Saudi Arabia had $150 billion in 
     foreign exchange reserves and the ability to buy social peace 
     by providing employment and subsidized government services 
     for all.
       Saudi Arabia today, with its rapid population growth, 
     educated but underemployed youth, and chronic budget 
     deficits, provides fertile ground for Islamic militants.
       While we may not know for some time who was responsible for 
     Tuesday's bombing, it is likely that it was related to the 
     bombing of the American military advisory compound in Riyadh 
     in November, which killed five Americans. The message the 
     militants seek to send by this latest terrorist act is that 
     the Saudi government's beheading last month of four of their 
     number convicted of involvement in the November incident has 
     not weakened their strength or resolve.
       Ironically, it may well be that some of the militants are 
     so-called ``Afghans''--Arabs who trained to fight the Soviets 
     in Afghanistan in a program supported by both the Saudi and 
     U.S. governments. The militants oppose modernization, 
     Westernization and Arab reconciliation with Israel. They are 
     particularly indignant that, despite tens of billions of 
     dollars spent on sophisticated weaponry, the Saudi government 
     was forced in 1990 to rely on ``infidel'' troops to defend 
     their land, which includes the two holiest places in Islam--
     Mecca and Medina.
       The first step in fixing our Saudi policy is to confirm an 
     ambassador and send him to Riyadh. King Fahd's recent illness 
     and his decision to relinquish power temporarily to Crown 
     Prince Abdullah have raised uncertainty about who is really 
     in charge. It is particularly important to have an ambassador 
     on the ground to monitor this situation.
       During my four years as deputy ambassador in Saudi Arabia, 
     I was acting ambassador for 15 months. Since I left more than 
     four years ago, there has been an ambassador in Riyadh for 
     less than half of that time. It should hardly surprises us 
     that there was no ambassador on the ground when the truck 
     bomb exploded on Tuesday.
       Second, we should reduce our reliance on Saudi help 
     financing our national security policy and we should be more 
     judicious about pressing the Saudis to take public positions 
     that incur the wrath of a substantial percentage of Saudi 
     citizens. The Saudi government needs a reprieve to turn its 
     attention to domestic economic and political priorities.
       Third, we need to devise an end game for our Iraq policy. 
     We must not withdraw our forces in Saudi Arabia under the 
     duress of terrorism but, at the same time, policy drift is 
     not a good reason to leave them there indefinitely.
       Finally, we need to be more proactive in our encouragement 
     of needed economic and political change in Saudi Arabia and 
     in neighboring monarchies. Change is hard and Gulf rulers 
     will not always welcome our injection of internal issues into 
     diplomatic exchanges. That should not deter us.
       Their survival and the maintenance of our vital interests 
     in the region depend on orderly change.