The new Saudi anti-terrorism law is anti-dissent, anti-civil
rights draconian law?

Let’s begin with the latter. The King’s designation of a
third-in-line underscores the nervousness the ruling family is experiencing. For the first time, the ruling
family is divided and some fear that they could lose power, which they
exclusively enjoyed for nearly 80 years. The ruling family feel threatened from
within and from without the Kingdom. From within, the aging monarch (the third
in line will be 70 in weeks, the second in line is 79 and the sitting king is
90 years old) is threatened by young Saudis who want to move towards a
constitutional monarchy. The conservative Islamists want to replace the clan
rule with an Islamic theocracy. From without, they are threatened by Iran and
Sunni Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood. The new anti-terrorism law is expected to address both sets of problems. They will be telling President Obama
that extremism, the crisis in Syria, and Iran's nuclear program are existential
threats and the new law and the designation of a successor to the successor are
meant to deal with these challenges.
Since the 1979 revolution in Iran, the rulers of Saudi
Arabia have come to see Iran through sectarian and security lenses.
Consequently, the Saudi rulers are threatened by Iran’s real or perceived ties to
Shiites in Bahrain, Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; and
by Iran’s influence over Sunni Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood,
HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, and similar groups. The new Saudi anti-terror law is,
therefore, aimed at addressing these fears and preserving the privileged
position of the ruling family while taking the global anti-terror sentiment as
a cover. The explicit language and implicit
implications
of the law clearly expose the real intent.
On March 9, and responding to a directive from King Abdullah,
the Saudi Interior Ministry announced the terms of the new law. Most Western
analysts and commentators focused on the unprecedented step of placing the
Muslim Brotherhood on the list of terrorist organizations. They ignored the
more important aspects of the new law: a dangerous minefield aimed at protesters,
civil rights activists, minorities, and human rights advocates.
The problem with the law is that it is flawed in every
aspect. The law is conceptually flawed as it prosecutes offenders for acts
committed even before the enactment of the law. The law is draconian because it
equates between an academician attending a colloquium where criticism of the
Saudi government might be voiced and a terrorist who kills civilians on
sectarian, religious, or ideological grounds. It is punitive because it
practically criminalizes any act or statement of dissent. In short, this is not
an anti-terror law; it is a law of terror: it terrorizes students, academicians,
activists, human rights advocates, minorities, dissenting voices, and anyone
who dares to challenge the established order.
Those who think otherwise must look at the first targets
(victims) of this law. During the week immediately after the law went into
effect, the court sentenced two activists who (re)tweeted messages supporting
peaceful demonstrations to 8 and 10 year prison terms each. As of this writing,
none of the Saudi extremist fighters who actually participated in the wars in
Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan appeared before a court and prosecuted under this
law. Returning fighters are likely to be sent to the so-called “rehabilitation
programs” instead.
Protesters, civil rights activists, students, and civil
society institutions will receive no reprieve. Predictably, Aljazeera satellite
television and other channels that do not report within government guidelines
(reflecting the foreign policy of Saudi Arabia) or that challenge the Saudi
rulers’ authority and power will be barred. Foreigners suspected of
sympathizing with the Muslim Brotherhood will be expelled. Discrimination
against minorities will increase and become systemic. The law will also be
applied to shut down centers of research like the Brookings Center and Arab
Center for Research and Politics Studies (both in Qatar) or to prosecute anyone
who attends events held by these or similar entities.
This law will not bring stability to the Kingdom and it will
not promote peace in the region because it does not address the root problem:
Saudi tolerance of and reliance on sectarian extremism. The Saudi rulers and
some of their Western allies used a brand of Islam to recruit, train, and send
warriors to fight an “ungodly” government and its backers in Afghanistan. They
have applied the same prescription in Syria, which is geographically closer to
the Kingdom than Afghanistan. Using religious extremism as a political and
military tool legitimized a deadly brand of religious discourse that is now
threatening it from within. A cosmetic law that ignores the culpability and
complicity of some of the Kingdom’s rulers in creating and sustaining extremism
only manages the symptoms; it does not cure it.
____________
* Prof. SOUAIAIA teaches at the University of Iowa. His
most recent book, Anatomy of Dissent in Islamic Societies, provides a historical and theoretical
treatment of rebellious movements and ideas since the rise of Islam. Opinions
are the author’s, speaking on matters of public interest; not speaking for the
university or any other organization with which he is affiliated.
No comments:
Write commentsShare your thoughts...