IPS news focus

No matter how well the diplomatic cover-up is executed on signs of tension between the United States and Saudi Arabia, the strain in their ties has finally come out of the closet.

Last week's remarks by US Senator Carl Levin that the United States may pull its forces out of Saudi Arabia and find ''a more hospitable'' base in the region were followed by a report in The Washington Post quoting a senior Riyadh official about how his government may itself call for the Americans to leave.

While the official stance from both countries is that the subject has not been raised and that both maintain a strong and viable diplomatic bond, the possibility of US troops leaving their Saudi base according to a mutually acceptable timeframe is more likely to happen sooner than later, though not immediately.

From the time the alliance came into being when the kingdom was created 70 years ago and strengthened after US forces were invited to Saudi Arabia for security following Iraq's invasion of neighbouring Kuwait in 1991, the US-Saudi Arabia tie-up has been rooted in strategic interests.

The relationship has been perpetually tense and full of suspicion. It took the terror attacks of Sept 11 and the events thereafter to heighten them, make their policies come full circle and inch toward the realm of realpolitik.

Beyond the controversy and debate, both versions of the story the US wanting to pull out and Saudi Arabia telling the US to quit fit in well given the present international scenario and how it will evolve from here.

Political liability

Two senior US State Department officials visited Riyadh last week: assistant secretary for the Near East, William Burns and assistant secretary for Political and Military Affairs, Lincoln Bloomfield.

It is quite possible that some reassessment discussions did take place and those concerns were blown out of proportion.

When Bloomfield reached Saudi Arabia, US ambassador in Riyadh Robert Jordan was quoted as saying: ''He is here for consultations with the Saudi government to review our presence here and to discuss what we need and what we don't need.''

A Saudi official said the two countries have not ''officially'" discussed an eventual departure. What it meant is the Saudi royal family and the US administration ''privately'' discussed the possibility, the likelihood of which has been emphasised by Saudi dissidents outside the country.

''The Saudis may be aiming to kill two birds with one stone,'' said P V Vivekanand, editor of a Gulf-based daily. ''The kingdom believes that Iraq, despite Saddam Hussein's unstoppable rhetoric, will not indulge in any imperialistic misadventure in the near future and hence sees the US presence on its soil as unwarranted.''

''Second, the withdrawal of foreign soldiers, whose presence has come to be seen as a political liability, will also quell the discerning and potential domestic discontent,'' he added.

The ruling House of Saud is nervous about an internal revolt by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terror network and other extremists. The Saudis, including one camp in the royal family, have long been against a security arrangement that is lodged in the presence of an outside military power to protect its internal interests.

''Disquiet among the Saudis is now stronger due to the change in the tone of the Bush administration on the Middle East crisis. Washington's recent support for an eventual creation of a Palestinian state, was quickly followed with the support for Israel's policy of isolating Palestinian President Yasser Arafat,'' Vivekanand said.

'Terror-monger'

An increasing number of Americans also believe that Saudi Arabia Washington's closest Arab ally is not playing a responsible and reliable role in the fight against terror.

Many Americans have been upset not only because Saudi Arabia is bin Laden's native country, but also because 15 of the 19 terrorists involved in the Sept 11 attacks were from the kingdom.

Media reports say that about 200 Saudis have been captured in Afghanistan fighting with the al-Qaeda network and the Taliban.

Three of the most popular and influential US newspapers The Washington Post , Los Angeles Times and New York Times have castigated the Saudi government and its citizens for their indirect and direct involvement respectively in the Sept 11 attacks.

They have questioned the White House's rationale in prolonging ties with a ''terror-monger and violator of human rights''.

There is also a huge well of resentment among politicians, policymakers and the intelligentsia that, after the US fought to push back Iraq in 1991 and has protected Saudi Arabia since, Riyadh refused to provide active military help during the Afghan campaign.

From the view of its ordinary citizens, the US has had to pay a price for guarding the interests of the Saudi regime against threats from Iraq and Iran.

A Saudi official, however, says it is more hurt feelings, not hard military or political calculation, that are the reason for Riyadh's grouse. ''It's not a question of logistics, but probably a Saudi pressure tactic to stop the unfair media campaign (against it),'' he said.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell, asked if the US should take Saudi public opinion seriously, said: ''I'm not aware that the Saudi family is under such great pressure from the population for us to leave. I think we are good guests. . . we have come to their aid before.''

More practically, one of the reasons the US would not want to withdraw its 4,500 to 5,000 troops from the Prince Sultan air base, south of Riyadh, now is it could be perceived as a propaganda victory for bin Laden. He had often protested the presence of ''non-believers'' so close to the Muslim holy sites in Mecca and Medina.

There is no doubt that the US-Saudi ties have been under the microscope even before Sept 11, not least because of a school of thought that the US presence in the Gulf makes the region less, not more, stable.

In August, Crown Prince Abdullah wrote to US President George W Bush, saying the world's biggest oil producer and exporter would have to review bilateral ties unless Washington acted to resolve the Middle East conflict.

In November, the New York Times quoted Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal as saying that Bush's refusal to meet Arafat ''makes a sane man go mad''.

While maintaining status quo, the United States has also been considering a scenario without Saudi Arabia. It is looking beyond the ''benign dependence'' theory in the region that has had its premise in the oil-security relationship.

Washington has been encouraged in this area by changes in the oil market that has seen a steady growth of non-Organistation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) supplies.

Unanswered questions

Wary about the stability of its allies in the Middle East, the US in late 2001 proposed a military alliance with India for the fight against terror. The United States has also been working to have a base in the oil-rich Central Asian countries.

There are some unanswered questions, however, which make the present controversy between the United States and Saudi Arabia improbable.

Would either country be ready to be independent of each other so soon after Sept 11? The United States needs Saudi support to make a success of its war against terror, just as Riyadh needs Washington's assistance to keep its domestic detractors at bay.

If the kingdom is overthrown by extremist elements, what happens to the oil? What would be the fate of the huge arms cache that the United States has sold and the Saudis have bought over the years?

The US could in theory use its aircraft carriers in the Gulf waters and switch to bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and elsewhere, but analysts say there is no ready and cheap alternative to the high-technology Saudi base, which played a crucial logistical role in the Afghan bombings.

The US policy of containing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, a priority for the Bush administration, would be set back if Washington withdraws from the Saudi base.

''We think we're doing things for them,'' a US official who oversees Saudi relations, says of Riyadh, ''but they think they're doing things for us''.