Saud Off

Given their immense wealth, it's sometimes hard to remember that Saudi Arabia is really a jury-rigged country. Formerly a rump province of the Ottoman Empire, it became a nation purely by decree of the League of Nations.

Those post World War I League of Nations-mandated nations have a pretty poor record; the Czech Republic managed to last seventy-odd years before splintering peacefully; Yugloslavia was another story. As far as Israel and Palestine - the less said the better, right?

The Saudis - a nation of tribes held together only by intrigue and oil wealth - might be showing signs of the same pattern:

The families and tribes here are exploiting the vulnerability of a perhaps fatally weakened Saudi ruling family to reassert their territorial claims over those of the al-Sudairy.

As many as 60 per cent of Saudis identify strongly with a tribe.

Since the increased instability following last year's bombings in Riyadh on May 12 and Nov 8, the ruling family has been eager to show that it has the full support of the tribal sheikhs.

But al-Jouf shows what everyone knows: that tribes will switch their 'allegiance' as soon as it is convenient.

Residents say the final straw was the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, when United States troops took control of the airport in the nearby Arar, the kingdom's official border crossing with Iraq.

So what to do?

Steven Green has an idea:

Best solution in case of dissolution? Extend Jordan down the Red Sea coast to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, as was promised to the Hashemite family after WWI. The Eastern Province -- home to oil and Shi'as, to be united with their Arab Shi'a brethren across the border in southern Iraq. And the Bedouins of the interior can fight one another over what's left: sand and hate.

If, indeed, there is some long-standing social and ethnic reason to partition Saudi Arabia - or at least the parts worth annexing - then, indeed, why not?

Posted by Mitch at January 29, 2004 06:37 AM