Ghazi al Gosaibi : Reflections on the War by a Saudi Who Knows Hussein

Ghazi al Gosaibi is a man whom the perpetually sedate Saudis find it impossible to have quiet opinions about. He is adored as a lyricist of the Arabian desert, hailed as a crusader against corruption--and reviled by traditionalists as a champion of change.

To Saudi Arabia’s burgeoning, Westward-looking middle class, Gosaibi is something of an inspiration. To the Islamic conservatives fighting what they see as the dangerous influence of secularism in the kingdom, he is anathema. He hails from neither camp. He is an aristocrat, a bureaucrat, an essayist, a diplomat and a poet.

Saudi Arabia’s soft-spoken ambassador to Bahrain, ousted from the Cabinet of ministers after he penned a defiant poem to the king, remains one of the Arab world’s leading intellectuals and an occasional unofficial spokesman for the monarchy that has alternately nurtured and ignored him.

Gosaibi, 50, reflects as much as anyone the dizzying pace at which Saudi Arabia has rushed from a tribal desert kingdom to the most modernized state in the Arab world. His first home was a mud-brick tradesman’s house in a desert oasis--with no water, no electricity and scorpions for company. His young mother died of typhoid at age 28, because there was no doctor in the town.

Today he occupies a virtual palace in the Bahraini capital and has overseen, as minister of industry and commerce, the world’s largest petrochemical city and, as minister of health, a nationwide network of modern, enviably equipped hospitals.

Gosaibi, with a master’s degree from the University of Southern California and a Ph.D. from London University, became a model for a generation of young bureaucrats who emerged as a result of Saudi Arabia’s expansive development policies in the 1970s. Nurtured by King Fahd, the brash Cabinet minister enchanted the public when he walked into hospitals as a patient and ordered careless doctors and administrators dismissed. But Gosaibi ran into trouble when he attacked corruption among members of the royal family and inefficient management policies in the nation’s hospitals. It came to a head when Gosaibi took on the king’s powerful brother, Defense Minister Prince Sultan ibn Abdul Aziz, over a defense contract that had not been put out to bid.

With mounting pressure within the family against him, Gosaibi, the author of essay and poetry collections with titles like “Poems from the Isles of Pearls” and “Fever,” published what was to become his most famous poem. It was never stated that it was intended for the king. Most people just assumed it. It began: “Why should I go on singing while there are a thousand slanderers and backbiters going between you and me?” And it ended: “Tell the slanderers that I am coming with white banner held high so that they may walk and run in my earth.”

A few days later, Gosaibi was removed as health minister. But within a few months the king quietly installed him to the comfortable position of Bahraini ambassador. He has resided there in relative harmony, and is now considered a powerful spokesman for an intensely private nation that has few visible commentators.

Donning a gold-braided caftan, Gosaibi appears regal in his public addresses on the crisis in the Persian Gulf. But he is ever a man of contradictions. Greeting visitors at the massive front door of his Bahraini mansion, Gosaibi is wearing sandals under his long, white robe and his white headgear has been set carelessly aside. He frets over how the coffee is served. Afterward, he walks guests to their car, and waves companionably as they make their way out the massive gates.

Question: We are now a few weeks into a war no one thought would happen. There has been some sense that the reality of war is playing much differently in Saudi Arabia than the expectations. What do you think is the attitude toward the war here?

Answer: Let me say that anybody who thinks lightly of war is either a psychopath or an ignorant person. Anybody who knows anything about war would realize that war entails sacrifice, war entails pain. War means orphans and widows. This has always been the case . . . .

I think it was a very stupid thing of Saddam Hussein when he declared this war. I think we should always remember he declared this war--not us, not America, not the coalition. He went and invaded a country, which is a weak, peaceful, friendly neighbor. Hundreds of people were killed at that time, far more than any casualties so far vested in the Desert Storm battles . . . .

I have myself met Kuwaiti friends who have been taken to prison, tortured, they were shown a group of Kuwaiti girls, naked, raped, with signs of torture upon them. There were old ladies in hospitals with heart diseases who were raped and some of them died as a result. We know--and it’s documented--that children were thrown away from incubators. We know that hospitals were cleared of their patients to allow for Iraqi soldiers to be treated . . . . Nothing parallel in cruelty has been seen since Desert Storm has started, and I hope nothing will.

So if somebody comes now and says this is a war against Iraq, or that Iraq’s infrastructure is being destroyed, we would simply remind him of a very simple fact: Who started this? Who declared war? Who started the aggression? Who defied the international community?

We have always known, anybody with any sense realized, that when he invaded Kuwait he was not going to be allowed to get away with it. Because if he did no country, no small country would ever be safe . . . . The blame should be put squarely, entirely and completely upon Saddam Hussein. He’s the one who asked for it. He’s the one who was determined to lead himself to this destiny, and I think the coalition should be commended for so far trying as humanly possible to minimize casualties. And I hope we will continue to do that. But this war is not going to end until it achieves its purpose, and that is to liberate Kuwait.

Q: Do you not see the image of a wolf caught in a trap, gnawing its own leg to get out, in looking at the Arab nation fighting among each other?

A: . . . . I don’t see this as being a civil war amongst Arabs. I don’t see this as being a division that will forever divide the Arab nation, I see it as an act of a leader who through a combination of megalomania and paranoia and a tremendous military machine is able to achieve a great deal of mischief. And I think, with the removal of this man, there will not be a permanent damage--contrary to what you hear on the Arab side, or in the Arabs’ conception of themselves as being basically one nation.

Q: How do you account for the support Hussein has elicited in places like Jordan and North Africa?

A: The support in Jordan is quite different from the support in North Africa.

North Africa, and especially Algeria is a country that has been colonized by French colonialism--it was supposed to be part of France. For 200 years or more there was a systematic effort to annihilate its culture, its religion, its language; and they have extreme sensitivity for anything that even remotely evokes images of imperialism or colonialism . . . . Now, in Jordan, with the Palestinians: I think the Palestinians have been denied their rights for so long, they have been frustrated for so long, so they are resorting to desperate measures. And I think what you are seeing in Palestine and Jordan and North Africa is not a support for Saddam Hussein, per se; it is only a natural reaction toward somebody who appears to be the enemy of their enemy . . . .

Q: Do you see any way for the Palestinians to recover in the Gulf? What kind of future do you see for the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization?

A: I think those people who are now, and in particular Mr. Yasser Arafat, those people who stood with Saddam Hussein, who are supporting him, have lost all their credibility with the man in the street in the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) countries. I don’t know about the government, but I can tell you nobody in the Gulf now trusts those who stood with Saddam Hussein or could deal with them in the future.

So I think if the Palestinian cause--this is a personal opinion here--if the Palestinian cause is to recover, then they should find some new leaders. Because what is the only winning card in the hand of the Palestinians is their right . . . . And the fairness of their cause.

When their leaders, or some of them, come to support the occupation of Kuwait, I think they lost a lot of their moral credibility . . . . How can you demand a Palestinian state and, on the other hand, go and see the liquidation of an Arab state and applaud it? This is so contradictory a position that it’s really doing grievous damage to the Palestinian cause.

Q: Many Arabs are concerned that there are a lot of non-Arabs, non-Muslim forces in Saudi Arabia. Most fighting in Khafji was done by Saudi and Qatari forces, and the role of Americans has been downplayed. Politically, how important was it for the Arab forces to be seen on this front line?

A: I don’t think there is any division of labor among the forces: That you should fight in this battle and I should fight in that battle. This is one integrated battle . . . .

When you said that Arabs are sensitive about this, it’s only those Arabs who are not threatened. I mean, if you are 10,000 miles away from what is going on, perhaps you can afford the luxury of passing moral judgments. But if your whole existence, if your whole being is threatened, like it is here in this part of the world, then I don’t think you will allow your national security, the safety of your children, the safety of your homes, to be sacrificed because somebody 10,000 miles away decides he would rather embrace some slogans that sound attractive to him.

Q: No one seems to have a clear idea of what the outcome of this war is supposed to be, especially in terms of Iraq. When will the war be over? When we’ve pushed Iraq out of Kuwait? When Saddam Hussein is dead? What are our goals here?

A: . . . . There is no desire on anybody’s part to dismember Iraq or to go after Saddam Hussein personally. And, as you have seen, there is utmost care to only disturb his military machine in order to liberate Kuwait.

Saddam Hussein is the one who can put an end to it, as everybody has said. As Russia has said, as America has said in a joint statement. Tomorrow, by withdrawing from Kuwait. Now, if Saddam Hussein does something horrendous--like using mass destruction weapons--then I think we should go back to the (U.N.) Security Council. And if we are going to do anything more than the present mandate, whether we are going to try him, for example, then we should go back and get a new mandate. The present mandate is to liberate Kuwait, return its government, and then implement other decisions, which is that Iraq should pay reparation for the damages it did, for the human rights violations. But I don’t think anybody is saying that the goal now is to dismember Iraq, to turn it into pieces or to go and get Saddam Hussein. Nobody has said that.

Q: What will the Middle East look like after this war?

A: I don’t see any cosmic changes taking place. Contrary to many people, I don’t see, for example, maps redrawn. I don’t see countries disappearing. As a matter of fact, I see countries reappearing--I see Kuwait reappearing on the map, as is only proper.

I think what we are going to see is a more closer military and political cooperation among the GCC countries, definitely stronger armies to deter any future aggressors. We are not going to see any foreign troops present in the Gulf, at all. We will see a greater role for Egypt in any future security arrangement. I see a gradual working of the Arab League to redraw and redraft its charter in an effort to arrive at some kind of mutual defense arrangement. But I don’t really see all of these huge changes taking place that you would not recognize the Middle East . . . .

Q: Then do you see Iraq remaining a viable power in the Middle East, with Saddam Hussein as president?

A: Iraq should remain a viable power in the Middle East, because, after all, we need to have checks and balances in politics like everything else. And I think, in the Gulf, we would want to have a balance between Iraq and Iran. We don’t want hegemony or a dominant power, so it’s in everybody’s interest to have Iraq with viable political and military forces.

Now, I don’t think--and this is my personal judgment--I don’t think Saddam Hussein is going to survive this thing at all. Because simply he has cut his bridges with the whole world. He burned his bridges with us in the Gulf, I don’t think we will ever trust Saddam Hussein again, even if he rules in Baghdad. Even if he survives this war and pulls out, he’s going to be loaded with debts, probably a $100 or $150 million. Let me tell you, none of us will be anxious to extricate him this time from his folly. He will not have any new technology or weapons of destruction coming from his side--either France or America or the Soviet Union. So I think for all practical purposes, when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait, he really signed his death warrant as a leader of importance in the Middle East . . . .

Q: Do you think the Saudis would be willing to go through any kind of back-channel negotiations with the Iranians or some of those they’ve been speaking with in recent days, to try to end the bloodshed?

A: I think the Saudis, like anybody with any perception of reality, realize that the whole decision now rests with one man. This man alone is the one who could put an end to it--now, tomorrow, two days, three days, by saying, “I have had enough and I’m going to withdraw.” If you know the mentality of this man--as I happen to know it--you can send him a thousand delegations, you can get all the whole world to mediate in the conflict, you could have a million resolutions, he is not going to change his mind . . . . People are chasing a red herring when they think there should be a diplomatic effort to convince Saddam Hussein to say yes . . . .

Q: Knowing Hussein as you do, what do you think motivates him?

A: I think he has a combination of illusions of grandeur and persecution complex, which is a typical symptom of paranoia as we know it. A paranoid person feels that the whole world is persecuting him and in order to overcome this you should be greater than anybody else. I think while this is part of his behavior, I think it really took over his psychological makeup in recent months. So now I don’t think we are any more talking about a man who is, I mean, he might be legally sane in a court of justice, but he is definitely psychologically deranged. When a man sees this tremendous force backed by international unanimity trying to dislodge him from a country . . . . When a man is determined to destroy himself, his military machine, probably his neighbors, just to protect his theft, I don’t think we are talking anymore about a sane man. I think we are talking about a deranged man.

Q: If Hussein does use chemical or biological weapons, what should the allies’ response be?

A: I think the response should not be to punish innocent people by using it in return. He doesn’t care about innocent people. If you kill 1 million civilians in Iraq, it will only play in his hands. He will say: “Look, they are killing civilians.” I think if he does that we should go back to the (U.N.) Security Council and get a new decision to have him tried as a war criminal legally. Then, we will go and get him from Baghdad and apprehend him like any outlaw. I don’t think that we should have any precipitate action of saying we will answer you in the same. Because we have so far, and by we I mean the coalition, been far more civilized in dealing with the problem. We have not resorted to ecological terror, we have not resorted to sending missiles into civilian targets, and I don’t think even his attempts to use these weapons should have us imitate him.

Q: And after Saddam is gone, how do you answer the demands that have been made by the rest of the Arab world using Saddam as a vehicle? How do the Gulf Arabs talk to the people in Jordan, for instance?

A: . . . . When Saddam Hussein goes, I don’t think there will be an irreparable rift between the peoples. Listen, I don’t know whether this is operational details or not, but the Iraqi prisoners are almost overjoyed to be here, they don’t feel they are in enemy hands. You have seen them. They are smiling, they are happy. This business, Saddam Hussein wants to convince everybody that it is the Arab nation with him and against their enemies. We know better than that. We know that when Saddam Hussein goes, the first people who will cheer his departure will be the Iraqis . . . .

What did Saddam Hussein offer the Iraqis in 25 years of rule? Persecution, terror, mass executions, eight years of war, another new war. What did he bring to them? He did not bring them prosperity, not happiness. Only terror and sadness. No nation, no people are so masochistic as to love such a leader . . . .