| Submit your comments on this article |
| Arabia |
| WSJ: Why King Abdullah and his brothers are lying about their ages |
| 2005-08-03 |
| An interesting little analysis from the Wall Street Journal. Registration required, so presented here complete. Important detail was missed in much of the reporting of the death of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia on Monday. Carried by the Saudi Press Agency (www.spa.gov.sa), it was information in the new official biographies of the new King Abdullah and his designated successor, Crown Prince Sultan. Why does this matter? It is because both men are lying about their ages--and age (of senior princes) is the key to understanding Saudi Arabia over the next few years. When I wrote a book--"After King Fahd: Succession in Saudi Arabia"--in 1994, I spent months checking the years of birth of the sons of King Abdul Aziz, the founder of Saudi Arabia, often known as Ibn Saud. Since his death in 1953, the kingdom has been ruled by his sons, in descending order of age. First Saud (1953-64), then Faisal (1964-75), then Khalid (1975-1982) and, most recently, Fahd (1982-2005). Precise birthdates are usually unknown, just years of birth. In itself that has potential for confusion because Ibn Saud, by virtue of having four wives at any one time, sometimes fathered as many as three sons in the course of a year. (Ibn Saud had 22 wives during his lifetime; births of daughters are even more imprecisely recorded but, for the purposes of this discussion, do not count.) I am confident that I pinned down the real birth years of all 44 sons. (One British Arabist, close to the Saudi royal family, would only confirm correct years, crossing out wrong ones, and leaving me to do the extra research to correct my mistakes.) Fahd was born in 1921, Abdullah in 1923 and Sultan in 1924. On Monday, the Saudi Press Agency said Fahd was born in 1923 and noted that Abdullah was born in 1924 and Sultan in 1930. 1930!? Sultan is just 75 this year! I must admit I laughed on reading this. For years I have noticed that Sultan has understated his age, but 1930 set a new record. In the Saudi system, age brings seniority, a key qualification for succession. But old age also suggests infirmity, a possible disqualifying factor. (Fahd's detached confinement to a wheelchair was an embarrassment that the royal family likely does not want to repeat.) Sultan appears to have been shaving years, allowing himself to slip below a couple of half-brothers who, by virtue of temperament or lack of qualifications, are not in the running for the leadership, but still retaining an edge over a bevy of contenders born in 1931. It is the Saudi metaphorical equivalent of hair dye, although Sultan's black hair is not genuine either (and a senior British official who met him recently said he was wearing makeup, too). Do not expect much discussion of this issue. The House of Saud is sensitive to being caught out. Most media will veer away from a confrontation. Expect even less discussion on the health of the two men. Abdullah is said to be reasonably fit, but Sultan had stomach cancer last year--the same senior British official who saw him said he then "looked like death"--and now reportedly walks around with a colostomy bag. So Saudi Arabia is facing a future of kings with short reigns. They will probably be dubbed "Saudi Brezhnevs," after the increasingly decrepit leadership in the final years of the Soviet Union. It was entirely predictable: 12 years ago, a former British adviser to the Saudi royals preferred a Monty Python metaphor, "The parrots will fall off their perch in rapid succession." The logical way around this problem is for the House of Saud to choose a significantly younger king--although for him to be called a "Saudi Gorbachev" would give Riyadh heartburn. Within the line of sons of Ibn Saud, Interior Minister Prince Nayef (born 1933) and the governor of Riyadh Province, Prince Salman (born 1936), would be contenders. Dropping a generation is often mentioned, but would probably be too contentious--which group of grandsons would benefit, to the consternation of their cousins? Even this scenario could be upset by contenders dying "in the wrong order." When Sultan was thought to be on death's door last year, the U.S. war-gamed what would happen if he died before Fahd. The cautious conclusion was that Abdullah, described as leading the reformist wing of the House of Saud, would strengthen his position. This might have been wishful thinking. Despite Abdullah's reputation for reform, the spectrum of differences on policy within the royal family is probably quite narrow. Personality differences and succession rivalries provide added frisson. Is cautious reform better than very cautious reform? And does reform actually mean change? The House of Saud knows it has to stand together. Oil policy is not contested. Nor is the Saudi leadership role in the Islamic world. Neither, frankly, is the need to maintain links with the U.S., despite this being inflammatory to Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda affiliates. For the U.S. to involve itself in the succession process is high-risk, but the priorities of oil and improving Saudi cooperation in the war against al Qaeda are vital. Washington makes little secret of not wanting either Sultan or Nayef to become king. Neither is considered modern enough; both are thought to have made past compromises with al Qaeda to redirect the threat to the kingdom onto U.S. interests. But when U.S. Ambassador Robert Jordan reportedly suggested at a 2003 Riyadh dinner party that after Abdullah, Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal, a son of King Faisal, would be a good choice, there was uproar. Mr. Jordan was leaving anyway. Sultan and Nayef were probably glad to see the back of him. Although the next generation like Saud al-Faisal are unlikely to gain power for a while, they could be kingmakers. Former ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar is also a player, as is his half-brother, Khalid, Saudi commander in Desert Storm. Both are sons of Prince Sultan. Saud al-Faisal's brother Turki is also significant--he has just been nominated to replace Bandar in the U.S. But King Abdullah's son Mitab now has additional influence and could see himself as an emerging contender. All are rivals. Another mainly overlooked news story on the Saudi Press Agency wire on Aug. 1 was titled "Royal Order." It said that King Abdullah had declared that "all current Cabinet members [would] continue in their present posts." So Abdullah retains the position of commander of the Saudi National Guard while Sultan is still minister of defense. The immediate issue for royal family politics is competition for a reallocation of cabinet posts and greater involvement of next generation princes. Al Qaeda appeals to a section of Saudi public opinion because of resentment of the royal family's domination of power and business, as well as corruption. The next few years in the kingdom are going to be difficult enough anyway because of the declining years of Abdullah and Sultan. Gridlocked palace politics could turn instability into disaster. Mr. Henderson is a senior fellow of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #10 Danielle: It would be so much simpler if King Abdullah would abdicate and the Kingdom become democratic, with equal status for all the warring sibs but noooo, they will battle one another to the death. Elections could bring to power al Qaeda. I think the sad fact is that in Saudi Arabia, it's the population that we need to worry about, not the rulers. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-03 23:32 |
| #9 BigEd, that is amazing -- but surely not quite healthy? ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-08-03 21:49 |
| #8 OK : From Various Sources - Let's have some fun! |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-08-03 16:20 |
#7  Ibn Saud & FDR |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-08-03 13:03 |
| #6 I'm only 29. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-08-03 12:36 |
| #5 It would be so much simpler if King Abdullah would abdicate and the Kingdom become democratic, with equal status for all the warring sibs but noooo, they will battle one another to the death. This could get really bloody. Maybe we should covertly arm their wives and let the women rule. Most of their wives really are young and would be around long enough to provide stability! |
| Posted by: Danielle 2005-08-03 11:52 |
| #4 Heard similar rumors, MK. Hey, he prolly lied about chopping down that date palm, too... I did see some of the original pics and footage in the Royal archives since I was in on a software thingy to preserve it all. You oughta see the vaults they keep the stuff in, heh. There's an 8MM loop of him opening the valve to the first tanker... it's like crossing the Delaware in a snowstorm, in a Saudi sort of way. No pix of him staining dresses, perjuring himself on video, or playing hide the sausage, however. The legend (marrying 26 wives to unite the tribes, blah³) prolly doesn't match the family tree, but they believe what they want to believe, just as here. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-08-03 08:15 |
| #3 The problem with reform is that a public entrenched in Islam could decide that the rulers are infidels trying to convert them to the impure ways of the infidel West. For a time, it was far safer to move towards Islam, where unquestioning obedience towards earthly rulers was held to be a virtue, as long as they were Muslim. Until al Qaeda came along and held themselves to be superior alternative Muslim rulers to the existing bunch. That was when Islamization went too far, and it is why the Saudi rulers will continue with reform - to defuse the idea that the ideal state is one with Islam left, right and center. The Saudi royal family is not personally devout enough to fulfill that requirement - they are too wedded to their alcohol, their bling bling and their bouts with European escorts on the Riviera. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-08-03 08:13 |
| #2 ...This really shouldn't BE a surprise, Ibn Saud was at best a bit fuzzy on where and when his boyz were fathered; my understanding was Faisal was the only one whose birthdate could be ascertained with any certainty at all. And perhaps .com can chime in on this - had heard when I was there that at least a couple of the boyz weren't fathered by Ibn Saud at all. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2005-08-03 07:39 |
| #1 beware of azouzi--fahd's favorite son--and an sob islamist supremacist if there ever was one |
| Posted by: SON OF TOLUI 2005-08-03 02:41 |