Why
Does Saudi Arabia
Need Military Aid?
By Mark Steel
03 August, 2007
The
Independent
Here's
something they sneaked out this week with hardly anyone noticing - the
Americans have announced a "military aid package" of sixty
billion dollars for their allies in the Middle East. Or, to be grammatically
correct, sixty billion, that's sixty thousand million bastard dollars!!!
How can they spend that?
Have Prada moved into tanks? Maybe they now buy these things at fashion
shows, where a commentator gasps: "Ooh, my, my!" as down the
catwalk comes this exhilarating design for the very latest satellite-guided
armour-penetrating missile modelled here by Kate Moss, designed, of
course, by Stella McCartney, and "sure to be this summer's big
bold hit when it comes to melting the Hizbollah".
This is $250 for every living
American, $10 for everyone on the planet. Are they taking each weapon
out individually for a meal at the Ivy? And $13bn of this is for Saudi
Arabia. Because if there's one family on this earth in need of financial
aid, it's the Saudi royal family. Who's getting the rest - the Bee Gees?
Anyway, why do the Saudis need military aid at all? Their favourite
weapon seems to be the stone. I suppose now if a woman commits adultery
or speaks out of turn she'll be battered to death with a bloody great
ruby instead.
To get all this in perspective,
after the G8 summit two years ago in Scotland, after the Make Poverty
History march and concerts, a beaming Tony Blair announced a record-breaking
global amount of aid of fifty billion dollars. This time they seem to
be a bit more modest. No one came galloping out of the White House joyfully
to explain that, after a whole week of negotiating, they've come up
with more laser-guided firebombs than ever.
But they shouldn't be so
modest. Because a sign of how hard it is to come up with such sums can
be seen from this year's G8 summit, when they admitted that instead
of the $50bn they promised in Scotland, it was back to $25bn after all.
So all those balloons, celebrations, smiley press conferences and declarations
of a new start for Africa, were about the entire western world donating
to an entire impoverished continent less than half of what one country
has quietly coughed up in weapons for the Saudis, Egypt and Israel.
They do it quietly because
how many people would agree with these priorities? On Who Wants to be
a Millionaire?, when Chris Tarrant asks: "What would you do with
the money if you won a million pounds?", very few people say: "I'd
buy some cluster bombs." How many people, if they were taken on
a tour of the Middle East, through Gaza and the wreckage of Iraq and
the slums of Cairo, would say: "I know what this place needs above
all else - $60bn-worth of deadly weapons."
How many people would support
a charity record called "Death Aid", or a night of TV comedy
called "Smiles for Missiles", in which Vernon Kay wandered
through Angola grimacing: "This village hasn't had a landmine for
over a month. Please, please, please, send your donation so they too
can know what it's like to watch someone explode", followed by
a special edition of A Question of Sport.
One of the reasons given
for the difficulty in providing aid to Africa is their leaders are corrupt,
so there's every chance they'll swipe the money. So luckily, when it
comes to Saudi Arabia they can rely on that country's rulers, who would
never fiddle a billion dollars from British Aerospace or do illegal
deals with, to pick someone at random, Jonathan Aitken.
Maybe the complaint about
corruption has been misunderstood and the Africans aren't doing enough
of it. So the White House gets reports that say: "Some ministers
in Malawi go a whole month with barely a single prostitute being procured
by the arms companies - how can we possibly do business with such people?"
And half this generous gift, $30bn-worth of arms, is being given to
Israel. Surely the problem here is where will they put them all? They'll
be like parents at Christmas when an over-generous grandparent delivers
sacks full of presents, and you have to have a clearout of all the old
stuff to make room. So if you want a cheap battleship, nip down to a
charity shop in Hebron and you'll be able to pick one up for a score.
But more weapons is the answer
to everything. For example, a US defence report on global warming has
concluded it could lead to global instability and mass migration, proving
the necessity of acquiring more weapons to deal with this.
If anyone from the Pentagon
visits Moss Side or Peckham, they'll announce: "Hey, these places
are in bad shape. So we've given everyone under 25 a pistol, a sword
and a tank." If someone from the Pentagon ever worked as a chef,
he'd taste the sauce and say: "Hmm, it needs something - basil,
perhaps, or a sprinkle of fennel? I know, it needs a Stealth bomber."
How does anyone get to see
the world from the point of view of the Pentagon? Who would look around
a world in which 5,000children a day die for lack of clean water and
decide that can wait, but the weapons can't?
But the biggest mystery is
the official reason given for handing over this fortune to Egypt and
Saudi Arabia - that, according to Zalmay Khalilzad, US ambassador to
the United Nations, it's because "Saudi Arabia and others are not
doing all they can to help us in Iraq". So they're rewarded like
that. Well, I've done bugger all to help America in Iraq. Can I have
a helicopter?
© 2007 Independent News
and Media Limited
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.