November 2001 - VOLUME 22 - NUMBER 11
An Interview with Michael Klare
Michael Klare is the author of numerous books including Resource Wars (Metropolitan Books). He is Five College Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts.
Osama bin Ladenís principle aim is to overthrow the Saudi royal family and establish a Taliban-like government in Saudi Arabia. One of his complaints against the royal family is that they invited American troops to come and stay. |
Multinational Monitor: Is the conflict in Afghanistan a resource
war? MM: To what extent are U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia a cause of Osama
bin Ladens anti-U.S. activities? They are a provocation in his eyes and in those of his militant followers,
because they represent what they view as a sacrilege of the Muslim Holy
Land. They view the Arabian Peninsula as the home and Holy Land of Islam
and they view so many American troops most of who are non-Muslims,
and therefore considered infidels as an insult to their religion.
And they blame the Saudi royal family for bringing those troops in. Their real argument is ultimately with the Saudi royal family. I think
the principle aim of Osama bin Laden is to overthrow the Saudi royal family
and establish a Taliban-like government in Saudi Arabia. Thats his
number one objective. But one of his complaints against the royal family
is that they invited American troops to come and stay. U.S. forces are also an invitation in the sense that they are terrorist
targets. U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia have been attacked at least twice
before in terrorist attacks; the 1995 attack on the Saudi Arabian National
Guard (SANG) headquarters in Riyadh, which killed 5 American soldiers;
and the 1996 attack on Khobar Towers that killed 19 American soldiers.
MM: Are U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia to protect against external
or internal threats? MM: When did U.S. deployment in the Middle East and in Saudi Arabia
begin, and how did it evolve? The nature of U.S. protection has evolved over time. Originally it was
provided in indirect forms of support such as military advisers and arms
aid. Over time the direct presence of U.S. military forces has increased
to the point where the U.S. now has between 5,000 and 10,000 soldiers
on Saudi soil, and a much larger number offshore, on ships and the island
of Bahrain. MM: What are the internal threats feared in Saudi Arabia? What
opposition forces exist? A lot of opposition to the regime includes the sort of grievances you
would expect to find in a country ruled by a feudal dynasty, especially
issues about the distribution of the nations oil wealth and how
it is spent. Theres a lot of anger that excessive amounts of money
are spent on things like palaces and Mercedes while not enough is spent
on public welfare. Theres also dissent from women who object to
the second-class status that theyre forced to endure. And there
are objections from those who want to democratize the country, who want
human rights and democracy like you have in any modern state. Those people
are not allowed to voice any grievances. What happens is that the only real opportunity for dissidence is in radical
fundamentalist movements, which are tolerated by the regime because they
are based in the mosques and in the religious seminaries that are protected
by the government. And theyre expressed in Islamic terms. So the
royal family has closed off legitimate forms of dissent, and the only
option therefore is extremist Islamic movements, some of which have turned
violent. If there were democracy in the country, my guess is that there
wouldnt be much to worry about, because a lot of these grievances
would then take the form of parliamentary opposition, as they do in [the
United States] and other countries. But because that option doesnt
exist in Saudi Arabia, those with grievances have increasingly turned
to extremist factions which advocate the use of violence, including terrorism
and, ultimately, armed revolt. As peoples anger grows and
its growing in Saudi Arabia because of the war the fear is
that people will turn to these extremist movements and stage a revolt
of one sort or another. MM: Is U.S. entanglement in resource wars inevitable so long as
the nation relies so heavily on oil? The U.S. has also risked getting involved in local conflicts in other
countries because of its interest in their petroleum resources. Weve
been enmeshed in the internal politics of Iran we were very close
to the Shah, and when the Shah was overthrown, there was a backlash against
us. Historically, weve been involved in conflicts in Mexico over
oil. Were now involved in Colombia in a conflict thats as
much about oil as it is about drugs. Its not just the demand that is important, but the fact that the
U.S. has historically viewed oil as a national security concern and organized
its foreign policy and military policy around the protection of that oil.
That gets us involved in local messy situations that often turn violent.
MM: Do you think there will be a fundamental reexamination of the
notion of defining national security in the United States as a result
of these issues? |
|
I think resource wars are inevitable so long as we rely so heavily on imported oil to make up for the shortfall in our own production | ||