Search results

The reconciliation of old and new in Saudi Arabia is a common and constant theme throughout the country. The tug-of-war between tradition and modernity is not exclusive to the kingdom; it is manifest in many developing nations. The issue has a sharper focus and perhaps a larger impact in Saudi Arabia, where the pace of change has been spectacularly fast, widespread and pervasive.

The political limelight on Arab affairs, is presently centred on the current United -Nations General Assembly in New York, where the Arab delegates are involved in a flurry of diplomatic activity of which the prepared speeches in the debating chamber are only the tip of the political iceberg. Much of the dealing takes place in the UN corridors and meeting rooms of the Assembly building and the working lunches and dinners in the diplomatic missions. One gathering that did not take place was the traditional annual get-together of the Arab delegates, at which the co-ordination of Arab positions on the agenda of the current session is worked out.

AN INTRIGUING NEW ELEMENT has been introduced into the general situation in the Gulf, with reports of US moves to set up a Jordanian " army strike force for use in emergencies in the region. Congressional and Administration sources in Washington have confirmed the Administration's request to Congress for $225m of funds to enable two Jordanian army brigades to be equipped for a 'rapid deployment force' role. Under the plan, the United States would supply C-130 transport aircraft, medical evacuation transports and advanced infantry and river-crossing equipment.

The kingdom's defence policy was reviewed at length by Prince Sultan, Minister of Defence and Second Deputy Premier, in a recent press statement released in Riyadh. There seemed no especial reason for the review, and it was not attached to any particular event, although the inauguration of the new King Faisal Naval Base at Jeddah by King Fahd may have prompted the Defence Minister to his statement.

King Fahd's official visit to the United States, which begins with his arrival in Washington next week, has already aroused intense speculation, debate and comment in America's political capital. Presidential spokesman Larry Speakes said, in a statement of them blindingly obvious, "We regard the King as an important friend in the Middle East. We have a continuing interest in Saudi Arabia." He said that Secretary of State Shultz had specifically recommended to President Reagan that the Saudi monarch should be one of the first leaders the President should meet early in his second term.

PRINCE ABDULLAH BIN ABDUL AZIZ will, later this month, make his first visit to Europe and the UK since he became Crown Prince. Official sources in London confirmed that Prince Abdullah has accepted an invitation from Prime Minister Mrs. Margaret Thatcher for wide-ranging talks on Middle East issues. A Downing Street spokesman said an announcement would be made when the final arrangements for the visit are completed.

THE GRAVE TURN OF EVENTS IN LEBANON will cause nothing but glum consternation to the government of Saudi Arabia. The kingdom has worked long and hard to mediate in the issues facing the Arab world in Lebanon, and not without some success. The American air attacks on Syrian positions, following so shortly after the revival of the US-Israel strategic accord, makes those efforts now almost wasted and must force Riyadh to reconsider more than one of its political and diplomatic positions.

Inevitably, parallels will be drawn and comparisons made between the visits to the United States recently by King Fahd and last week by President Mubarak of Egypt. In a general rather than a particular sense, the two calls into Washington have points of similarity but it is the differences between the two which loom larger and, in retrospect, more importantly

President Mubarak's carefully expressed caution about the prospects of a summit meeting with Israel's Prime Minister Shimon Peres - tentatively scheduled for early May, and in Jerusalem - is understandable. Mubarak was rebuffed by President Reagan only weeks ago when he suggested the time had come for the United States to explore the implications of the February "accord" between King Hussein and Yasser Arafat.

The discovery of oil in North Yemen will give rise to some fast and furious thinking in many quarters, if the discovery proves to be the forerunner of substantial oil resources in the country. As the saying goes in Opec's headquarters in Vienna, 7,000 barrels of oil do not an Opec member make, but there is not an oil producing country in the world that does not know how quickly and how vastly a viable oil industry can transform the political and economic circumstances of any state.

Despite President Reagan's recently repeated assertion that "terrorists risk United States reprisal", an increasing number of officials and senior members of the armed forces in Washington are now beginning to question the effectiveness of the 17 April bombing attack on targets in Tripoli and Benghazi. Now that the reprisals by rather than on terrorist groups (of whatever persuasion) are increasing, these officials and senior officers are tacitly accepting that criticisms as to the effectiveness of the bombing are valid.

Initial reactions to the announcement that individual member countries of Opec might set their own price and production levels could; not without some justification, have been a cynical "So what's new?" In the 1960s the Venezuelans pleaded in vain in Opec for 'pro-rationing' the orderly restriction of production by agreed quotas. Member states had other ideas. Iran had still not recovered the 'world share' which had been lost to neighbouring Arab producers during Dr. Mossadegh's unsuccessful attempt to buck a buyers' market. Iraq pursued its own private vendetta with the IPC. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait discovered new deposits of oil almost every time a hole was drilled, and produced increasing quantities at a cost per barrel that no other producer could match.

If one were to believe the press reports (chiefly emanating from Washington) about "Irangate", the instigation for the whole affair might well have originated in Saudi Arabia. Saudi involvement somewhere along the line is undoubtedly the case, but amid all the mudslinging and blame-throwing in Washington, Saudi Arabia is definitely being forced to carry a quite unwarranted burden of responsibility.

During the General Assembly sessions of the United Nations in New York the Arab foreign ministers generally and the GCC envoys particularly, were extremely active in their contacts with other delegations and in their high profile representations of regional and overall Arab concerns. The GCC ministers were especially vigorous, and two of their more important side meetings were with the European Community foreign ministers and with the US Secretary of State, George Shultz.

The dispatch of Saudi Arabian oil minister Hisham Nazer by Opec to visit Egypt, Norway and the USSR to win support for the Organisation's oil price and production policy was a shrewd - and successful - move by the oil producers' cartel. The Saudi minister was ostensibly wearing his Opec hat and speaking solely on Opec's behalf; nothing was said either by Opec or by Saudi Arabia - about the possible national political implications of his three-day sojourn in Moscow.