Saudi Prince Waleed wont invest in Iraq

[Tyreds Tale]

SPIEGEL:Have you recently considered investing in Iraq?
Prince Waleed: No. Iraq is too unstable and unpredictable. You cannot invest in a country threatened by civil war, where bombs are exploding every day. I can save ailing companies, but not an ailing nation. Iraq is consumed by a conflict involving the United States, al-Qaida, the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shiites. All of this goes well beyond my control. Iraq is a quagmire.

SPIEGEL: Do you think the elections will improve the situation?
Prince Waleed: I hope so. But I don't see an end in sight. Iraq has been a hotbed of unrest for 1,500 years. America has chosen the most difficult of all Arab countries and has opened a Pandora's Box.

SPIEGEL: How can Saudi Arabia contribute to stability in Iraq?
Prince Waleed: We share an almost 800-kilometer (500 miles) common border and have a very strong interest in a stable Iraq. This is one of the reasons why we expressly advised Washington against disbanding Saddam's army. Perhaps we will see things more clearly in 20 or 30 years, but it's already obvious today that disbanding the Iraqi military was a big mistake and played a large part in the country's destabilization. And it's not just the Iraqi population that suffers from the situation there; it also affects Iraq's neighbors, including Saudi Arabia. I am not optimistic.

http://www.kuwaittimes.net/today/analysis_s4.php

Prince Waleed was wrong about the success of the elections (interview was late last year I think), so lets hope he's wrong about stability in Iraq also. I think he just wont admit that things are better without Saddam in power because he refused to help remove Saddam (both in '91 and '03)! Afterall, Saddam's Army helped keep things "stable" by "removing" any uprisings, and the Saudis benefited from that. tsk tsk more mass graves are found!

[ramis]

Well, his analysis is from the viewpoint of an insider (Being an Arab and a successful businessman). The US has so far handled the Iraq issue like a group of children. Look at the the architect of this war, Paul Wolfowitz, read what prudent and unbiased people said about him and the other members of Bush's team, including of course GWB himself.

I sincerely hope the situation in Iraq will improve, but the biggest problem is that people from outside are using Iraq as a battlefield against the US, of course, they cannot defeat the US from a clear front, so, Iraq venture has provided them an excellent opportunity to fight a mammoth force. The US forces are confused, they don't know who is their enemy.

The leaders of Iraq seem to be good and competent people, whereas the insurgents are creating problems for them, so as to force the US to withdraw, that would be even more disastrous. Iraq is a quagmire, that is a true statement.

But unlike Waleed, I am optimistic, thats why I bought dinar, not now, 4 years before the invasion.

[Lux]

I can understand Waleed's concerns because he has a war going on next door. If we had a war going on in Canada, Bill Gates would be concerned too.

On the other hand, the extraction of Saddam will create more stability in the long term and great business opportunites for people like Waleed.

In ten years, I'm sure he would like to be dead wrong and a few billion richer.



But unlike Waleed, I am optimistic, thats why I bought dinar, not now, 4 years before the invasion.
How did you exchange them?

[ramis]

The money changer did it for us (A group of buyers), the Iraqi government gave a pretty extended period for the exchange of old currency. Even if that happens again, it would be easy wherever the money exchange firms are selling NID.

[Lux]

That's great. Looks like you got all bases covered.

[Tyreds Tale]

...The visit of the vice-King of Saudi Arabia to the USA and the warm welcome of President Bush is contradicting GWB call for democracy, anti-terrorist war and calls for changes in the region. Saudi Arabia has not done enough against the terrorism and instead of preventing financial and logistic support of terrorism in Iraq it expressed concerns about democratic state in Iraq. They, instead of giving their Shiites citizen what they deserve of equal treatment, are complaining about free and democratic Iraq. It is the same call which kept Saddam in power after the war of Kuwait in 1991.

posted by hammorabi @ 4/27/2005 01:37:00 PM

http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/

Nicely said Hammorabi! Looking to the future, what will Suadi Arabia look like in 10 years? more or less attractive than Iraq? Democracy, equality, and anti-terrorism measures will determine a lot!

[dougmyers]

I would have to say Its all about money! Who stands to gain and lose the most money? Saudi Arabia will not hold the upper hand on oil if Iraq becomes stabile! That will hurt Saudi Arabia profits from the sales of their oil!
So why would Saudi Arabia want to help Iraq? They stand to gain nothing from it! And may lose a very lot of money from it!
They also maynot want Iran to think they are making a power land play right next to them. That could cause Iran to try and Invade Iraq for the land.
If they stay out of it Iran will stay out of it, and we will all be better off! If anything all surrounding Countrys should just close their borders for all traffic In and out of Iraq!

[Geoff]

It's about leverage. For the past 30 years or so, the U.S. has looked the other way while the Saudi royal family has invested oil $$ in many parts of the world (including the U.S.) to promote Wahabism. Wahabi has been the ideology of the Saudi Kingdom since the 1700's. It is radical, fundamental Islam. It views any other religion as heretical. It is from these roots that radical Islamic terrorism grows. The spread of Wahabism has been financed by petro-dollars, under the nose of the U.S. While it is certainly reasonable to be concerned about terrorists getting into this country post 911, it is important to understand that the Saudis have invested heavily in the U.S., building schools, masques and other centers of education and worship here for many years.
Disengaging from Saudi oil is a way to gain leverage over the Saudi government, and hopefully put an end to the fundamentalist propoganda/terrorism that they export. There are other ways, too. The bottom line: To end Muslim terrorism, the west must influence Saudi policy. The ability to do this has been marginalized by the west's dependence on Saudi oil. It is no wonder that the Saudis are not supportive of what is going on in Iraq. They know exactly why the U.S went there.

[ramis]

"They know exactly why the U.S went there."

Q. Why did the U.S. go there?

[Geoff]

Q. Why did the U.S. go there?

"Disengaging from Saudi oil is a way to gain leverage over the Saudi government..."

[Tyreds Tale]

"They know exactly why the U.S went there."

Q. Why did the U.S. go there?

Great discussion here about Saudi leverage, money, democracy, and oil! Thanks Geoff and dougmyers. It did seem odd that Iran and Suadi Arabia were neutral on Iraq from '91 until now. In a way, they both benefit when Iraq fails, and especially under Saddam. This must have helped them ignore the mass graves, scuds, invading Kuwait, and so forth.

Saudi Arabia benefits from not having the oil competition. They know the world would now rather buy from Iraq, especially since Iraq is opposed to terrorism, while the Saudi's and Iran have internal disputes on the matter, though officially opposed. Obviously the Wahabi's, Osama being one of them, have terrorist leanings (and the Sunni's also). The sect is not going away, but if it can be swayed away from terrorism, it would basically mean victory in the war on terrorism, or at least a major battle in the war.

Saudi Arabia is still playing the middle of the road, which is not as bad as it could be! Eventually they will have to sway one way or the other: towards democracy and justice, or towards terrorism and monarchy. I would hate to see the later happen.

[Stevo]

The Prince spends a lot of time as a Hedge funder, selling Arms to everyone and transporting smack.