Consequences of 9/11: Saudi Arabia and United States Relationship pre and post 9/11 - Essay Example

Introduction “The U.S.-Saudi relationship is one of America’s most important, enduring, and complex bilateral connections in the Middle East. It has been tested by many issues, including oil policies, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and confrontation with Iraq. Especially after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on America, in which many of those involved were Saudi dissidents, both sides have critiqued and re-evaluated that link.” (Pollack, 2002) Quarter of the world’s oil resources lie in the land of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is and therefore KSA naturally serves the rest of the world and especially the United States as a major source of energy. The dependence of the U.S.A for oil on Saudi Arabia is not however a one-way phenomenon, because KSA in its own turn banks on the US for its defence against external enemies, which are quite a few, due to KSA holding such a central position in the Muslim world. This formula for co-operation and mutual dependence has proven to be a remarkable stable one over the year because the security of a country as rich in oil reserves as KSA is a matter of deep concern for USA, while US’s security back up is essential for Saudi dynasty’s survival. Exemplary moments of co-operation between the US and Saudi Arabia like the Gulf War of 1990-1991 are indeed proof of the depth of their relationship. It was unlike ever before in history that a call for help from Riyadh after Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait was immediately answered by an unprecedented collective military response, lead by the United States of America. Even though this mutually benefitting relationship seems too much of a logical set up for both the countries to get disturbed by any circumstances, this is as not as simple a case of co-operation in the international relations of countries as it seems. Not only have there been moments of deep concern and uncertainty between the two counties’ relations but throughout the moments of perfect co-operation too, the relation has had to be very carefully manoeuvred. It goes without saying, here, that in all the factors which play a significant role in the dynamics of the Saudi-US relation, religion plays a decisive role in the decision-making of KSA. Being the land which holds the honour of being the home country of the Holy places of Islam, KSA has a huge responsibility of maintaining an upright and independent position in the Muslim world. Therefore, excessive reliance on the United Sates for its security concerns inevitably makes the role of Saudi Arabia in the relations with other Muslim countries, highly dubious. On top of these concerns is the fact that from the very inception of Israel, USA has extended complete support to Israel which has made KSA highly suspicious of the US role in the Muslim world. Today the situation is further complicated due to the continued presence of US and British air forces since the Gulf War, within Saudi territory. The position of Saudi Arabia in case of air attacks on Iraq or Afghanistan from the Saudi soil becomes very sensitive. Yet, despite all these and many more complications in the Saudi-US relations, their bilateral cooperation continues, because of the basic reason that US has an increased dependence on oil imports in order to meet its energy needs while the lingering threat to the Saudi dynasty from Iraq and Iran leave KSA in an ever dire need for security assistance from the US. Pre 9/11 US-Saudi Relations Background Even though the United Sates had extended recognition to state of Saudi Arabia as early as 1931, but no significant contact existed between the two countries at an official level as such. One reason for this indifference towards the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was the fact that the US did not, until then, seek to extend its sphere of influence in the Middle Eastern or Arab region, since it was primarily under the influence of the British. The Saudi rulers however, wished to put a check to the British hold in the regions and the United States of America was the ideal country for the achievement of this objective. A significant development in the Saudi-US relations was the invitation of Charles R. Crane (former ambassador and a philanthropist) by the then King Abd al-Aziz, in order to seek help in the exploration of resources. “It was through Crane that the attention of the Standard Oil of California ended up signing a 60 year contract offering the exclusive concession for exploration and extraction in the Hasa region, along the shores of the Persian Gulf” (Vassiliev, 2000). “Saudi Arabia was the second largest U.S. trading partner in the Middle East in 2002. For that year, Saudi exports to the United States were estimated at $12.2 billion and imports from the United States at $4.3 billion. Comparable figures for Israel, the largest U.S. trading partner in the Middle East, were $12.4 billion in exports and $5.3 billion in imports. To a considerable extent, this high volume of trade is a result of U.S. oil imports from Saudi Arabia and U.S. arms exports to that country. The Saudis buy significant amounts of U.S. commercial equipment, such as machinery and vehicles, as well. Also, a Washington Post article of February 11, 2002, estimates that Saudi nationals have invested between $500 and $700 billion in the U.S. economy” (Prados, 2003). Thus, overall, the economic ties of the two countries have been strong enough to ensure a long lasting and a generally stable co-operative relationship with one another. Security Dilemma After the discovery of oil by Standard Oil of California, which later came to be called the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO), in Saudi Arabia in the year 1938, the United States began to realise the strategic importance which the well-being and security of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia held. As a result, in the year 1943, President Roosevelt announced that the “defence of Saudi Arabia was a vital interest to the United States” (Metz, 1992). While initially US seeked to secure an exclusive access to the oil reserves of KSA, later this concern became a matter of securing resources for the energy needs of the whole of the developed region of the world. President George H.W. Bush later also told King Fahd bin Abd al-Aziz on the 4th of August, 1990, the day on which the Iraq invaded Kuwait, that, "[t]he security of Saudi Arabia is vital—basically fundamental—to U.S. interests and really to the interests of the Western world" (Knopf, 1998). The danger in which the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia stood due to these circumstances meant that a major energy source of not just the Americans but even other industrialised countries was at stake, therefore throughout the Saudi-US relations, the USA has tried to protect the Kingdom from any threats which may arise from neighbouring countries like Iran and Iraq, or from the Communist designs of the Soviet Union or even from the internal radical elements. One key aspect of the US-KSA relations is that even though the two countries do not have any formal security or military agreement with one another, military co-operation has been a constant feature of the relations between the two countries. Especially at the time of the Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the speedy US response to the Saudi plea for security is an exemplary moment in the friendship ties of the two countries. The matter regarding the presence of US security forces on the land of Saudi Arabia is a little more complicated than that however. The reason being that, due to the special status which the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia holds in the eyes of the rest of the Muslim and the Arab world, makes it very difficult for the Saudi government to host US military presence on their land. The hostility within the population of KSA which has been a result of US military presence in KSA can be seen through the attacks on US military facilities on various occasions. One instance was when in 1995 a bomb blast took place in Riyadh at the headquarters of a US training facility killing seven people out of which five were American citizens. “The second and more lethal explosion, which occurred at Khobar Towers (a housing facility for U.S. Air Force personnel near Dhahran Air Base) in June 1996, killed 19 U.S. Air Force personnel, wounded many others, and prompted the relocation of most U.S. military personnel to more remote sites in Saudi Arabia to improve security. Press reports allegedly based on Saudi investigations and reported statements by other suspects have suggested involvement by Iran, but Saudi officials have called these reports inaccurate. Earlier reports had suggested involvement by exiled Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden, who has praised the bombings in Saudi Arabia but has not claimed responsibility for them.” (Prados, 2003) Another instance of a bomb attack on US military personnel in Saudi Arabia was when in Riyadh in the year 2003 three almost simultaneous suicide bombings took place, killing about 34 people in all, including eight American citizens. But the fact remains that the Saudi rulers for their own part have always been in need for protection of their dynasty and therefore the American assistance not only provided them the necessary help in the exploitation of their own land resources, but this friendship with USA also helped the Saudis in feeling secure from other security threats from the region like Iraq and Iran. “In 1951, under President Truman, the United States and Saudi Arabia signed the Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement. Under this agreement the United States provided military equipment and training for the Saudi armed forces and established that Saudi Arabia’s territorial integrity and political independence was a primary objective of the United States” (Metz, 1992). Holding such a prominent place in the Muslim world affairs, the Saudis needed to make sure that their power would remain consolidated with the throne while also being able to play their significant part in the Arab region. But the task of mutual assistance was not as simple as it seems. Because while the Saudis gained the much needed help from the US, they always had the lingering sense of insecurity which one is bound to get from befriending a country which is too powerful in its own turn. Therefore, while the KSA did allow military presence within its territory by the US at some level or the other, they always were anxious to ensure that that presence would not grow too sound. The Cold War Partnership In the 1950s, the formation of the Baghdad Pact which established a coalition between Britain, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Pakistan, left the Saudis feeling highly uncertain with respect to their relations with the US, because for KSA the Baghdad Pact included both of its major regional foes, even if it was a security arrangement for the containment of the Soviet Union. Therefore, in the year 1955 the Saudis signed a mutual defence agreement with the pro-Moscow regime of Jamal Abdul Nasser in Egypt. The Suez Canal Crisis of 1956 helped in easing the tension in the US-Saudi ties because of the US opposition of the attack by Britain, France and Israel but not enough to allow a significant military access to the US forces within the territory of KSA. Another episode of increased uncertainty on part of the Saudi administration with regard to US intention of military support to KSA happened in 1978 when the US government run by President Carter failed to intervene in order to protect the Shah of Iran from an internal uprising against his regime. The presence of the Shah of Iran was a matter of much consolation for KSA and they therefore had increased their oil production in order to ease economic pressures on the Iranian regime. KSA also requested the US government to help provide security to the region. But even though US promised to respond by sending in US F-15s, they ended up sending unarmed planes in order to avoid alarming the new Iranian government of Shapour Bakhtiar. This episode left a lasting mark on the Saudi memory and despite US assurances of protection against attacks, KSA was highly suspicious of the US sincerity from then onwards. While the Cold War era did prove troublesome for the Saudi-US relations in many ways there were however a great many instances and motivations for cooperation as well. With increases in oil production, the Saudi government was prospering at a rapid pace and by the 1970s Saudi Arabia was financially assisting in the fight against the expansion of Communism in the world. Especially in the 1970s when the threat of communism reached Saudi’s immediate neighbourhood due to the presence of the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, the Saudis rigorously participated in the anti-Soviet efforts by US. The financial stability of the once weak KSA was not just a contribution towards the American designs however. Because the Saudi government was at the same time extending financial help to the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO). The Arab-Israeli Conflict and Related Issues The partnership between the USA and KSA which resulted from the common threat of Communism also helped overshadow a major source of tension between the two countries- the issue of US support of Israel, generally as well as militarily. While the Saudi regime did not greatly mind continuing its course of cooperation with the US despite US-Israel ties, in times when the Arab-Israeli conflicts gained seriousness, it would become very difficult for the American allies to continue their exchanges with the US government. The height of this Arab-Israel conflict and as a result the US and Arab tensions was the 1973-1974 oil embargo. When it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Saudi Arabia always felt a duty to fulfil its role as a leading Arab country because of being guardian of the Holy places of Islam. From the very inception of the Israel-Palestine issue, even before a meeting between the Saudi king Abd al- Aziz and the then President of United States, President Franklin Roosevelt in 1945, Palestine had been a matter of grave concern for the whole of the Arab world including KSA. In fact, in his first ever meeting with the American President, King Abd al-Aziz had specifically said that, "He personally, as president, would never do anything which might prove hostile to the Arabs; and the U.S. Government would make no change in its basic policy in Palestine without full and prior consultation with both Jews and Arabs” (Hart, 1998). While, President Truman, the successor to President Roosevelt, also assured the Arabs of the continuation of the promise made by Roosevelt, he alongside this commitment went ahead and supported the UN General Assembly resolution of 1947, which called for the creation of Jewish state as well as an Arab state in the Palestinian territory. And after the declaration of independence by the Jewish state of Israel, and its recognition by the United States, King Abd al-Aziz did warn USA about its access to the resources of KSA, if the United States helped the new state of Israel militarily. However, since US did not have any such intention back then, such threats were not seriously regarded by the US government. The 1967 Arab-Israeli war escalated the tensions remarkably when the importance of the Arab oil had gained much more significance, also the US-Israeli ties had grown stronger and the Saudi position in the region was being questions because of the general perception that Saudis were too dependent on the Americans to take a stand in favour of Egypt in the war. As a result, three bombs were exploded near the American embassy in Riyadh and Sheikh Ahmad Zaki Yamani, the Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources in Saudi Arabia, cautioned the ARAMCO official with the possibility of nationalisation of the company as a response to the American support of Israel. This tension over the Arab-Israeli conflicts culminated in the ultimate episode of the oil embargo being placed by OPEC against any country which extends help to the state of Israel. However, when the American gave out explicit warning of capturing the oil fields of Arab countries by force, the oil embargo had to be called off. From this episode, Saudi position as an oil producing country gained a lot of significance and the Saudi government policies were to have a considerable impact in the oil prices of the world. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq on the 3rd of August, 1990, was a serious source of insecurity for Saudi Arabia as well as the whole region. The answering of the call for help from Riyadh by Washington and the unprecedented swiftness with which the Gulf War was concluded marked a very high mark in the US-Saudi relations. But during the rest of the 1990s, relations between the two countries remained mainly constrained due to the Clinton administration’s focus on the Arab-Israeli issue. The beginning of the second intifada movement in Palestine gave rise to the prevalent tensions between the two states. During his peace efforts for the resolution of the Israel-Palestine issue Clinton mainly seeked the help of Egypt and Jordan, while Saudi Arabia continued to maintain its distance from the issue. However at the funeral of King Hussein of Jordan, it is reported that President Clinton offered the Saudi Crown Prince an introduction with the Israeli leadership to which the Saudi Crown Prince replied that, "I believe, Your Excellency Mr. President, that there are limits to friendship" (Sciolino, 2002). “Saudi leaders have been increasingly critical of Israel since the Palestinian uprising began in September 2000. According to a New York Times article of May 17, 2001, Crown Prince Abdullah declined an invitation to visit the United States in June 2001, to indicate displeasure over what Saudis regard as insufficient U.S. efforts to restrain Israeli military actions against Palestinians. However, the Crown Prince did accept a subsequent invitation to visit President Bush in Texas in April 2002” (Prados, 2003). When the Clinton administration was succeeded by George W. Bush in 2001, it was hoped that the Saudi-American ties would improve. But even the Bush administration failed to strike a balance in its policies between Israel and Saudi Arabia. In fact the Bush administration constantly shunned the PLO leader Yasser Arafat, which did not help its relations with KSA at all. Because, in general, the Saudi stance has always been in favour of the Muslim claim of the rightful ownership of Jerusalem by Muslims, and Saudi Arabia has also been a major supporter of the Palestine Liberation Organisation form its very inception, and also extends financial support to PLO. Finally the crown prince Abdullah dispatched a letter to Washington warning a complete severing of ties if USA, in response to which Bush assured his establishment’s commitment to the cause of Palestine. Thus mending of relations between the two countries however, failed to take a decisive shape due to the sad incident of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. “In February 2002, Crown Prince Abdullah informally floated a peace proposal calling for full Israeli withdrawal from Israeli occupied territories in return for full normalization of relations between Arab states and Israel. An expanded version of his proposal was adopted at an Arab League summit conference held on March 27-28, 2002. It called among other things for Israeli withdrawal from territories it had occupied since 1967, a “just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees,” and establishment of normal relations between Arab states and Israel. Some commentators believe the prince’s comments represented nothing new over and above longstanding Arab land-for-peace proposals. Other commentators thought that such comments from an Arab leader of Abdullah’s stature carried special weight and could portend a breakthrough in Arab-Israeli peace negotiations” (Prados, 2003). Post 9/11 US-Saudi Relations On the 11th of September, 2001 the terrorist attacks by 19 Arab youngsters, who took four planes hostage and crashed them into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre , the Pentagon and an isolated ground in Pennsylvania, left 3000 people dead (Kean, 2004) and the US-Saudi relations completely jolted. Within the US, there was wide spread criticism with regard to the association of the Saudi government with the terror attacks. There was general mistrust between the people of the two nations, one blaming the other for the tragic incident. The fact that 15 of the hijackers in the terrorist attacks of the 9/11 were Saudi nationals plus, Osama bin Laden (the master mind behind those attacks) is also a former Saudi national left a huge question mark on the minds of the American people with respect to the role of Saudi Arabia as a US ally. “In addition, members of the media have been claiming that Saudi Arabia is indirectly responsible for the terrorist attacks because the social and political climate of the Kingdom nurtures extremism and breeds Islamic terrorists” (Prados, 2006). It is also believed that by holding the United States responsible for the country’s problems, KSA has allowed anti-American sentiments to thrive within its land. “Victor Davis Hanson, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and a nationally syndicated columnist for Tribune Media Services, describes what he believes is the unwarranted, anti-American, Saudi viewpoint: And there may be, after all, a sick genius in a system that can shift the hatreds of an illiterate Saudi youth away from the jet-setting sheiks who have diverted his nations treasure and onto the anonymous Americans who created that wealth, who ship the kingdom its consumer goods, and who defend it from the neighbourhood’s carnivores” (Hanson, 2002). Furthermore, it is generally believed in the United States that if not hosting terrorist factions within, Saudi Arabia is helping in the creation of terrorist groups and organisations in other countries by funding Islamic charities. The notion in the American society that the Saudi government has been generally sympathetic towards charitable organisations that fund and support terrorist groups like Al Qaeda has created quite some controversy with respect to US-KSA relations. “An independent task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, in a report published in October 2002, asserted that individuals and charities in Saudi Arabia have been the most important source of funds for Al Qaeda for some years and that, “Saudi officials have turned a blind eye to the problem.” (Prados, 2003) The Saudi government however, has vehemently opposed all such allegations and have always upheld the fact that they are working very sincerely for the cause of wiping terrorism away. The Saudi officials have pointed out that not only have they frozen many of the bank accounts which were suspected to have been having links with terrorist groups, “Saudi officials also stated in August 2002 that they were interrogating 16 Al Qaeda members who had been extradited from Iran to Saudi Arabia. In the same vein, a Saudi report averred that the government has questioned 2,800 terrorist suspects and 200 are currently in detention.” (Ibid) The Saudis on the other hand blame the United Sates for the evil image which the US media is cutting out for KSA. The Saudis argue that by blaming the Saudi nation so out rightly for such evils, the American media is validating the anti-American sentiments within the minds and hearts of the Saudi people. Any attempts by the Saudi government to establish a check to the Al-Qaeda propaganda among its people will not succeed of the American continue to attack them in this manner. The Minister of Foreign Affairs in KSA argued that even though there are extremists and fundamentalists within Saudi Arabia, they usually have local designs in mind since they only oppose the Westernisation within their own society and do not care to change the whole world accordingly. The reality that 15 out of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals was defended by Prince Saud by declaring it to be a tactic of Osama bin Laden to disillusion the Americans. “In response to the allegation that Saudi Arabia is funding terrorist organizations, Prince Faisal sites the report by the Financial Action Task Force, an intergovernmental body, which has concluded that Saudi Arabia has in place world-class laws and regulations to curb terrorist financing. In addition, Saudi officials have shut down the al- Haramain Islamic Foundation, the charity responsible for disbursing $40-50 million annually with ties to Al-Qaeda. King Abdullah has urged Saudi citizens to restrict charitable giving to their own communities and the Saudi government has implemented a series of laws making it more difficult for their citizens to move money internationally” (Bronson, 2005). As a reaction to the terrorist acts of 9/11 the Bush administration tried to decrease its dependence on the Arab nations, which is also the wish of the American people. In his 2006 Union Address Bush stated that his objective as far as the Middle Eastern region was concerned, was to “replace more than seventy-five percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.” Conversely in the years that followed the 9/11 attacks, it has been seen that let alone reduce its dependence, America as actually become increasingly dependent on the Middle Eastern oil resources in particular that of Saudi Arabia. “Based on statistics from the 2001 Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group, it is believed that the United States’ reliance on Persian Gulf oil is likely to increase by 2025, not decrease, and especially not decrease by seventy-five percent. The report states, “By 2020, Gulf oil producers are projected to supply between 54 and 67 percent of the world’s oil” (Lundquist, 2001). “As of 2003, the Gulf oil producers supplied about thirty percent of the world’s oil” (BP, 2004). Conclusion “The devastating terrorist attacks on the United States by a group of 19 Arabs loyal to Osama bin Laden, including 15 Saudis, rearranged regional politics and dealt a stunning blow to U.S.-Saudi relations. The immediate reaction of large segments of the Saudi and other Arab publics included spontaneous celebrations” (Brown, 2001). “Suddenly on the defensive, the Saudis acted swiftly to stabilize oil prices, and then severed relations with the Taliban as the United States prepared to carry its war onto Afghan soil” (Ottaway and Kaiser, 2002). With regard to the United Sates, after 9/11, the resultant attention which the media bestowed on the Saudi-US relations definitely meant that a modification in the standing relationship of some kind was now necessary. The Commission for 9/11 declared in its report that: “The problems in the U.S.-Saudi relationship must be confronted, openly. The United States and Saudi Arabia must determine if they can build a relationship that political leaders on both sides are prepared to publicly defend — a relationship about more than oil. It should include a shared commitment to political and economic reform, as Saudis make common cause with the outside world. It should include a shared interest in greater tolerance and cultural respect, translating into a commitment to fight the violent extremists who foment hatred.” (Kean, 2004) Despite the fact that the American people would like to see their country move away from the relationship with Saudi Arabia it is an established fact that the Saudi presence as an American ally in the Middle Eastern region is crucial for the security interests of the USA especially after the 9/11. As far as the matter of decreasing the oil dependency on Saudi Arabia is concerned, it cannot be said that America will be in any position to make such a move anywhere in the near future. Also the need to keep the Chinese at bay from the oil resources of Saudi Arabia, which are in abundance, does not allow USA the liberty to disengage from the Saudi oil supply line. “The security of Saudi Arabia and stability in the Middle East will continue to be a major focus of the Saudi-United States foreign policy. The United States will want to continue to protect Saudi Arabia in order to safeguard their domestic oil interests and in order to help keep the world oil market stable. In addition, the United States will want to continue to have the option of use of the Saudi military facilities and air space, should the need arise. Although the Saudis publicly opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom, they still allowed the United States-led forces to conduct refueling, reconnaissance, surveillance, and transport missions from Saudi military bases. They also allowed landing and over flight clearance and the use of the Combat Air Operations Centre to coordinate military operations” (Kelly Grijalva). “The United States will also want to continue to ensure the stability of the Saudi regime as they have in recent years been a moderate in the Arab/Israeli conflict and have supported United States policy for endorsing Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements” (Prados, 2006). Possibilities of the straining of the US-Saudi ties to the point of 1973-74 oil embargo cannot entirely be disregarded. “Still, neither side seems able to locate a meaningful alternative to the other. The present crisis may well worsen, perhaps even to the dimensions of 1973-1974, or even beyond, given the absence of the Cold War framework. But the bonds of over half a century were never those of fondness or common outlook. Over the long term, the destiny of the relationship appears to be guided, as ever, by the relentless logic of energy and security in the hydrocarbon age.”(Pollack, 2002) References Saudi Arabia and the United States: birth of a security partnership By Parker T. Hart. Abrams, Elliott, The influence of faith: Religious groups and US foreign policy, New York, 2001. Robert G. Kaiser and David Ottaway (February 11, 2002) Oil for Security Fueled Close Ties but Major Differences Led to Tensions. Pollack, Josh (September 2002) Saudi Arabia and the United States, 1931–2001. Alfred B. Prados, Saudi: Current Issues and US Relations Kelly Grijalva, The Saudi-United States Relationship Post 9/11: New Public Viewpoint, Same Foreign Policies Kean, Thomas H. (chair). The 9/11 Commission Report. 2004. Metz, Helen Chapin (ed). Saudi Arabia: A Country Study. Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, 1992 Alexei Vassiliev, The History of Saudi Arabia (New York: New. York University Press, 2000) Lundquist, Andrew D. (executive director). Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America’s Future. Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group, May 2001 George Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World Transformed (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998) Elaine Sciolino, "Out Front: A Desert Kingdom Takes the Spotlight," New York Times, March 3, 2002 Hanson, Victor Davis. Our enemies, the Saudis. United States relations with Saudi Arabia. American Jewish Committee, July 2002 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2004 Bronson, Rachel. Rethinking Religion: The Legacy of the U.S.-Saudi Relationship. The Washington Quarterly 28, pp 121-137, 2005 Cameron S. Brown, "The Shot Seen Around the World: The Middle East Reacts to September 11th," MERIA Journal, December 2001, Vol. 5, No. 4. Read More