November
26, 2002, 8:30 a.m. Fueling
Terror
The Saudi racket.
e
are all, of course, simply shocked to hear that the FBI uncovered another
link between Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 hijackers.
Charges of terrorist
ties to Saudi Arabia are not new, though the direct connection in this
case to the wife of a senior Saudi diplomat is newsworthy. Saudi Interior
Minister Prince Nayef called the charges "lies and baseless words,"
but added that many Saudis help others who live abroad, and it is impossible
to check them all. And the fact that at least 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers
were Saudis is not the fault of that state's government. The Oklahoma
City bombers were Americans, they argue, should the U.S. blame itself?
Nor can the Saudi government be held directly responsible for the actions
of an outlaw like Osama bin Laden, who after all is a wanted (and admired)
man in his homeland. But beyond a point, as the links to Saudi Arabia
pile up, they attain a fissionable state. There may be no smoking gun,
but something certainly smells.
Here is how the Saudi
system contributes, wittingly or not, to the terrorist funding network.
Banks in Muslim states have traditionally gotten around prohibitions on
usury by establishing charitable foundations to administer zakat
(alms or charity), one of the five
Pillars of Islam. By doing this good deed, sharia law allows the banks
to charge interest. (The rationale is more complicated than that, but
basically it is a trade-off that evolved out of necessity.) The foundations
are run by religious figures and are kept separate from oversight and
direction of the secular boards of directors. (Zakat is also raised
directly by mosques, and there was that "send in your gold chains"
telethon awhile back that was such a hit with American audiences.) This
is why so many of the fronts through which terror money flows call themselves
"charitable" or "humanitarian" organizations —
it is not just a clever subterfuge. Of course, not all such organizations
fund terrorism, nor is all or even most zakat tainted. In fact,
supporting terrorism is a perversion of almsgiving; the money is supposed
to go to the poor and needy, according to the Koran (9:60). However, during
the Soviet war in Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden secured a fatwa making
it legal to give zakat to the Mujahedin. Since then, alms from
across the globe have been fed into al Qaeda coffers. A
July 2002 report from Canada's RCMP asserted that Saudi alms generated
$1-2 million per month for bin Laden's network. The money flows out of
Saudi Arabia through an informal underground banking system known as halawa,
which leaves no paper trail. Yet, money has to surface eventually for
it to be of any use to terrorists, and frequently this is done through
foreign or offshore money laundries. This was definitely not the case
when the payments came from Riggs Bank in Washington, D.C., drawn on an
account in the name of Princess Haifa al-Faisal, the wife of the Saudi
ambassador. This suggests either the terrorists were incredibly sloppy,
or they expected the account to be covered by diplomatic immunity and
thus be blocked from investigation, or the princess did not know the purposes
to which the money was being put, or a combination of the above.
So why does Saudi
Arabia allow, if not encourage or take part in, support for terrorist
activity against the United States? Don't we buy a lot of their product,
and keep the sea-lanes safe and open for countries that buy even more?
Didn't we save them from Saddam Hussein, either from invasion or (more
probably, at least initially) regional hegemony? Don't we refrain from
criticizing their repressive social policies and political autocracy (and
by "we" I mean U.S. policy, certainly not NRO)? Shouldn't they,
at minimum, not facilitate the transfer of funds to Saudi citizens who
fly airplanes into our buildings?
To add insult to
injury, if we trace the origin of terrorist money far enough, we find
it starts right back home. Just like the Office of National Drug Control
Policy commercials linking narcotics with terrorism, our appetite for
petroleum feeds the terror networks. Billions of US dollars go into the
region to meet our energy needs. Despite the embargo of 1973 and the oil
shock of 1978-9, and the United States is as
dependent as ever on Saudi oil. Thus our most critical national-security
commitment (the security of the Middle Eastern oil supplies and routes)
and gravest security threats (Islamic radicalism and regional WMD proliferation)
both spring from a single source: the Saudi oil wells.
To date the United
States has been a reactive force in this region, responding to threats
as they arise, and attempting to achieve stability. What is called for
is a proactive approach, which changes the critical calculus in the region,
and decreases the dominant influence of Middle Eastern oil on our national
security. Part of the "defense transformation" framework being
promoted by the Department of Defense involves global-shaping operations
— that is, finding ways to influence circumstances worldwide to head
off crises before they occur. This necessitates long-term large-scale
shifts in policies and relationships with countries to make the world
safer for the United States at home and abroad. A crucial part of global
shaping should be both reducing demand for petroleum overall through exploiting
alternative energy sources, and shifting sources of supply to other, more
stable, friendlier parts of the world. A national energy strategy should
be a major component of the U.S. national-security framework. Energy is
not just a domestic issue, it has global implications. The surest way
to defund the terrorists — as well as the regional members of the
axis of evil — is to stop the cash transfers at their source.
Of course, we can
play to other American strengths to get the job done. In August 2002 thousands
of families of 9/11 victims filed a class-action suit targeting Saudi
banks, "charities" and the royal family. They charge them with
complicity in the acts if terror that claimed the lives of their loved
ones. The awards could total in the trillions of dollars, and bankrupt
the Saudi financial system. The Middle East exports fatwas, we export
lawsuits. May the better decrees win.
— James
S. Robbins is a national-security analyst & NRO contributor.
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
e
are all, of course, simply shocked to hear that the FBI uncovered another
link between Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 hijackers.
