Saudi Initiative

This has reference to David Dumke’s article “Why Recent Saudi Diplomatic Moves Are Important” (March 13). The difficulty that the US Congress and media have in understanding the direction of Saudi Arabian foreign policy is due to the arrogance and ignorance for which so many of these people are famed.

American leadership wants to believe that the US has the power and influence to create civil wars all over the Middle East and that the “moderate” states will just lie down and comply and will kill each other to order. Of course, there is concern at the meeting between King Abdullah and President Ahmadinejad and almost a refusal to believe the meeting went well. How could it? That is not what Bush and Rice and the Neocons wanted to see happen. Why aren’t the “moderate” states complying with their scripts?

Americans seldom see life outside US as composed of real people with vital humanity; they are all pawns in a computer game. As the whole of the Middle East continues the rejection of Zionist defiance of international law over refugees, settlements and occupation, Americans are confused.

Surely Arabs and Muslims don’t think the law applies to US and Israel?

Christopher Leadbeater, Ashford, Kent, UK published 18 March 2007

Saudi Initiative [2]

Raid Qusti’s report “Kingdom to Join ME Talks” (March 14) opened thus: “The next meeting of the international Quartet focusing on the Middle East peace process will include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, according to Javier Solana, European Union foreign policy chief.”

That represents a sea change. Finally, Western countries are coming to their senses and including Arab countries in the conferences convened to discuss Middle Eastern issues. From the fall of the Ottoman Empire, it seems that the fate of the Middle East has been decided in European chancelleries. Working on that conviction, the Quartet wasted valuable time discussing Arab issues without any Arab country included in the talks. But the blame is not theirs alone. Arab countries never put their feet down to insist that they should be included in decisions dealing with important issues of the Mideast. It is as if they did not care about their Arab neighbors’ welfare. If things are happening as you reporter says, it is a welcome change.

Noroudeen Jiwanjee, Canada published 18 March 2007

Changing Jobs

The huge development projects announced by Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah — megaeconomic cities, universities, airports and other mind-boggling construction projects — will create hundreds of thousands of job opportunities for both Saudis and expatriates and attract billions of riyals in investments. According to media reports, more than 1.2 million visas will have to be issued to recruit the foreign workers needed to implement these mega-projects. There were reports in the media, including Arab News, of amendments made to the labor law making it easy for expatriates to change jobs. Such changes were felt to be necessary in order to make it easier for employers to recruit people with the needed talents without losing time.

However, nothing has changed. It is still impossible to get a transfer from your present sponsor unless he agrees to release you. And no sponsor will ever release a good man. I see a lot of job advertisements in Arab News that stipulate, “Transferable Iqama a Must.” I can’t find a new job because new visas are not being issued. I can’t get release from my sponsor either. So, I am back to square one. What then was the point of the claim that changing jobs had been made easier?

M. Jalaluddin, Jeddah published 18 March 2007

Musharraf

I am sorry to see President Musharraf committing the unpardonable crime of kicking the judiciary around. Anyone who treats a constitutional institution in such cavalier manner is not serving the interests of the nation.

But that in no way means any sort of support for the opposition. Musharraf is bad for the nation. But when I compare him with the alternatives — Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto and, worst of all, members of the religious groups like Qazi Hussein Ahmad, Fazlur Rahman and the rest — I am for Musharraf today, tomorrow and all the days to come.

Fakhr, Jeddah published 18 March 2007

Lured Back Home

If what Mehraban said about saluting India in his (or her?) letter “India Blooming?” (March 11) was true, it is time he got around to saluting it. After blasting Tariq Al-Maeena for “saluting” India in an article, Mehraban said, “I will salute it when one — just one — Indian goes back home because of his country’s booming economy.”

Fair enough. This letter is from that “one” Indian. I have come back from the Middle East, leaving a well-paid job because of the booming economy, to take up another well-paying and comfortable job in India. I am not the only one; many others have. But since Mehraban demanded only one, I am presenting myself as the reason for him to start saluting India. If he needs my address and other details, I can give him that and also the names and addresses of many others who have done the same.

I was surprised, and happy, when a top executive of one Middle East company told me about the difficulty he is facing in recruiting professionals from India. None was inclined to work abroad due to the improved salaries and the non-abusive working conditions and other freedoms over here. With a three-bedroom flat in a good locality priced minimum at one million UAE dirhams, this is enough to give Dubai a run for its money. India has done it without oil.

Of course, Indians are still going to the Gulf — semiskilled or unskilled people like masons, carpenters, painters and so on.

Ghiyas Sharieff, Bangalore, India published 18 March 2007

Silence Over Bofors

The revelation a few days ago by George Fernandes, once a socialist firebrand in India and, later defense minister in the BJP-led government, that the prime minister in that government, Atal Behari Vajpayee, asked him not to touch the Bofors file tells us much about the brotherhood of the corrupt in Indian politics. Fernandes himself, accused of massive corruption while defense minister, is no model who can claim the moral right to stone others for corruption. However, that does not make the points he raised any less relevant.

In the rat race called politics, leaders of all parties accept corruption as part of the game and protect one another when they face real trouble. Atal Behari Vajpayee is in no way different. He too has friends all across the Indian political spectrum and does not want his friends hurt. That possibly had nothing to do with favoring Sonia Gandhi.

In an article published in Outlook, Rajinder Puri has pointed out that three of our most prominent “moralists” of their day — former Prime Minister V.P. Singh who spearheaded the Bofors campaign, eminent lawyer Ram Jethmalani who hauled Rajiv Gandhi over the coals with his “ten questions a day” in the Indian Express, and the Marxists — have declared publicly that they would not to rake up Bofors. Puri calls it rank opportunism. The right word is corruption.

Khan Musa, Jeddah published 18 March 2007

Silence Over Bofors [2]

The latest claim from George Fernandes on Bofors and his statement a day earlier that Atal Behari Vajpayee had asked him not to look into the scandal is that he was “misquoted’ (March 12). This proves a rule about politicians: There is a limit for everything — but there is no limit for liars in politics. They lie every time they open their mouths. How can we believe these thugs?

Pasha, Riyadh published 18 March 2007