LETTERS Oil and troubled waters
From Mr Jolyon Mills Sir: Mark Steyn dropped the ball in his article ('Bush and the Saudi princess', 30 November). In it, he cited some of the evidence linking Saudi Arabia to terror groups, especially al-Qa'eda. He also linked indirect financing by members of the Saudi royal family, particularly by Princess Haifa, to the 9/11 terrorists. For these reasons, Steyn argues, Bush should put an immediate end to any Saudi–US cosiness. While his arguments were sound, I believe his conclusion was erroneous.
Saudi Arabia, one of the world's most illiberal and horrible regimes, does us no favours whatsoever. However, early action against Saudi would harm our own interests more than it would the Islamic radicals who seek to destroy us.
Tragic as it may be, the West cannot afford to confront Saudi Arabia before we have dealt with its stranglehold on our oil requirements. I believe, on this point. Steyn has proved lapse. Given our current needs, the West cannot afford a more direct conflict with Saudi Arabia at the moment.
In this regard, it is an open secret that Western firms, particularly American ones, are getting serious with Russia, a major non-Opec competitor, as well as other, more reliable oil suppliers. A post-regimechange Iraq should also challenge the balance of oil power, the major reason the Saudis are so hostile towards war against the Saddam regime.
Until we have better secured alternative and stable supplies of oil, it would be economic folly to take an openly hostile approach to Saudi Arabia. Indeed, any early victory against Saudi extremists could well be a hollow one, if a sharp oil shock were to follow.
Jolyon Mills
St Albans, Hertfordshire
Previous page
