Lunch with a Prince

I attended a Town Hall luncheon yesterday in LA with His Royal Highness Prince Turki Al-Faisal, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States. It was an interesting experience that provided a couple of reasons to be hopeful, and a couple of reasons to remain deeply concerned about the extent to which there will ever be peace in the Middle East.

The prince was impressive. He delivered some opening comments that were positive and forward looking, then he fielded questions from those in attendance and answered them in a forthright manner, never sidestepping the difficult ones.

The hope came from his discussion about the extent to which the Saudis are focusing their attention and resources on the education of their people with an obvious emphasis on their children. He went out of his way to make it clear these educational opportunities were being extended equally to young women as well as young men. There is always some measure of hope in education because it brings some added light and awareness to topics that can otherwise remain deeply buried in ignorance and unenlightened tradition. An additional ray of hope came from his comments about the extent to which the Saudis are involved in counterterrorism efforts, both in their Kingdom and on the international stage. It’s easy to get hoodwinked with propaganda on a subject like this, and I know there are sharp criticisms of the extent to which the Saudi government is actually doing anything to meaningfully combat this scourge in the Muslim world, but there were enough specifics in the ambassador’s comments to allow for hope.

The causes for concern arose in the consistently intransigent areas of women’s rights, religious freedom and, most importantly, the Arab relationship with Israel. On women’s rights he began with a quip about how long it took for women to get the right to vote in America, ignoring the fact that it occurred more than 85 years ago. He then glibly predicted that Saudi women would certainly “take” the right to vote in the future. It was unconvincing. He didn’t address the fact that Saudi women don’t have the right to drive a car, which might be a precursor to getting to the polls on some distant day. Given the level of patriarchy in Saudi culture, not to mention the omnipresence of Islamic law, it’s hard to envision the Saudi equivalent of Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the National Woman Suffrage Association operating in Riyadh.

As for religious freedom in the Kingdom – no chance. The prince offered the explanation that Saudi Arabia is the home to the most sacred of Islamic sites and that the Saudis hold these sites in trust for Muslims throughout the world. From this he drew the conclusion that Muslims everywhere had to be involved in how the subject of religious freedom is handled in the Kingdom. He likened the building of Christian churches or Jewish synagogues in his land to the building of a mosque in the Vatican. That analogy ignored the thrust of the question. No one would propose building a synagogue next to the Masjid al Haram or anywhere else in the city of Mecca for that matter. But, the ambassador did not address the fact that there are mosques in Italy, without regard to Vatican City being the holy center of Catholicism.

When the discussion turned to Israel, the ambassador’s tone changed. He took on an almost cold, matter-of-fact demeanor and his comments became pointed and cutting. He began with a declaration that Israel’s occupation of Palestine is illegal, which drew boos and catcalls from a number of Jews present, which in turn caused the Muslims present to begin applauding. The enmity between these groups became immediately palpable and a tension settled over the room in a matter of seconds. A number of people walked out in protest. This Saudi diplomat made no attempt to be even slightly diplomatic on this subject – he basically said the Saudis had made multiple attempts to resolve the problems attendant to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict but that Israel had done nothing in return. That was it – we’re good; they’re bad. We’re right; they’re wrong. We’re trying; they’re not. If the Saudi ambassador to the United States cannot be more diplomatic when addressing the subject of Israel before a diverse audience in the U.S., then I’m left wondering how much hope there is for any diplomatic resolution.

The ambassador also addressed Iraq. Referring to the war on Iraq, he covered both sides. He said that the world, the Middle East and Iraq were better off with the removal of Saddam Hussein, and indicated that all the countries around Iraq recognize this. But, he said resolving threats of this nature must be handled globally as opposed to “one-on-one” or “two-on-one” attempts to impose a resolution. The Americans and Brits in attendance got the message.

In an aside to the CEO of my company, who sat next to the ambassador during lunch, he said the Middle East regarded the new Iraqi government as legitimate and that this government had stepped to the edge of the civil war abyss, looked into that gaping hole, and decided that they must do everything possible to avoid it. The ambassador did not mention the fact that the newly elected Iraqi parliament has met only once since its election several months ago and that this single meeting adjourned indefinitely after only 30 minutes. A legitimate government and a functioning government are not one and the same.

On balance, I came away troubled. The concerns outweighed the hope. The depth and expanse of the problems in the Middle East are daunting and they call for greater wisdom, humility, honesty, and compromise than I saw exhibited yesterday.