Diplomats in Riyadh noted in recent days that the health of his brother, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, was not good and he appeared slow or ill in recent public appearances.

That has fueled rumors that Turki would succeed his ailing brother in the foreign minister position, The Post reported.

The departure also came days after Turki fired a consultant who wrote an opinion piece published in The Washington Post that suggested the Saudi kingdom would back Iraq's Muslim Sunnis in the event of a wider sectarian conflict.

The article by a Saudi government security adviser, Nawaf Obaid, said the kingdom would intervene with funding and weaponry to prevent Shi'ite militias from attacking Iraq's Sunnis and suggested Saudi Arabia could bring down world oil prices to squeeze Shi'ite power Iran.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2719437

The Sword Of Allah ~ Ian

link

... "Tells-Us-What-To-Do Guy"?

Solving the Saudi Succession Puzzle
Thomas W. Lippman

Editor's Note

When Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al Faisal, stepped to the podium at the Arab-US Policymakers Conference on October 30, 2006 the audience in the Ronald Reagan Building and across the C-SPAN television network was prepared to hear him address “A Vision for the Future of U.S. Saudi Relations." Instead they heard him speak about a current event that had not received much attention in the media up to that point. He said, "I was going to speak initially at this conference on a vision for the future of Saudi-U.S. relations, but I changed that because of an event that took place last week in Saudi Arabia, which was the formation of the Bay’ah Council, which is an important constitutional revolution in the governing of Saudi Arabia." He continued with an address he called, "Saudi Arabian Constitutional Evolution" that described the process for addressing succession in the Kingdom.

Thomas Lippman, adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute, veteran journalist, author of "Inside the Mirage: America's Fragile Relationship with Saudi Arabia," and occasional contributor to SUSRIS, took a look at the question of succession in the Kingdom and the establishment of the "Bay'ah Council." We are pleased to share his insights today.

link

The Daily Princetonian

Arab-US Policymakers Conference (AUSPC)

October 30, 2006 / Day 1

Taking Stock of the Saudi Arabian-US Relationship: Examining the Implications for Interests and Policies

Session #3 - Luncheon Keynote Address: Vision for the Future

Prince Turki al-Faisal

"Saudi Arabian Constitutional Evolution"

I was going to speak initially at this conference on a vision for the future of Saudi-U.S. relations, but I changed that because of an event that took place last week in Saudi Arabia, which was the formation of the Bay’ah Council, which is an important constitutional revolution in the governing of Saudi Arabia. So for those who want to see what my opinions are on U.S.-Saudi relations, this paper is being distributed and given out to the press, but also I would like you to know what we Saudis feel about constitutional change and what it means to us as individuals and as a nation.

As you know, last week King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, announced the establishment of the Bay'ah Council, which is to formalize the succession process. To call it the Allegiance Council, as I’ve seen now in currency, is a misnomer because allegiance is one-sided and connotes total obedience. The Bay'ah is actually a compact, and it is a contract between the ruler and the ruled whereby the ruler obliges himself to protect, promote, and enhance the lives and property of the ruled; and the ruled, in return, oblige themselves to protect, promote, and obey the ruler on everything but that which counters the teachings of God.

The announcement is significant both because it is an important amendment to the Basic Law of Governance and because it is illustrative of the principles which have guided Saudi Arabia's constitutional evolution ever since King Abdulaziz brought together what was to become the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932.

The Quran, as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, calls upon us to – (speaks in Arabic) – "take all our decisions through consultation."

The first act of Shurah, consultation in Islam, took place at the deathbed of the second Khalifah to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, 1,400 years ago. Omar the Khalifah called upon six of the Prophet's Companions to choose who his successor will be. Since then, this became the way in which Arab societies have chosen their leaders, in one form or another; most times paying lip service to the Shurah, and many times the process was even whimsical and even without Shurah.

But none of us can claim to have come close to the perfect form of government. But the Bay'ah Council is a straightforward evolution of what the Khalifah Omar did. It is clear and transparent, and it includes procedures in case of the incapacitation of the ruler and his successor. It also allows for the ruler's choice of successor to be rejected by the Council and for the Council's choice to be chosen, even if the ruler does not agree. Casting the ballot is an essential component of the election process. This, ladies and gentlemen, is truly a remarkable reform of what has been the traditional way of deciding the succession.

In Saudi Arabia, the most important tradition has always been to follow the Quranic call of reaching decisions through consultation, while also maintaining a direct and universal link between our leaders and our people. For hundreds of years, the people of the Arabian Peninsula have had the opportunity to express their hopes and grievances to their leaders during the Majlis held by each one of these leaders. While it has become a more complex task in modem times, we have come up with new ways to respect this tradition, be it through the Majlis or local governors or the new municipal councils.

Saudi Arabia's constitutional evolution began when King Abdulaziz united the country, entered Makkah, where there was established a Consultative Council, or Council of Representatives in 1924. The name, shape and role of this Council evolved over time but its primary function was to act as a focus for advice and consultation to the King in reaching his decisions. Although King Abdulaziz was busy establishing a state and uniting its people, he assigned a great deal of importance to the setting up of this Council and thereby learned a great deal about the people of the Hijaz and the other parts of the Kingdom and their aspirations.

The Council evolved somewhat more slowly over the following decades, as the Arab world as a whole suffered from the convulsions caused by the creation of new states and boundaries under colonialism and dispersion. The interwar period was not a bright period in the history of the Middle East, yet Saudi Arabia pursued its establishment of the institutions of a modem state.

King Abdulaziz was known for his Shu'ba as-Siyassia, or the political department, composed of learned men from all around the Arab world, which met on a daily basis to review Saudi and international events. The King benefited greatly in his decisions from the varying and often opposing opinions that were expressed freely in this gathering.

But arriving at current times, the late King Fahd reorganized the way in which the Kingdom was governed and established a new set of regulations through the Basic Law of 1992. These changes further underline the importance of consultation in Islam. At the center of the Basic Law stood arrangements for regional government and a re-founded the Consultative Council, a milestone in the constitutional evolution of Saudi Arabia. More recently, the establishment of municipal councils, half of whose members are directly elected, has again reaffirmed the importance of consultation and participation in Saudi Arabia’s constitutional evolution.

Consultation allows for the expression of many different views, not in the form of a duel but to discuss issues robustly and transparently for the benefit of the country. It provides a forum for new ideas and serves the King by suggesting what steps are more important for the country.

I recall the history of this evolution in order to show that Saudi Arabia has followed a clear path in its constitutional evolution, establishing a state with modem institutions that is in tune both with the basic instructions of Islam and with the traditions of our people. Saudi Arabia has been progressing towards its own form of representative institutions. We have not reached the end of the road or the end of the path, but we have embarked on it with steadfastness and determination.

More importantly, Saudi Arabia's constitutional evolution is homegrown and consistent with the traditions of its people and the tenets of Islam. Our institutions and system of government were not created in a vacuum, nor were they imposed from the outside. They have come about by experience, by consultation and by a feeling for the participatory form of government which is in the interest of the Saudi people.

Essentially, ladies and gentlemen, we have chosen this progressive evolution because we believe it fits the needs and aspirations of our people. We are not in a hurry to experiment with foreign interpretations of democracy or methods of government. Saudi Arabia's own form of representative government will be fed, vitalized and grown through our assessment of what will best serve Saudi Arabia and its people.

We will make mistakes along the way, and we can be sure of that, but they will be our mistakes, not someone else's. And we will invest all our energy in assessing our evolution and making the necessary adjustments when we see that we went wrong somewhere. Therein lies the power of consultation and of having a constant awareness of people's needs and aspirations. It allows for constant and healthy assessments of the cumulative effects of changes and decisions, and steady improvements in the interest of our people.

Many of you will be interested in knowing how the constitutional evolution, which I have spoken about, affects women's rights in the Kingdom. The role of women in Saudi Arabian society is still very different from that which many of you are familiar with, but women have been an integral part of the evolution of Saudi Arabia, particularly in its social aspect.

If you remember, five years ago Saudi Arabia launched a National Dialogue in which women were asked to participate and to define their aspirations and ideas on change and reform in the Kingdom. Their recommendations form an increasing part of Saudi Arabia's constitutional evolution and we are ensuring that women's participation becomes more visible and more substantive, as evidenced in the election of women to the board of the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and to the board of the Engineers Association.

I hope that I have succeeded in giving you a clearer idea of where Saudi Arabia stands in its constitutional evolution and in constantly adapting its institutions according to the principles which have established their strength and effectiveness. The changes that we will see over the coming years will be exciting for the prospects of Saudi Arabia and its people, and they will continue to respect our traditions and aspirations. Saudi Arabia has moved well along the road of defining itself as a state that is both modem and in tune with its traditions, continually pushing forward in its constitutional and participatory evolution.

Thank you very much.

Text Source: SUSRIS.org

Audio Source: Ryan & Associates

http://www.arabialink.com/resources/special-sections/auspc/session-3-turki.html

Stratfor

....

Saudi sources in Riyadh recently said Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, 75, is seriously ill and has been traveling to and from the United States for surgery. Turki al-Faisal, 61, would be the most likely candidate to replace Prince Saud in the event of his incapacitation, raising the likelihood that Prince Saud's illness is the cause for al-Faisal's resignation.

Turki al-Faisal's potential rise to Saudi Arabia's foreign minister is unlikely to result in a dramatic upset in the Saudi royal family. By appointing him to the position, the balance of power among the various rival factions in the House of Saud will more or less be maintained. Al-Faisal is the son of King Faisal, the kingdom's third monarch and among its most illustrious. He also is brother to Prince Saud, who has served as foreign minister since 1975.

....

There is a slight possibility that the current shifts in Washington that have brought old-timers such as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and former Secretary of State James Baker back into the political spotlight could have something to do with undermining al-Faisal's usefulness as ambassador, given his shady history and alleged dealings with al Qaeda. Our intelligence suggests the contrary, however, raising the likelihood that al-Faisal has indeed gotten a promotion

that was written about the intent of the Saudi Kingdom was not well received. And someone has to pay the price. It obviously was the intent of the Kingdom to continue to support the Sunni insurgency because anything that weakens the Shiites ability to govern themselves is a catastrophe in Saudi Arabia's eyes. Shiites who have been suppressed in the Saudi Arabia kingdom just might rebel against the King and depose him. Saudi Shiites would not accept the King openly supporting Sunni's who kill Iraq's Shiites. The financing has to be continued to be done under the table.

The floater to test the waters did not work. But you can bet the Saudis will do everything they can to retain their wealth. Iran's growing influence must be curtailed in order to keep the House of Saud fat and rich.

It was observed in one of Steve Clemont's responders that, "Except for the fact that Saud has been Foreign Minister for over thirty years, it is routine." Posted by: daveinboca, December 12, 2006 02:33 PM.

Riyadh is indirectly confronting Tehran in Palestine, where it supports President Mahmoud Abbas against the Iranian-backed Hamas, and in Lebanon, where it is bankrolling the Siniora government.

more

-----

Saudis denied that Obaid voiced an official position.

more

-----

My comments...Liar, liar, pants on fire! The story in the media was an obvious test to see if the idea floated in the United States. When it didn't, Prince Turki al-Faisal was recalled back to Saudi Arabia. Or prehaps al-Faisal ran the idea by President Bush and there was a disagreement between them. The Sauds cannot afford to alienate their most valued customer and backer and neither can the United States. So the only way out of the dilemma was to remove the Ambassador from his post. On the other hand, there is the possibility al-Faisal's opinions differed from the House of Saud. He is rather outspoken and voices his opinions quite freely. No telling if it was his idea to use Obaid in the press.

Make no mistake, the House of Saud is everywhere financing this, that and the other, in the Middle East and is scared out of their wits by the strength of the Shiite movement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/world/middleeast/13saudi.html

Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia conveyed that message to Vice President Dick Cheney two weeks ago during Mr. Cheney’s whirlwind visit to Riyadh, the officials said. During the visit, King Abdullah also expressed strong opposition to diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran
...

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

The New Middle East Cold War: Saudi/Israel/Lebanon versus Iran/Syria/Iraq/Hizbullah

Helene Cooper with Hassan Fattah of the NYT has the scoop that Saudi King Abdullah told US VP Dick Cheney two weeks ago that if the US withdrew precipitately from Iraq, the kingdom would have little choice but to support the Sunni Arab guerrillas. The Saudi government had pledged to the US not to do so as long as US troops were in Iraq. But it is alleged that Saudi oil millionaires privately already send money to the guerrillas. Saudis, as Wahhabi Muslims, belong to a sect that is to the right of Sunnism. But the Wahhabi tradition dislikes Shiites and in any Sunni-Shiite struggle, the Wahhabis will come in on the Sunni side.

This item is no surprise, of course, and I have brought up this likelihood a number of times myself. What is remarkable is that it is being stated by the Saudi leadership and published in the press. The Saudis are usually circumspect. If they are leaking this sort of thing, their hair must be on fire with anxiety.

Cooper also reports the abrupt and mysterious resignation of Saudi Ambassador to the US Turki al-Faisal after only 22 months in Washington. Prince Turki has been an effective diplomat and has done a lot of outreach work, addressing ordinary American audiences (a style very unlike that of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, his long-serving predecessor). Prince Turki is the only Saudi official I know of publicly to espouse Gandhian principles of non-violence for the Palestinian cause. I met him more than once and was impressed by his humanity and acumen. I'm sorry to see him leave Washington. There are rumors that he is leaving to become foreign minister of the kingdom. If that were the case, I should have thought the promotion would be announced along with his resignation, which he called a "retirement." The way this is being handled looks more to me as though he lost some big policy fight with the establishment in Riyadh. But we shall see.

The Saudis are usually important to the formulation of US policy in the Middle East. W. is now rudderless, with Rumsfeld gone and Cheney neutered by the November elections. Prince Turki's departure in addition to hysteria about a regional guerrilla war in Iraq on the part of the Saudi King are an element of instability in White House policy-making that we could have done without.

Meanwhile, a de facto Israeli-Saudi alliance appears to be building against Iran and the Shiites. Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz is now saying that the 2002 Beirut peace plan put forward by then crown prince--now King--Abdullah of Saudi Arabia must be the basis for going forward with an Arab-Israeli peace process. Abdullah got the Arab League to offer Israel full recognition and political and economic relations if only they'd go back to the 1967 borders and recognize a Palestinian state.

At the time, then prime minister Ariel Sharon dismissed Abdullah's plan rather rudely. But now Israel has been bloodied by a Lebanon war that it lost on points to Hizbullah despite its clear military superiority. Bashar al-Asad of Syria pointed out that every generation of Arabs hates the Israelis more than its predecessors. Iran is emerging as a new hegemon in the eastern stretches of the Middle East.

Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert hoped that the Lebanon War of last August would finish off Hizbullah. Instead, Hizbullah put up a respectable resistance to the Israeli military. Now, Hizbullah and its Christian allies loyal to Michel Aoun have staged enormous daily protests aimed at bringing down the reform government of Fuad Seniora, and they may even succeed. Hizbullah is allied with Syria, which is allied with Iran.

While Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel are unified states in this new alliance, their de facto allies in Lebanon and Iraq include the bloc of Saad al-Hariri in the Lebanese parliament and the Kurds and Sunni Arabs in Iraq.

Iran gets support from Syria and Shiite Iraq and from Hizbullah in Lebanon.

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh went to Tehran recently and got pledges of $120 mn. in aid. Haniyeh while there pledged never to recognize Israel. Iran has Shiite clients in Iraq now, and is reaching into the Levant with its patronage for Hizbullah and Hamas.

MORE

Saudis Planning to 'Clean up' al Qaeda in Anbar
December 14, 2006 12:13 PM
ABC/The Blotter
Alexis Debat Reports:

A Saudi intelligence official told ABC News that if his government decided, as King Abdullah has threatened, to help the Sunni community defend itself against Shia militias in Iraq, they would start by "cleaning up" the volatile Anbar province of its al Qaeda networks.

"We will clean up Anbar village by village because we don't want them to have a rear base in Iraq to attack Saudi Arabia," says the source, who adds that Saudi intelligence has already laid out extensive networks in Anbar province, where a Sunni insurgency has gained a stronghold.

The Saudi security services share tribal affiliations with tribes from Yemen to Syria. They make extensive use of these links to exchange information, lay down intelligence networks and monitor the activities of al Qaeda in the region.

A British intelligence source told ABC News that Saudi Arabia has always kept its tribal links to Iraq active, especially under Saddam Hussein, whose Baathist regime they considered a threat. Since 2003, Saudi intelligence has used these networks in Anbar to collect intelligence on al Qaeda's activities.

If the U.S. Pulls Out of Iraq
[Analysis] Can a disaster be avoided in the Gulf?

Arati Singh (arati) Email Article Print Article

Published 2006-12-16 08:22 (KST)

Saudi officials have diplomatically given words to the U.S. that they would refrain from aiding Iraq's Sunni insurgency as long as the U.S. remains in Iraq. The major reason, however, behind the Saudis' wariness about supporting Sunnis is because the Sunni insurgency in Iraq has been led by extremists from Al Qaeda, who are opposed to the Saudi royal family. Therefore if Saudis support the Sunnis in Iraq by default they would be supporting Al Qaeda. However, if the sectarian war worsens in Iraq, the Saudis would have to stand up for the Sunni tribal leaders.

ohmynews

Larry Johnson’s blog

Tensions: Turki v. Bandar

UPDATE: It turns out that the New York Times, on Friday, had a far more thorough and fascinating story -- "Bickering Saudis Struggle for an Answer to Iran’s Rising Influence in the Middle East". See also Unpaid Bills.

The comments following the articles are worth a read.

-----

Seems to me a very well liked Saudi Ambassador has been replaced to coincide with current US policies? But who knows...Saudi Arabia plays one country against another to keep the Kingship viable. Are they an ally of Israel and the US? Or are they anyone's? They do fund Iraqi Sunni insurgents and indirectly Al Quaeda. I think what they want most is to preserve the status quo in the Middle East and not allow their Shiite population to get the idea democracy is at hand.

Any country that has a large Shiite population would be seen as a threat. Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine. They deliberately use their wealth and influence to destabilize those four countries and would be best buddies to 'any' country that furthers Saudi wealth and power.

Ally, Foe or neither?