abu afak
05-17-2004, 02:54 PM
SAUDIS DON'T NEED KID GLOVES
By SUE KELLY
May 17, 2004 -- IN a War on Terror based on unadorned contrasts, Saudi Arabia provides an oasis of spectacular ambiguity. This may be partially attributed to its keen diplomatic showmanship, recently displayed by Saudi Foreign Policy Advisor Adel Al-Jubeir in an interview about the country's widely reported problems in combating terror financing.
Question: "Given what happened in Saudi Arabia, the terrorist attacks in Riyadh itself, why a year later is this still a problem?"
Al-Jubeir: "It really beats the hell out of me."
This bewildering attitude should be instructive to Americans as we continue to reckon with Saudi Arabia, a close ally in the War on Terror and a chief financial sponsor of the movement responsible for its genesis.
Without question, the kingdom has taken unprecedented steps to collapse terrorist funding networks. They have established a U.S.-Saudi joint task force on terror financing and created new financial oversight mechanisms. They even enacted restrictions on their government-subsidized charities, the central device for promoting the country's puritanical form of Islam and a commonly used cloak for terrorist activity.
But before we start tying the bows on our thank-you bouquets, let's bear a few things in mind.
First, it should be remembered that we are dealing with a government that has regularly demonstrated a stupefying unwillingness to cooperate with our anti-terror efforts. They consistently refuse, for example, to permit U.S. officials to interview the families of the 15 Saudi citizens who participated in the 9/11 massacre, or to share information about the hundreds of al Qaeda suspects they have detained.
Consider, for instance, that Saudi government accounts currently facilitate the flow of funds to Hamas, despite the kingdom's official rebuke of the terrorist organization in 2002.
Doubts loom over the reforms Saudi Arabia enacted in 2003. The prohibitions on Saudi charities have fallen well short of our hopes thus far. The Muslim World League, World Assembly of Muslim Youth and International Islamic Relief Organization, all Saudi charities with terrorist ties, still operate freely throughout the world.
New revelations regarding the Saudi Embassy's relationship with Riggs Bank should intensify our skepticism. Reports indicate that Riggs allowed Saudi nationals to engage in puzzling patterns of deposits, withdrawals and transfers without vetting or reporting the transactions as required by law. Reports further show that Saudi accounts were used to fund known supporters of terrorism and others who are currently being investigated for terror links.
The Saudis quickly absolved themselves of responsibility for any problems at Riggs and advised us that "it's not fair to apply American standards to this." Nevertheless, the reports of freewheeling cash transfers are troublesome, especially considering allegations that the Saudi embassy has been used to launder money for terrorists in the past, and that nearly 70 Saudi diplomats were expelled from the U.S. just this year due to their deep involvement in extremist activities.
Dealing as we are with a government perched atop a tinderbox of its own making, our actions should continue to reflect delicate political realities. But our delicacy must not convert to diffidence, and therefore we must challenge the Saudi belief that our demands for action can be subdued with thin facades of responsiveness.
A good next step would be establishing a clear expectation of near-term action in corralling their terror-linked charities. We also must fully explore the Riggs case and Saudi cash transfers occurring under our own nose. Finally, we must not waver in our determination to consistently refine our abilities to analyze and fracture terror funding networks. The PATRIOT Act has been a critical tool in this effort, and we must not dawdle in renewing the law and updating its capabilities to reflect ever-changing funding techniques.
Continued progress with Saudi Arabia is essential, but it will not be made without risks for all. There has already been a marked increase of terrorist activity within the kingdom aimed at destabilizing the government and its modest reforms. But these risks, and more, should be willingly accepted by a Saudi government hoping to be smug about its contributions to the war on terror.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/24197.htm
By SUE KELLY
May 17, 2004 -- IN a War on Terror based on unadorned contrasts, Saudi Arabia provides an oasis of spectacular ambiguity. This may be partially attributed to its keen diplomatic showmanship, recently displayed by Saudi Foreign Policy Advisor Adel Al-Jubeir in an interview about the country's widely reported problems in combating terror financing.
Question: "Given what happened in Saudi Arabia, the terrorist attacks in Riyadh itself, why a year later is this still a problem?"
Al-Jubeir: "It really beats the hell out of me."
This bewildering attitude should be instructive to Americans as we continue to reckon with Saudi Arabia, a close ally in the War on Terror and a chief financial sponsor of the movement responsible for its genesis.
Without question, the kingdom has taken unprecedented steps to collapse terrorist funding networks. They have established a U.S.-Saudi joint task force on terror financing and created new financial oversight mechanisms. They even enacted restrictions on their government-subsidized charities, the central device for promoting the country's puritanical form of Islam and a commonly used cloak for terrorist activity.
But before we start tying the bows on our thank-you bouquets, let's bear a few things in mind.
First, it should be remembered that we are dealing with a government that has regularly demonstrated a stupefying unwillingness to cooperate with our anti-terror efforts. They consistently refuse, for example, to permit U.S. officials to interview the families of the 15 Saudi citizens who participated in the 9/11 massacre, or to share information about the hundreds of al Qaeda suspects they have detained.
Consider, for instance, that Saudi government accounts currently facilitate the flow of funds to Hamas, despite the kingdom's official rebuke of the terrorist organization in 2002.
Doubts loom over the reforms Saudi Arabia enacted in 2003. The prohibitions on Saudi charities have fallen well short of our hopes thus far. The Muslim World League, World Assembly of Muslim Youth and International Islamic Relief Organization, all Saudi charities with terrorist ties, still operate freely throughout the world.
New revelations regarding the Saudi Embassy's relationship with Riggs Bank should intensify our skepticism. Reports indicate that Riggs allowed Saudi nationals to engage in puzzling patterns of deposits, withdrawals and transfers without vetting or reporting the transactions as required by law. Reports further show that Saudi accounts were used to fund known supporters of terrorism and others who are currently being investigated for terror links.
The Saudis quickly absolved themselves of responsibility for any problems at Riggs and advised us that "it's not fair to apply American standards to this." Nevertheless, the reports of freewheeling cash transfers are troublesome, especially considering allegations that the Saudi embassy has been used to launder money for terrorists in the past, and that nearly 70 Saudi diplomats were expelled from the U.S. just this year due to their deep involvement in extremist activities.
Dealing as we are with a government perched atop a tinderbox of its own making, our actions should continue to reflect delicate political realities. But our delicacy must not convert to diffidence, and therefore we must challenge the Saudi belief that our demands for action can be subdued with thin facades of responsiveness.
A good next step would be establishing a clear expectation of near-term action in corralling their terror-linked charities. We also must fully explore the Riggs case and Saudi cash transfers occurring under our own nose. Finally, we must not waver in our determination to consistently refine our abilities to analyze and fracture terror funding networks. The PATRIOT Act has been a critical tool in this effort, and we must not dawdle in renewing the law and updating its capabilities to reflect ever-changing funding techniques.
Continued progress with Saudi Arabia is essential, but it will not be made without risks for all. There has already been a marked increase of terrorist activity within the kingdom aimed at destabilizing the government and its modest reforms. But these risks, and more, should be willingly accepted by a Saudi government hoping to be smug about its contributions to the war on terror.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/24197.htm