INTERVIEWS (Osama bin Laden's principle aim is to overthrow the ‘Sau royal family and establish a Talbansike ‘government in ‘Sauci Arabia, One of his complains against the royal family is that they invited American troops to come and stay. 22. Mutrmarions, Moxtron A Resource War chee! Kare isthe author of numerous books includ ing Resource Wars (Metropolitan Books). He is Five College Professor of Peace and World Secuty Studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts, Multinational Monitor: Afghanistan a resource war? Michael Klare: The conflict in Afghanis derives from American efforts to dominate the resources of the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan itself is only peripherally related to resource contliets. The origins of the current conflict lie in Saudi Arabia — in the efforts of anti-government extremists like Osama bin Laden to overthrow the royal fam. ily and install a more doctrinaire Islamic regime. ‘And since Saudi Arabia is the world’s leading oil producer, and the United States has no intention of allowing Bin Laden to overthrow the Saudi regime, by extension it’s a resource conflict. Is the conflict in MM: To what extent are U.S. troops in Sadi Arabia a cause of Osama bin Laden's anti-US. activities? Klare: They are both a provocation and an invita They are a provocation in his eyes and in those of his militant followers, because they represent ‘what they view as a sacrilege of the Muslim Holy Land, They view the Arabian Peninsula as the home and Holy Land of Islam and they view so many American troops — most of who are non: Muslims, and therefore considered infidels — as. an insult to thele religion. And they blame the Saudi royal family for bringing those troops in Their real argument is ultimately with the Saudi royal family. I think the principle aim of ‘Osama bin Laden is to overthrow the Saudi royal family and establish a Taliban-like government in Saudi Arabia, That's his number one objective But one of his complaints against the royal family is that they invited American troops to come and USS. forces are also an invitation in the sense that they are terrorist targets. U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia have been attacked at least twice before in terrorist attacks; the 1995 attack on the Saudi Ara bian National Guard (SANG) headquarters in Riyadh, which killed 5 American soldiers; and the 1996 attack on Khobar Towers that killed 19 American soldiers. Novesmen 2001 MM: Are U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia to protect against exter- nal or — internal treats? Klare: ‘The U.S. has two kinds of forces in Saudi Arabia. It has regular military units — mainly Air Force units, whose job is pri marily to protect Saudi Arabia against external enemies — primarily Michael Kare Iran and Iraq, But the US. also has military advis: crs and military contract personnel who work with the Saudi Arabian National Guard to provide internal security for the Saudi regime, for the royal family, This has pat the U.S. ina ditect clash with Saudi dissidents who have had periodic clash ANG, and so the US. for being associated with a repressive swith the ave come to despise Force. MM: When did U.S. deployment in the Middle East and in Saudi Arabia begin, and bow did it evolve? Kare: All of this goes back to the March 1945 ‘meeting between President Franklin Roosevelt and King Abdul Azi2 Ibn Saud, the father of the present king, and the founder of the modern Saudi regime. They met in Egypt after the Yalta conference and worked out a bargain, a compact whereby the U.S. would have privileged access to Saudi oil in return for a pledge to protect the royal family. That agreement remains the basis for US. ties to the Saudi government. TThe nature of U.S. protection has evolved over time. Originally it was provided in indirect forms Of support such as military advisers and arms aid Over time the direct presence of U.S. military forces has increased to the point where the US. row has between 5,000 and 10,000 soldiers on Saudi soil, and a much larger number offshore, on ships and the island of Bahrain. MM: What are the internal threats feared in Saudi Arabia? What opposition forces exist? Klare: The first thing that has to be borne in ‘mind is that the Saudi government does not per mit legal forms of dissent. There's no parliament. There's no free speech oF assembly, no politicalINTERVIEWS parties. So there's no opportunity for people to voice their grievances against the regime. ‘A lot of opposition to the regime includes the sort of grievances you would expect to find in a ‘country ruled by a feudal dynasty, especially issues about the distribution of the nation’s oil wealth and how it is spent. There's a lot of anger that ‘excessive amounts of money are spent on things like palaces and Mercedes while not enough is spent on public welfare. There's also dissent from women who object 0 the second-class status that they're forced 10 endure, And there are o from those who want to democratize the country, who want human rights and democracy like you have in any modern state. Those people are not allowed to voice any grievances. What happens is that the only real opportunity for dissidence is in radical fundamentalist move -ments, which are tolerated by the regime because they are based in the mosques and in the religious seminaries that are protected by the government Domestic sourees of energy wil reduce dependence on foreign cl And they're expressed in Islamic terms. So the royal family has closed off legitimate forms of dis sent, and the only option therefore is extremist Islamic movements, some of which have turned violent. If there we my guess is that there wouldn’t be much to worry about, because a lot of these grievances would then take the form of parliamentary opposition, as they do in [the United States] and other coun tries. But because that option doesn’t exist in Saudi Arabia, those with grievances have increas ingly turned to extremist factions which advocate the use of violence, including terrorism and, ult mately, armed revolt. As people's anger grows — democracy in the country, and i's growing in Saudi Arabia because of the war — the fear is that people will urn to these extremist movements and stage a revolt of one sort or another, MM: Why do U.S. planners view the extremists in Saudi Arabia as a threat to U.S. interests? Klare: Because of fears for the survival of the Saudi monarchy. The royal family has always pro- vided U.S. interests a privileged position with respect to Saudi oil supplies, in terms of both the access to oil nd the pricing of oil. The Saudi royal family has been the most friendly to the U.S. in OPEC in maintaining prices ata level that do not produce a heavy burden to the US. economy: The fear is that ifthe extremists took over, they might deny USS. access to Saudi oi and/or push prices ‘up, and therefore produce an even worse eco- ‘nomic situation than we have today. Either way it would cause great harm to the U.S. economy MM: 1: US. entanglement in resource wars inevitable s0 long as the nation relies so beavily on oil? Kllare: I think resource wars are inevitable 30 long as we rely so heavily on imported oil to make up for the shortfil in ‘our own production and 10 the degree that we do not ‘engage in some kind of inter national system of resource allocation that’s reasonably ‘equitable, The problem is that ‘we use a vast amount of oil and we also want to engineer local politics in other countries to be friendly to serving that need, We want local govern: ments to be amenable to pro: B siding the U.S. with as much energy as we want at low prices. That means we get invohed in local polities, and very often we get involved in local politics in areas where there are a lor of pre-existing divisions — religious, ethnic and politica, We wind up taking sides and we get enmeshed in confit, which is what has happened in Saudi Arabia The US. has ako sisked getting focal confits in other countries because of its interest in their petroleum resources. We've been enmeshed in the internal polities of Iran — we were very close to the Shah, and when the Shah was overthrown, there sas a backlash against us. Historically, we've been involved in conflicts in Mexico over il. We're now involved in Colombia | think resource wars are inevitable so long as we rly so heavily on imported of to ‘make up forthe shortallin our own preduetion Murmivartoxar Moxon Novewinia 2001 23INTE RVIEWS in a conflict that's as much about oil a i is about drugs. It’s not just the demand that is important, but the fact that the U.S, has historically viewed oil as national security concern and organized its for ign policy and military policy around the protec tion of that oil, That gets us involved in local ‘messy situations that often turn violent. MM: Do you think there will be a fundamental reexamination of the notion of defining national security in the United Ssates as a result of these issues? Klare: I think in the short term that people aren't giving this a whole lot of thought, but I do think. thar there's a growing awareness that the conflict we're currently involved in has roots in the Mid: dle Fast. I think i will lead people to examine those roots more carefully. Some of that will involve looking more carefally at the Isracl-Pales: tinian conflict to see whethe changes in how we address that conflict, perhaps to be more even-handed in our response. I chink it’s going to force the U.S. to reexamine its rela tionship to Saudi Arabia, I hope that will lead to the U.S. putting greater distance between itself and the royal family, leaving greater room for democracy in that country. But I think that’s a long-term process and could be overtaken by events that we can’t foresee Yer. ll there shouldn't be The Corporate Tax Break Feeding Frenzy ur analysis shows that 16 companies hich would et $74 blfon in immediate tax rates under the House plan contibuted nearly ‘$46 milion to federal candidates and parties since 1991 Nancy Watzman is research and investgatve projects ‘recor for Public Campaign, a group “dedicated to sweep ing reform that aims to dramatclly reduce the rle of spe- il interest money in Amica’ cts an ho infuenca ‘of big contributors in American poles.” Puble Campcign has recent launched a web st, wan howdarethey og wich highlights wartime proftering. Watzman is the author of a November 2001 Pubic Campaign study, Buy Now, Save Later: Campaign Contributions and Corporate Taxation. ‘Multinational Monitor: Why do corporations want 10 eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax? Naney Watzman: The alternative minimum tax (AMT) repeal provision — which isin the House passed stimulus bill — is a blatant give-away 0 large corporations, and is something they've been lobbying.for for years. ‘The House stimulus package nor only includes 1 repeal of the AMT, it also includes a rebate of any AMT payment that a corporation has made since the law was enacted. Our analysis shows that 16 companies which would get $7-4 billion in immediate tax rebates. under the House plan contributed nearly $46 mil lion to federal candidates and parties since 1991. Two thirds of that money went 10 Republican candidates and party committees. So these are big: time campaign money players, and have been for a long time MM: What és the Alternative Minimum Tas? Wateman: The AMT was put in place in the 1980s because so many corporations were taking 24 Motiissrional Monro Novenuen 2001 advantage of tax breaks and loopholes that they were often whittling their tax bills down to zero, ‘or even less, The AMT requires companies to cal: ‘culate taxes using regular rates and existing tax breaks, and also with a lower — alternative mini mum — rate but fewer loopholes. They are sup. posed to pay the higher of the two. (MM: What would she repeal and rebate mean in terms of benefits for specific companies? Watzman: Citizens for Tax Justice identified 16 companies as gaining the most. They include household names and major campaign contribu- tors like ChevronTexaco, General Electric and Enron, ChevronTexaco, for example, is the source of nearly $7 million in campaign contributions, and would get $572 million in immediate rebate General Electric gave $6.2 million and would get $671 million in rebates. And the list goes on. ‘These are all major, profitable companics. MM: How long have the companies been cam- paigning to eliminate the AMT? Watzman: Pretty much since it was passed in Ways and Means Committee passed a repe: back in 1995, bur the repeal never became law, The corporate lobby did nage to weaken the law somewhat in 1997, Repeal has been on the wish list for along time. They are shoving it through now at a time of et sis because it is an unpopular thing that normally would be pretty tough to get through Congress MM: The Public Campaign report alco looks at other tax breaks that groups of companies ave ‘een lobbying for. What do you find in those other