Hearing sddresses Saudi, Egyptian unreliability

(Washington, D.C.): Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. testified today before the House Armed Services Committee Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism in connection with its consideration about one of the most challenging aspects of the war on terror: Assuring that countries who purport to be on our side are not, in fact, engaged in behavior that exacerbates the threat we face today — and the even more dangerous ones we are likely to face in the future.

Of particular interest to the Committee was evidence that Saudi Arabia and Egypt are actually abetting terrorist organizations. The following are excerpts of Mr. Gaffney’s prepared statement. The hearing was taped by C-SPAN and will be broadcast in its entirety at a later date.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to contribute to the Committee’s important deliberations on the war on terrorism. I salute you for your personal leadership over many years on matters bearing on the challenges we face today and, in particular, for your willingness to examine with care one of the most vexing of these — namely, the degree to which Middle Eastern nations we have long regarded as friends are materially aiding the terrorists with whom we find ourselves at war.

President Bush has properly said that you are either with us or against us; either you will help us in ridding the world of terrorism or you are part of the problem.

It has been relatively easy to be clear about who is against us. We recognize that the enemy is not just Osama bin Laden and cells of his al Qaeda organization based in Afghanistan. Rather it is a network of terrorists — some of whom are directly associated with al Qaeda, many of whom have less clear-cut connections to bin Laden — that literally spans the globe, from Central Asia to the Philippines, from Colombia to the Middle East……

To fully comprehend the nature of this threat and its sources, it is important to keep in mind that we have seen terrorists and their sponsors cooperating across seemingly insuperable political, ideological and theological divides. For example, there is evidence that secular Ba’athist Iraq has cooperated with Islamist al Qaeda operatives. Irish Republican Army operatives are training the FARC’s narco-terrorist guerillas in Colombia with Cuban and Venezuelan assistance. These relationships give even relatively small cells the capability to have what President Bush has called intolerable “global reach,” making them legitimate targets in our war on terror.

Far more challenging is the task of correctly assessing those who are with us. For example, in the immediate aftermath of September 11, nations with long pedigrees of support for international terrorism — notably, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Yemen — were said to have made some effort to take advantage of a sort of Bush amnesty program to distance themselves from their erstwhile friends.

For instance, Sudan (whose Islamist government allowed Osama bin Laden to live and operate from its territory for five years) has offered us information about him and his lieutenants. Similarly, the Yemenis have been described as exhibiting unprecedented willingness to cooperate in counter-terrorist operations on their soil including arresting individuals it says are implicated in the attack on the USS Cole. These steps have resulted in the dispatch of U.S. personnel to Yemen for training in counter-terrorism techniques, something that would have been hard to imagine in the years prior to 9/11.

To varying degrees Syria, Libya and Iran, were said to be “cooperating” as well. Notably, Iran condemned the September 11th attacks and offered to help any air crews who might be downed over Iranian territory in the course of combat in Afghanistan. State Department officials reportedly argued that such behavior created opportunities for improved American ties with each of these countries, notwithstanding their presence on its list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Unfortunately, there is considerable evidence that these countries are playing a double game. Syria continues to host offices for most of the world’s terrorist organizations. And known terrorists continue to operate with impunity on Yemeni soil.

And the Islamic Republic of Iran, one of the world’s most inveterate state sponsors of terrorism is not only continuing to support Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad — Islamist terrorist groups bent on destroying Israel. It is also actively subverting America’s efforts to help Afghanistan recover from the years of Taliban and pre-Taliban terror and to prevent the return of al Qaeda.

It would be surprising, indeed, if Pakistan were not acting in a similar fashion. While the steps President Musharaf has taken to support the war effort have been impressive on the whole and hugely valuable to the campaign in Afghanistan, it is certainly possible — if not highly probable — that his Islamist-supporting intelligence service (known as the ISI) is still working at cross-purposes with both him and us. For example, it is likely continuing to encourage bloody attacks in India, confident that by so doing it would create an explosive situation in which Pakistani forces would have to be moved from the border with Afghanistan to the Indian one, thereby easing the pressure on Taliban and al Qaeda elements the ISI previously sponsored who are now trying to operate from Pakistan.

Jordan is in a similar position. Its government under King Abdullah is sympathetic to and anxious to collaborate with the West in combating terror. The present king’s father and predecessor proved himself willing to suppress it at home and to work, albeit quietly, with the Israelis to mitigate threats emanating from Palestinian communities inside both countries. Like King Hussein, Abdullah is evidently going to considerable lengths to cooperate with our government, the Israelis and others fighting terror — even if his public line is, of necessity, more aloof.

The Hashemite king’s ability to ride this tiger can only be made more difficult, however, if the Bush Administration succeeds in creating a Palestinian state on the West Bank of the Jordan River. That would be particularly true if, as seems likely, such a state were to prove to be yet another radical, Islamist and irredentist Arab state — one able and willing to aid and abet terrorist operations from its soil. Such a state would inevitably appeal to Jordan’s Palestinian population to reunite under a single flag, government and army — turning over to very dangerous elements the small but well-equipped and modern Jordanian military. For this reason, among many others, President Bush should be encouraged to reconsider his support for the creation of a state of “Palestine.”…..

A net assessment needs to acknowledge that both the Saudi and Egyptian governments are providing some support to U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. Each is allowing important overflight rights of considerable value to the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Central Asia. American warships are being permitted unhindered passage through the Suez Canal. At least some air operations appear to be supported by the Combined Air Operations at the Prince Sultan Air Base…..

Unfortunately, matters are made considerably worse by Saudi and Egyptian behavior on other fronts. Before September 11th, both governments for years actively fomented Islamist and/or pan-Arab sentiment against Israel and the United States. Generally, it was believed that they did so in the interest of deflecting well-deserved popular resentment away from their respective regimes.

In the past, we have turned a blind eye towards such official subversion of our common interests. We clearly can no longer do so now that nineteen Saudi and Egyptian nationals have killed thousands of Americans and others remain engaged in trying to do so.

Yet in important respects, it continues apace. Consider the following, partial but illustrative sampler:

• The 9/11 hijackers were products of Wahhabist and other Islamist indoctrination. Unfortunately, that radical pedagogy is not limited to Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It is promoted by madrassas bankrolled by the Saudis in places like Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia and even the United States — where, according to some estimates, the mortgages for as many as 80% of American mosques are held by Saudi financial institutions, etc.






• State-controlled media in Saudi Arabia and Egypt persist in broadcasting vitriolic anti-American, anti-Israel and/or anti-Western diatribes with themes indistinguishable from bin Laden’s. For example, government dailies in both countries recently ran articles (in Saudi Arabia a two-part “news” item) about how, as the Washington Times reported on 22 March 2002, “Jewish rabbis extract the blood of Christians and Muslims for use in Purim holiday pastries….”






• Citing “Arab news agencies and the Saudi Embassy’s web site,” UPI reported on 9 April 2002 that “the Saudi Arabian government has paid out at least $33 million to families of Palestinians killed or injured in the…Intifada and in December 2001 earmarked another $50 million for the payments.”






• Millions more were raised in a Saudi “martython” — a televised spectacle featuring members of the royal family appealing for contributions that would, in effect, reward those whose children or other relatives acted as homicide bombers.






• The Saudi ambassador to Great Britain, who has served in that post for a decade, recently published in a pan-Arab daily a poem extolling the legitimacy of suicide bombers’ attacks, saying they “died to honor God’s word.” He also complained about “a White House whose heart is filled with darkness.”






• Published reports quote Saudi activists as saying that members of the royal family support a national boycott against U.S. products in protest of Washington’s support for Israel. Press accounts say this boycott has produced a “sharp drop [by some estimates as much as 30%] in purchases of U.S. imports as well as sales in restaurant chains that stem from the United States” energized by a slogan “with each dollar you pay, you kill a Palestinian.”






• The South Korean daily JoongAng Ilbo reported last year that Egypt had purchased 24 No Dong medium-range missiles to Egypt. Such missiles could be used to deliver chemical, biological or even small atomic weapons to Israel.






• Agence France Press reported last month that “Egyptian Prime Minister Atef Ebeid said his country would go to war with Israel if Arab countries stumped up $US 100 bllion to pay for the confrontation in an interview…[with] the Abu Dhabi government’s Al-Ittihadi newspaper” published on April 24, 2002.

These examples are meant only to suggest a pattern of bad faith and double-dealing on the part of the Saudi and Egyptian governments that argues, at a minimum, for a far more rigorous insistence on the part of the U.S. government that such “friends” — both of whom enjoy our protection and/or considerable financial assistance — desist from such behavior. I commend you, Mr. Chairman, in particular for your longstanding efforts, of which this hearing is but a part, to end our national practice of “cognitive dissonance” with respect to conduct that should properly cause nations to be seen as “against us.”…..

Mr. Chairman, the war on terror will be tough enough to conduct if we are clear about who are our enemies and who are our reliable friends particularly given the nature of the former and the likelihood that there are far fewer of the latter than we would like. I would argue the list may come down to our fellow democracies — in particular, Great Britain, a few others in Europe, Israel, Turkey, India and the Philippines. The priority missions of taking the war to the enemy, defending ourselves to the extent we can here at home and maintaining popular support for the long term will require great leadership on the part of the President and the Congress and resolute “followership” on the part of the American people.

These missions may be all but impossible to accomplish, however, if we fail to insist that those who are “with us” in the war on terror actually comport themselves in that manner, across the board and not on a selective basis.