THE UNITED States should be wary of critics who urge the government to end its relationship with the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Despite the terrorist elements in these countries and their connections with the recent attacks, we have no better alternatives than to support these despotic regimes.
Since Sept. 11, disturbing revelations have come out about Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Many of the top leaders of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network are of Egyptian or Saudi Arabian origin. Bin Laden is originally from Saudi Arabia, and despite the fact that he has been disinherited, gets much of his money from his family, which has great influence over the Saudi royal family. Neither Saudi Arabia nor Egypt have legitimate democracies, which is considered a flaw according to American ideology.
Saudi Arabia is governed by a corrupt monarchy, and Egypt is controlled by President Hosni Mubarak, who achieved power in a military coup in 1983. Both governments are notorious for suppressing dissent with violence. Mortimer B. Zuckerman, editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report, wrote an editorial Oct. 29 in which he blasted Saudi Arabia and Egypt ("Getting the Mayor's Message"). Similar editorials have become common in the last few weeks. Zuckerman points out that Saudi Arabia and Egypt haven't fully cooperated with America's war against terrorism. The Egyptian government routinely allows its state-supported press to spout anti-American and anti-Semitic rhetoric, while the Saudi Arabian government is linked to radical Islamic groups. According to Zukerman, the Saudi Arabians also refused to freeze bin Laden's assets and denied a request by the FBI to interview his relatives.
Zuckerman is entirely correct. The policies of Egypt and Saudi Arabia have been disgusting since Sept. 11, but the United States has no choice but to deal with them as partners in the Middle East.
To win the war on terrorism, the United States needs the moderate Arab countries to go along with it. Bin Laden wants the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt overthrown because they are too closely aligned with the United States. If these regimes don't get U.S. support, bin Laden could achieve one of his goals, and the consequences could be disastrous.
Zuckerman says, "Sooner or later, America will have to do what Rudy Giuliani did in New York, that is, label those countries and their leaders for what they really are, and respond accordingly with decisive action." What decisive action Zuckerman would advocate remains unclear, but the flaw in this thinking is similar to the mistakes of everyone who advocates that the United States take drastic measures.
While these countries have been ambivalent at best toward the United States and the war on terrorism, we have no other choice but to continue our support, because the alternatives probably would be even worse for us. According to government and foreign affairs Prof. John Owen, "Were the United States to withdraw support, however, an even worse sort of regime - think of the Taliban - could take over, or Iraq could invade." Owen also goes on to point out how unrest in Saudi Arabia could lead the oil prices to increase, which could only hurt a world economy already in bad shape.
One argument for ending the regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia is to make these countries democracies. But democracy is not necessarily a valid form of government to be used in the Arab countries of the Middle East. None of them have real democracies, and creating this type of government in that troubled area of the world would only lead to instability. Imagine where American support would be in Pakistan if, instead of General Pervez Musharraf's bold and pragmatic leadership, a democracy existed. The same masses who protest in favor of bin Laden on a regular basis would be part of the population making the voting decisions. Government and foreign affairs Prof. James Sofka says, "Governments in these states, in a more democratic atmosphere, would hold out higher prices for cooperation with us, likely take a harder line on Israel, and be cautious about the role of U.S. military power in the region."
In the war on terrorism, the United States cannot afford to have our difficulties increased in the Middle East.
As long as Egypt remains peaceful with Israel and Saudi Arabia continues to export its oil to the United States, America must maintain its friendships. This is not to say that the United States should not pressure these countries in terms of increasing their fights against terrorism.
In the world of international relations, morality often must take a back seat to practicality. As the Bush administration clearly understands, the United States has no choice but to begrudgingly deal with the regimes of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, whether we like or not.
(Harris Freier's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at hfreier@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 22 hours agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
