Resistance in Saudi Arabia triggers deep concern ! ! i 4 THE MILWAUKEE JOURNAL 12-18-79 Dist. Field Newspaper Syndicate.1980 One year after the fall of the Shah of Iran, there is intense, if stifled, alarm in Western capitals about an even more impor- tant pro-Western Middle Eastern monarchy, Saudi Arabia. With oil output of 9.5 million barrels a day, and oil reserves estimated at a quarter of all those in the rest of the world, Saudi Arabia holds the key to the West's energy survival in the 1980s. BUT FOLLOWING a decade of political calm inside the country, puntucated only by the assassination of King Faisal in March, 1975, popular resistance to the Saudi regime has reemerged. Two incidents have signalled the new crisis inside Saudi Arabia. The first came on Nov. 20 when 250 to 500 armed men seized the Grand Mosque in the holy city of Mecca and held it for two weeks. The second came on Dec. 5, with riots on the other side of the country, in the eastern province of Seihat and Qatif, in which at least five people were killed. Both incidents are extremely important, though for rather different reasons. The Mec- ca incident was a demonstrative symbolic blow timed to coincide with the first day of the new Moslem Century, the 15th, and it highlighted the weakness of the Saudi security forces. The organizers knew that none of the U.S. advisors now in Saudi Arabia could hope to control them because no non- Muslims are allowed into Mecca. IT IS NOT KNOWN exactly who organized the seizure but it is evident that' the rebels were well prepared and came from the heart of Saudi society. Many of the fighters were from the Oteiba tribe, a traditional recruiting ground for the Saudi National Guard and most of the U.S.-made weapons used were stolen from National Guard armories. The men who took the mosque were able in a matter of minutes to close and guard all 48 gates of the compound, to bring in enough ammunition and food to hold out for a for- tnight, and to construct an elaborate system of booby traps that hindered government recapture of the building. These were no crazed fanatics, and their success in taking the mosque and the length of time it took to remove them seriously damaged the regime's image of self-confident internal stability. The Eastern riots were important because they took place in the major oil producing area of the country, where 100,000 resident Shi'ia Moslems have strong sympathy for Khomeini and the Iranian Revolution. The demonstrations coincided with the days of religious Shi'ia mourning, and the taking of U.S. hostages in Teheran. Two of the people killed were reported > be employees of the U.S. Aramco consortium. By Fred Halliday IN 1970, THE TOWN of Al Qatif was sealed off for over a month by government troops af- ter opposition to the Saudi regime broke out there. Two years ago, around 50 people were arrested for opposition activity in the eastern province. They are believed to have met their deaths by being thrown from helicopters over Saudi Arabia's barren, empty quarter. Future resistance in the East could seriously interrupt the flow of Saudi oil exports. Tight censorship makes it extremely dif- ficult to establish the scale of the organized opposition inside Saudi Arabia. There is a pro- Moscow Communist Party, established in 1976, but with no visible following inside the country. More substantial is the Arabian Peninsula's People's Union, set up by Nasser in the early 1960s, which carried out sporadic guerrilla war attacking U.S.-owned and Saudi government buildings before Egypt patched up its difficulties with the Saudis in 1967. The AAPU, now based in Beirut, later received sOme Libyan support and has claimed responsibility for the Mecca seizure. A radical breakaway from the APPU, the Popular Democratic Union, is believed to have links with left-wing sections of the Palestinian guerrillas. There is also substan- tial sympathy for the Iraqui Baath party in the western part of Saudi Arabia south of Mecca., However, given the close links that now exist between Iraq and Saudi Arabia-they recently signed a treaty on in- ternal security cooperation-it is unlikely that the Baathists played a role in the Mecca seizure. SAUDI ARABIA IS a very different country from Iran and, in particular, lacks the big ur- ban concentrations of recently migrated peasants who gave Khomeini his victory. There are about four million native Saudis, but half of the people are either too old or too young to be in the labor force; half are women excluded from public life, and approximately: only one in eight can read and write Arabic. As a result, the Saudi regime imports about one million immigrant workers who make up about half the labor force. But foreigners are forbidden from owning small businesses, and contract laborers can be controlled and ex- pelled in a way the Iranian poor of Teheran cannot. Saudi Arabia also differs from Iran in that its Sunni brand of Islam does not allow religious leaders to play the kind of political role which the mullahs in Iran have adopted. BUT THERE IS a similarity in the way in which a development program based on has produced new social groups and has generated social tensions that undermine the legitimacy and power of the ruling family. Radical theology students resent the regime's pro-Western orientation. As in Iran, a newly educated middle class, much of it trained abroad, has been created. Discontent among these people at the corruption and stifling political atmosphere is known to have grown. The largest center of educated personnel ' in the armed forces and especially in the m educated section of all, the air force. Air For- ce officers attempted a coup in 1969 and un- conformed reports indicate that there was another attempt this summer by the air for- ce's northern regional command operating ,out of the Sharja base 17 miles north of Riyadh, the Saudi capital. There is also believed to be discussion within the ruling family over the political direction of the whole regime. Saudi oil production generates about $1 billion a we but the society can only absorb about half t amount even at a headlong pace of growth that risks major social dislocations. In order to keep internal threats at a minimum, the Saudis divide their troops bet- ween the regular army and the tribally-based National Guard. They have brought in several thousand U.S. personnel to build up their militaryoperations. But the level of technical expertise in these forces is very low. AWOL rates are very high (only 17 of the 40 National Guard units are functional) and the introd . tion of large numbers of U.S. personnel stocked nationalist resentment. The Saudi authorities have reacted with suppressed panic to these recent events. For reasons that are not absolutely clear, Saudi foreign currency reserves have fallen from $31 billion to $17 billion in a matter of weeks. And there has been a rush to buy gold that has helped to weaken the U.S. dollar. The number of students allowed to travel abroad has been cut, and plans for a big new university at Riyadh have been shelved. The 1980" development plan is also being cut back, a some show will be made by the Saudi regime to fight corruption. But these are all palliatives, unlikely to quell the unrest that is smoldering inside the kingdom. The educated commoners resent the dictatorship of the Saudi family; the radical Muslims resent the close alliance with the U.S. Recent events have shown not only the unrest lying beneath the surface of Saudi affairs, but also how weak and vulnerable the Saudi regime-America's closest ally in t Middle East--really is. Fred Halliday wrote this piece for the Pacific News Service. lbr Atdtgan4, 1ailg Ninety Years of Editorial Freedom 4 Vol. XC, No. 84 News Phone: 764-0552 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan I The Rose Garden strategy PRESIDENT CARTER's shrewd maneuver to skip out of his sched- uled debate in Iowa with his Democratic rivals provoked bitter responses from the camps of Sen. Ed- ward Kennedy and Gov. Jerry Brown. Both of the president's opponents ac- cused him of exploiting the Iranian and Afghanistan crises so he could evade the anticipated sharp back-stabbing that occupies the agenda of most presidential debates. In effect, the president's withdrawal was both a political and presidential move, highly understandable under the current atmosphere of urgency in Washington. The two foreign crises require Carter's constant attention, and a domestic, olitical debate in faraway Iowa could divert too much time from that more crucial item on the president's agenda. In addition, any sign of disunity regarding the president's handling of Iran and Afghanistan could thrust open the door to either further intervention by the Soviets, or even harder line stances by the Khomeini regime. Many of the government's initiatives in the 70-day-old crisis have failed, but the efforts have not been given up. To risk their future success by opening the issue in the political forum would be most unfortunate at this delicate time. As president, Carter has placed the nation's interests above the political opportunities in Iowa. He has aban- doned campaigning-at least in this first test-to spend most of his time in the White House trying to bring home the 50 hostages and responding to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. As candidate for another term, there's no doubt the president sees the advantages in avoiding a direct con- frontation with his challengers. A for- midable performance by either Ken- nedy or Brown could place Carter's fortunes innext week's Iowa caucuses in deep trouble. By staying away and acting presidential, he risks very little and even gains prestige, and points in the polls by showing voters his fir- mness toward the Russians and the fanatics in Iran. This is ca~led the "Rose Garden Strategy." The president stays home while everybody else is out cam- paigning. For the time being, Carter cannot be criticized for exploiting it. But he must remember that he is also a candidate for the presidency, and should therefore be subjected to criticism and scrutinized the same way as.his opponents. That is, after all, the basis of our electoral process. By agreeing to an interview with a television network the day before the Jan. 21 caucuses, the president seems determined to still do a bit of cam- paigning. Let's hope he comes out to the public and stands prepared to defend his record of the past three years. Plant closings: How can 3 the community survive?' "Out of your sweat, out of your muscle," boomed United Steelworkers representative Marvin Weinstock in Youngstown, Ohio last week, "they tool millions and millions, hundreds of millions and put it in hotels, Disney World, everywhere except in Youngstown." They did. U.S. Steel's chairman of the board David Roderick an- nounced this September that he would shut down "unprofitable facilities," and put funding for expansion and acquisitions into non-steel enterprises. Steelmaking accounts for'73 per centof the company's sales, but only 14 per cent of its operating profit. THIS MONTH, U. S. Steel per- manently shut down 16 plants from Ambridge Pa., to Pit- tsburgh, California, laying off 13,000 workers or 8 per cent of its work force. It was the largest mass firing in the steel industry since the Depression. In devastated Youngstown, the company terminated 3,500 workers, while Jones and Laughlin Steel added 1,400 more with its own mill closure. These came on top of 5,000 layoffs in 1977 when Youngstown Sheet and Tube closed the Campbell works. The accelerating pace of cut- backs in the steel and auto in- dustries in recent weeks has at least put the question before a national, rather than merely local, audience: should the U.S. let companies move at will, or should it try to keep them in communities dependent on in- dustrial employment for their very existence? FINDING ANSWERS to this question is no academic exercise. Youngstown has gone from a national capital of steel produc- tion to a city with no basic steel mill in just three years. And as countries like Mexico, Brazil and By Thomas Brom CONGRESS IS NOW gearing up for impassioned debate on "saving the communities" at the taxpayers expense. But virtually all-of the current bills or union recommendations focus on cushioning the blow of the cor- porate axe-not intervening at the point where decisions are made. Most runaway shop proposals now before Congress focus on bail-out, buy-out, or phase-out of the company-a set of alter- natives that leaves the basic con- trol of how and where a company spends its money with the cor- porate board of directors. As a group, the proposals do more to obscure than clarify the larger economic forces at play and the long-term issue of who should make critical investment decisions. The bailout solution is in- variably the first response of local elected officials. Rep. Charles Vanik of Ohio supports creation of a federal loan and guaranty program, similar to the Depression-era Reconstruction Finance 'Corporation. Other Congressmen back tax incentives for business, accelerated depreciation for new spending on plant and equipment in the U.S., or delays on installation of health and safety equipment. A SECOND RESPONSE to plant closing, buy-out, has come spontaneously from the rank- and-file workers who anticipate the effects of massive job losses in their communities. The Ecumenical Coalition in Youngstown is the best example, a union of church, labor and neighborhood groups formed in 1977 that believed it could re-open the Youngstown Sheet and Tube after it was sold and closed. exist in the U.S., but often at the expense of workers who are desperate to keep their jobs. Republic Hose Manufacturing in Youngstown, for instance, stayed open under worker control last year-but at the cost of lower wages, substitution of profit- sharing for a pension plan, no vacations for the first year of operation, apd cuts in paid holidays and unemployment benefits. The third common response to plant closings, phase-out, is an attempt by workers to soften the blow by demanding advance notice, phased lay-offs, severan- ce pay, and job retraining: The strategy is designed to work in tandem with a global trade union organizing drive that would hopefully equalize production and living standards worldwide and make corporate runaways to the Third World less attractive. The Steelworkers Union is now backing the National Em- ployment Priorities Act, first in- troduced by Congressman William Ford of Michigan in 1974. The bill includes provisions for notice, severance pay for both workers and the community, and formation of an agency within the Labor Department that would determine the "ecomonic justification" of disputed closings. Similar bills are now being considered in Michigan, Ohio, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, and Pennsylvania. IT'S THE beginning of a rational approach to the restruc- turing of industry in America," said John Sheehan, chief lobbyist of the steelworkers. But business associations from Connecticut to Ohio condemn such "industrial hostage laws" and none of them is likely to pass soon. THE ROUNDTABLE issued a policy statement last month op- posing the Carter Ad- ministration's $1.5 billion loan guarantee package for Chrysler-so angering the auto maker that it quit the association. Those who oppose the free flow. of capital argument usually e brace some form of "capital allocation". It means that gover- nment will direct, or "suggest" with sanctions, that certain en- terprises invest in a manner that serves the national interest. The strategy may also include nationalization of some in- dustries, such as oil, coal and steel, if private enterprise finds more attractive investment elsewhere. Proponents of this strategy i the U.S. range from unionists like Machinist union president ° William Winpisinger, to Califor- nia Governor Jerry Brown, and Lazard Freres investment banker Felix Rohatyn who talk of the "reindustrialization of America." BROWN AND ROHATYN propose substituting massive public investment programs for personal tax cuts to stimulate the sagging U.S. economy. These two broader strategies-free flow of capital vs. reindustrialization-have profound implications for the structure of the U.S. economy in the decades ahead. The first im- plies a truly global economy, with the U.S. assuming a post- industrial role as banker, ado ministrator, trader and owner. The second is much more nationalist in character, preser- ving basic industries for reasons of national pride as well as national security. While private capital retains most of its prerogatives in either case, the short-term choices the strategies represent are real and distinguishahle. America in the f