Islam Edit Bureau
Golan Heights And The Syrian Endgame
Democracy Is Rigged
In Traditional US-Gulf Partnership
Saudi Arabia Is Planning A New Economic Era
Arabia: Reform Comes With Social Responsibility
By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
Heights and the Syrian Endgame
24 Apr 2016
beginning of the endgame on Syria commences, Israel is signalling its intention
to join in the feasting on Syria's decaying sovereignty - demanding
international recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights
captured from Syria in the June 1967 war.
occasion for this demand was an extraordinary cabinet session in on the Golan
plateau - the first ever - where, according to Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu's reckoning, 50,000 Israeli settlers reside.
chose to hold this festive cabinet meeting on the Golan Heights in order to
deliver a clear message," Netanyahu declared at the outset of the meeting.
"The Golan Heights will forever remain in Israel's hands. Israel will
never come down from the Golan Heights."
Fighters Push Towards The Golan Heights
Israeli message bears repeating, particularly now when the parties to the war
in Syria are jockeying for advantage in the first stages of the diplomatic
battle to end the war and to design Syria's future.
no less than the multitude of players circling around the decimated Syrian
state, is determined to place its maximal demands on the diplomatic agenda now
being fashioned in Washington and Moscow.
Golan Heights' Annexation
significant that Netanyahu set out this demand for international recognition of
the Golan Heights' annexation without addressing the larger question of a peace
treaty with Damascus, which has always been part of the broader diplomatic
context in which negotiations over the Golan Heights have been held.
course, is hardly able to consider engaging in negotiations over the Golan
Heights' future. Nor is there much evidence that any Syrian party to the war is
prepared to recognise Israeli sovereignty. Both opposition leader Riad Hijab
and Syria's Bashar al-Jaafari found themselves in unusual agreement on their
adamant rejection of Netanyahu's provocative declaration.
case, Netanyahu is hardly concerned about Syria's views on the matter. He is
aiming at different - and in his view, more decisive - audience altogether. Not
Syrian or even Arab, but American and especially Russian.
On the day
before the cabinet meeting on the Golan Heights, Netanyahu put forward the
broad menu of Israel's demands on Syria in a conversation with US Secretary of
State John Kerry.
told the Secretary of State that we will not oppose a diplomatic settlement in
Syria on condition that it not come at the expense of the security of the State
of Israel; ie, that at the end of the day, the forces of Iran, Hezbollah and
[ISIL] will be removed from Syrian soil."
time has come," he continued, "for the international community to
recognise reality, especially two basic facts. One, whatever is beyond the border;
the boundary itself will not change. Two, after 50 years, the time has come for
the international community to finally recognise that the Golan Heights will
remain under Israel's sovereignty permanently."
shoulder presented by Washington could not have surprised Netanyahu ...
at least publicly, did not address the wide range of demands Netanyahu
outlined, preferring to reiterate Washington's long-standing view that the
Golan Heights is "not part of Israel".
shoulder presented by Washington could not have surprised Netanyahu, where
frustration with the Israeli leader runs deep. Indeed, it is Moscow, where
Netanyahu went on April 21, rather than Washington that looms largest in the
Israeli premier's considerations about protecting and advancing Israel's
interests in Syria.
most notably been the case since the decisive Russian intervention on behalf of
the Assad regime last year, and it will feature prominently in Netanyahu's
current round of discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
critical nature of the Israel-Russian entente on Syria was addressed by the
Minister of Transportation Yisrael Katz who explained that: "Coordination
of steps between us and Russia allows Israel to defend these interests without
fear of Russian intervention, and it is extremely important not only in near,
but in the long run ... We need to remember that we have interests relating to
the Golan Heights, and it is good that, in the case of a settlement in Syria,
we have the ability to effectively communicate with Russia."
to this delicate and effective dialogue, relations with Washington remain
hostage to the clash resulting from Washington's acknowledged failure to do
anything in the last eight years to slow the advance of Israel's settlement and
occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Washington contents itself with heartfelt lamentations, most recently articulated
by Vice President Joe Biden, about the course Israel has chosen and a policy
agenda that focuses on the slim reed of what used to be called "economic
recently explained this policy:
do think it is possible to get something started, get something moving in which
you could lay out a vision for where you're going and perhaps get the parties
together and have some understanding, some confidence-building measures. You
could have some efforts, for instance, in the West Bank on Area C, which is the
area controlled by Israel in its entirety - and begin to build up Palestinian
think you could do more on security ... more on economic development. You could
build a horizon where there are some expectations for what has to be achieved
that begin to quiet things down and give people some confidence or hope that
there is, within that framework, the kernels of possible negotiations. I don't
think you can just plunk down and start to negotiate tomorrow, but I do think
there are definitive steps that could be taken. And we have - what? - nine, 10
more months, and I think President Obama will always welcome something that's
shortcoming is all the greater because of the spectacular failure of the Obama
administration's initial demand for a complete settlement freeze.
first established during the Obama administration's diplomatic offensive on
Palestine - grandiose American statements lacking any real strategic sense or
commitment to their implementation - is now playing out in Syria, as well.
24 Apr 2016
United States presidential elections, there are two towering political parties
- the Democratic and the Republican - that during the course of their
"primary" elections get to choose who will be their respective
candidates in the course of a national election.
any US citizen can join these two parties - or any other political party -
millions of eligible voters have not, and consider themselves
independent voters get to vote in the general elections like anyone else, but
by the time we get to that general election in November, the two dominant
political parties have already elected their nominee, and, therefore, US
citizens at large have to vote for one of these preselected nominees if they
want their vote to have a role in who their next president will be.
entirely undemocratic, arcane, draconian, and ipso facto rigged aspect of the
US electoral system came to a crucial dead-end during the New York primaries of
the Democratic and Republican parties on April 19, when Hillary Clinton and
Donald Trump won their respective primaries.
significant ways, the presidential primaries in New York were a turning point
in the unfolding saga of Bernie Sanders' bid for the US presidency.
crushing defeat by the former state secretary marks a decisive setback that
may, in fact, end his candidacy and usher his massively popular campaign into a
new phase, with or without the prospect of US presidency.
was this victory for Clinton that soon after this primary, the New York Times -
which now openly, unabashedly, and against any norm of journalistic decency or
professionalism acts as the official organ of Clinton's campaign - was so
confident of her victory that it began to speculate about who her running mate
primaries were not like any other; New York is the financial, commercial,
cultural, and intellectual capital of the US. What happens in New York (and a
few other major cosmopolitan epicenters like Chicago and San Francisco) is, in
many ways, the barometer of the nation at large.
million people live in the state of New York, of which about 8.4 million live
just in New York City. This population figure places New York City above many
European democracies, such as Austria, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and
consider the fact that according to reports, "only 19.7 percent of
eligible New Yorkers cast a ballot, the second-lowest voter turnout among
primary states after Louisiana, according to elections expert Michael
This is not
to mention the fact that even those who were registered Democrats and could not
vote: "The Kings County Board of Elections purged 126,000 registered
Democrats from the voting rolls in Brooklyn, prompting an outcry from Mayor
Bill de Blasio and an audit from Comptroller Scott Stringer."
can a political party ... violate the inalienable right of citizenship in a
the cause of this "purge" (fraud or mishap), this is not the main
calamity of the electoral process in the US.
is the fact that less than 20 percent of eligible voters in a state-wide
election get to choose who the next presidential candidates in the US national
elections would be.
number is not any indication of an apathetic low voter turnout, but, in fact,
is the evidence of massive voter suppression that, in the racist parlance of
the white supremacists, is kept exclusive for what they call "Third World
question is very simple: What is the difference between the way the Democratic
Party functions in New York and many other states and the Communist Party of
North Korea, the bete noire of the liberation theologians singing Hallelujah
for "American democracy"?
can a political party (with an obvious political agenda to promote for its own
endurance) violate the inalienable right of citizenship in a republic?
Equal than Others
principle reason for this voter suppression is what they call in the US
"closed primaries". What is a closed primary?
New York is
among many other states that conduct what is called "closed
primaries"; namely, they only allow voters who are registered members of a
particular political party to vote in that party's primary.
It is not,
therefore, accidental that much to the chagrin of Sanders and his massive
supporters among independents, "Clinton has won every state so far that's
held a closed primary".
If, as a
citizen, you followed the debates closely and came to the conclusion that
Sanders is the candidate of your choice and not Clinton, you would not be
allowed to vote for him unless months ago (long before you were familiar with
Sanders or his ideas), you had applied to the Democratic Party and become a
It must be
a rudimentary fact of any claim to democracy that if you are a citizen of a
republic, you must be able to vote in any phase of any presidential (or any
other) election simply by virtue of being a citizen.
Democratic Party, therefore, rules over this false claim to democracy the same
way the Guardian Council of octogenarian Super Mullahs rules over the Islamic
But in this
crucial phase of the US presidential primaries, these citizens are not allowed
to vote unless and until they are card-carrying members of the political party
conducting that primary.
animals are equal," indeed, as we learned from George Orwell's Animal
Farm, "but some animals are more equal than others".
As a result
of this blatantly undemocratic practice, if you are an independent-minded
person, follow the news and watch the debates before you decide which candidate
you prefer and want to vote for in the Democratic primaries in New York, you
might as well a woman be trying to drive in Saudi Arabia: You could not.
Democratic Party, therefore, rules over this false claim to democracy the same
way the Guardian Council of octogenarian Super Mullahs rules over the Islamic
words, the free and fair formation of political parties that is supposed to be
the finest fruit of a democracy has paradoxically degenerated into the most
powerful impediment to democracy.
question is: What is the result of these undemocratic "closed
"closed primaries" are the bottlenecks of a closed political culture,
preventing the possibility of any liberating breakthrough into a foreclosed
heart of this imperial republic that effectively rules the world with its
military might (not with any moral courage or political legitimacy), we have an
electoral process that systematically bars any critical judgment of its own
citizens to disrupt its mindless militarism. American citizens are as much trapped
inside this corrupt system as people around the globe are at the mercy of its
fighter jets and drone attacks.
parties, Republican and Democratic, are today functioning like two identical
but competing Orwellian Ministries of Truth - systematically, consistently,
unabashedly disallowing any critical thinking or nonviolent democratic action
to enter and disrupt the always-already rigged election.
theme of the US-Gulf summit in Riyadh was pronounced by US Secretary of Defense
Ashton Carter, after meeting with his Gulf counterparts, when he said that the
nuclear deal with Iran does not impose any restrictions on the US. The US
military “remains committed and capable of responding to Iranian malign and
destabilizing activities and deterring aggression against our regional friends
and allies," especially in the Gulf, he said.
States shares with GCC partners the view that, even as the nuclear accord
verifiably prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, there are many more
issues to be concerned with regarding Iran’s behaviour in the region,” he said,
including support for terrorist groups. This is exactly what the GCC countries
wanted to hear from the senior US delegation that headed to Riyadh for the
second summit of its kind since the Camp David summit hosted by President
General of the GCC Abdullatif Al-Zayani listed several points that were agreed
upon between the two sides, including cooperation in missile defense and
deploying joint patrols to intercept Iranian vessels smuggling weapons. The
long-term strategic partnership reinforced by the Riyadh Summit is not a
secondary issue, given the tension that has marred the relationship as Obama
gave absolute priority instead to the nuclear agreement with Iran and the
détente with Tehran after three decades of estrangement.
required the US president to isolate in his assessment nuclear talks from
Iran’s regional ambitions from Iraq to Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen. The
policy of turning a blind eye to such practices was seen by most Gulf States as
a US blessing of Iranian expansionism and hegemony in the region. The Gulf States
thus lost trust in Obama, who in turn did not conceal his annoyance with these
countries’ objections to his policies.
The crux of
the question will be whether US strategic policy will remain committed to the
traditional alliance with the Gulf or whether it will fluctuate in light of the
US-Iranian relations and the winds coming from Tehran
decision to hold a second US-Gulf summit to repair and develop relations has
reinforced the US security and strategic partnership with its traditional
allies in parallel with the emerging US-Iranian relationship, which in turn is
experiencing a crisis as a result of the Iranian leadership’s sticking to its
guns, especially with regard to its ballistic missile program.
development here has to do with the fight against terror, affecting two main
aspects: Saudi Arabia's steps to establish a pan-Islamic military alliance
against ISIS and other terrorist groups; and the unprecedented moves by the GCC
and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to designate as terror groups led
by Hezbollah. Ashton Carter described Hezbollah as one of the malignant
activities carried out by Iran in the region, and welcomed the Islamic military
alliance against ISIS, sending out an important message to the GCC states.
Barack Obama, in turn, stressed his opposition to the justice against sponsors
of terrorism act proposed by both Democrats and Republicans in the Congress.
The bill would allow, if passed, the families of the victims of 9/11 to sue the
Saudi parties on charges – denied by Riyadh – of having a role in the attacks.
Obama said he opposed the bill before heading to Riyadh, stressing that it
would be a dangerous precedent, thereby defusing any possible escalation that
would have damaged the summit or even US-Saudi relations.
The US and
Gulf parties discussed ways to strengthen security cooperation, according to
Zayani’s announcement in the wake of the Gulf defence ministers meeting with
their US counterpart, including areas like missile defence, marine security,
armament and training, and cyber security, in order to allow the GCC countries
to build up their readiness to protect the region’s security and stability.
Zayani said the steps agreed included combating Iranian activities that violate
international law through joint operations to intercept arms shipments bound
for Yemen or other conflict zones.
summit between Saudi King Salman bin Abdul Aziz and US President Barack Obama –
who was making his fourth visit to Riyadh since taking office – was not
particularly warm. However, it adhered to the parameters of strategic relations
and joint interests. While the US president was waiting for the joint summit
with the six GCC nations, the leaders of these countries were meeting in
another summit. This had important significance and was a message to the US and
contrast, a warm and historic summit convened between GCC leaders and Morocco’s
King Mohammed VI, and stressed the principles of non-interference in others’
affairs, mutual defence, and developing partnership towards integration and
possibly including Morocco the GCC framework. During his press conference with
his Moroccan counterpart, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said that the
main principle of the Arab summits in Riyadh was the refusal to tamper with
stability and separatism, while his counterpart stressed the importance for
these countries to be in a “united bloc.”
a partner in the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, and is also a key part of the
pan-Islamic anti-terror alliance. These two issues are not the subject of
contention between the US and the GCC except in terms of mutual expectations.
Yemen remains a Saudi and Gulf priority, while the US wants to accelerate an
end to that war and also wants Iran to end its intervention in Yemen. Regarding
the issue of the Islamic alliance, Washington welcomes it if its focus will be
on defeating terrorism, but there are differences over priorities in Iraq and
has focused on Iraq and the need for the Gulf countries to step up their
support, economic and political, for the Iraqi government, especially as
concerns Sunni regions of Iraq. However, the Gulf countries have stressed the
need for the government in Baghdad to fulfil its obligations towards Sunnis,
and the need to rein in Shiite militias and Iranian dictates.
continue in Syria as well because of the divergent visions and policies.
Neither the Gulf countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, is willing to abandon
Syria; nor is the US administration ready to pursue a new policy on Syria after
gradually backing away from its red lines, led by the demand for Bashar
al-Assad to step down.
Saudi Arabia Is Planning a New Economic Era
25, Saudi Arabia is expected to announce a comprehensive economic plan aimed at
pivoting the kingdom away from its heavy reliance on oil. The much-touted
creation of a $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund will be one pillar of this plan.
will be the National Transformation Program, which includes a wide variety of
reforms, from tax increases to spending cuts. This strategic reform initiative
will build on the multimillion-dollar advice of several prominent consulting
firms, a preview of which was given in a December 2015 McKinsey report.
challenges facing Saudi Arabia are well known. But if McKinsey’s assumptions
and calculations prove correct, then the magnitude of required reform is truly
astounding. According to their report, “Even if the government were to freeze
the level of public expenditure in nominal terms to contain the deficit and
intervene in the labour market to stem rising unemployment by limiting the
influx of foreign workers, these reactive changes would be insufficient to
maintain current Saudi living standards or sound public finances.”
be little doubt that the government is serious about economic transformation.
But how far and how quickly they can push reforms are two important questions
words, things are challenging. McKinsey’s baseline scenario requires two
enormous policy shifts and still won’t save Saudi Arabia from severe economic
hardship. Instead, it calls on the kingdom’s leadership to be even more
ambitious, focusing their efforts on increasing labour productivity, building a
stronger business environment, and managing finances sustainably. What McKinsey
has proposed is nothing short of revolutionary. For example, under its
full-potential scenario, the consulting firm presumes non-oil government
revenue will increase more than ten-fold between 2013 and 2030.
Arabia has already taken a number of steps toward reform. The Saudi Arabian
General Investment Authority (SAGIA) has simplified licensing procedures for
foreign investors. The government has raised the price of fuel and electricity.
And the kingdom has also already begun raising money both domestically and
internationally, in the midst of credit downgrades from major rating agencies.
Meanwhile, Saudi leadership has also recognized that much more needs to be
done, including fiscal consolidation and working to eliminate the budget
deficit in the next five years.
there is reason to be sceptical about the government’s ability to deliver. As
the Economist pointed out, “Saudi Arabia has promised reform before, only for
its efforts to fizzle into insignificance. Its capital markets are thin and the
capacity of its bureaucracy thinner.” It is much easier to pen a strategic plan
than to execute it. Previous plans have often fallen far short of their goals.
Productivity growth in Saudi Arabia has been low in recent decades. Even if the
government can somehow take immediate concrete steps to make the business
environment better functioning and more transparent and can also lop off
unproductive government spending, overhauling the education system and
reforming the civil service are monumental tasks.
of the elaborate reform puzzle comes with its own challenges. In order to have
a real impact on housing and development, the tax on unused land must be
accompanied by the execution of reforms in the mortgage market and on
regulations. Meeting proposed deadlines to adopt international accounting
standards seems nearly impossible given a shortage of qualified accountants in
the kingdom and difficulties ensuring Sharia compliance.
This is to
say nothing of domestic political concerns. The government should
simultaneously placate the princes, garner the support of the business
community, and be careful not to upset or overburden the masses with new taxes,
reduced subsidies, and fewer government jobs. There has already been some
pushback from consumer groups about water prices. And while targeted cash
transfers to low- and middle-income Saudis will help relieve some of the
burden, the fact remains that Saudi citizens will still be asked to work harder
in jobs that pay less than they are accustomed to.
be little doubt that the government is serious about economic transformation.
But how far and how quickly they can push reforms are two important questions.
It is one thing to call for improvement in government delivery, a breakdown of
barriers in the private sector, and improved accountability. It is another
thing to deliver on these promises. However, even if Saudi Arabia can pull off
only a fraction of the proposed reforms and falls short of its lofty goals, it
will be a meaningful start to real economic transformation.
25, the Saudi government will unveil its "Vision for the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia", a sweeping package of economic reforms that includes the
widely-reported "National Transformation Programme" as well as the
privatisation of oil giant Saudi Aramco and Riyadh's new Public Investment
media narrative surrounding the plan for a post-oil Saudi Arabia largely
focuses on the Kingdom's potential for financial growth and investment, the
social context surrounding these reforms demands a closer look.
news of this privatisation and diversification drive has drawn understandable
scepticism from many quarters. How can Riyadh, the world's largest oil
producer, wean itself off the petrodollar in the midst of a crash in oil
The Oil Game Uncovered - Counting the Cost
In a region
ravaged by economic, political and social strife, the G20 member and World Bank
key player enjoys both the financial and human capital to make reforms other
countries in the Arab world might not be able to undertake.
Kingdom achieves its stated goals, the Saudi push to reduce reliance on
petrodollars will be nothing less than a momentous transformation of a country
most closely associated with oil fields.
the success or failure of this effort will come down to whether it can foresee
and inhibit potentially adverse consequences that could follow policy changes
of this scale.
necessary infrastructure while divesting certain publicly administered
services, the Kingdom can indeed kick-start non-oil growth while alleviating
its financial burden.
potential, however, requires more than a mere "economic"
transformation. It also requires acknowledgement and encouragement - by the
state and foreign investors alike - of Saudi Arabia's profound and ongoing
diversification, privatisation, and the opening of the Saudi market to outside
investors (especially with recent reforms that facilitate foreign investment)
could well make the Kingdom a global investment and trade destination, to the
benefit of international markets and Saudi citizens alike.
privatising public ventures (like airports), the Kingdom is seeking broad
institutional changes it hopes will be spearheaded by public-private
The idea of
creating airport free zones in Riyadh and Jeddah would provide for additional
sources of non-oil income but also create laboratories for local, regional and
foreign companies and industries alike. The impact of such changes, however,
will not be limited to Saudi finances. They have the potential to impact Saudi
society as well. In fact, they already are.
prices likely to stay low for the foreseeable future, the Kingdom is cognisant
of its need for outside investment to make up for reduced revenues.
joining the SkyTeam airline alliance in May 2012, for example, Saudi airports
have begun hosting transit passengers from across the world. This has prompted
the hitherto unimaginable breakdown of social and cultural barriers between
Saudis and the outside world.
middle and upper-class Saudis have for decades travelled abroad, airport
employees and domestic travellers in the Kingdom's international airports are
coming into regular contact with transit passengers from abroad for the first
fellow travellers represent previously impossible contact with the outside
world at a time when Saudis face above-average scrutiny for visas to most
week, Saudi Arabia took out a $10bn five-year loan from a consortium of global
banks - its first sovereign loan since 1991. This effort to raise the Saudi
borrowing profile will be an important part of the necessary shift from Aramco
to the Public Investment Fund as the primary financial organ of the Kingdom.
opening Aramco, the new economic programme aims to attract foreign investment
in an increasingly service-oriented local consumer culture by expanding Saudi's
retail and healthcare sectors with foreign investment.
indicate their plans for closer business ties with the United States, focusing
on cooperation and investment from the US technology, healthcare, tourism and
Riyadh's previous (and continuing) pursuit of British investment in rail,
healthcare and construction projects.
openings promise more jobs for Saudis, they also require a Saudi labour market
capable of moving beyond the managerial, engineering and medical sectors to
also handling technical jobs (an area Saudis still avoid).
coverage of the National Transformation Programme has revolved around floating
Aramco to foreign investors and the sovereign wealth fund, with job creation
largely relegated to an afterthought.
of true transformation, however, must place an equal emphasis on encouraging
generational change in the Saudi workforce and society. This means taking into
account the changing social aspirations, habits and needs of Saudi youth.
Of The Welfare State
young Saudis, frustrated with the failings of the welfare state, have thus far
embraced the Thatcheresque models underpinning the National Transformation
Programme. One cannot forget, however, the downside of Thatcherite economics:
Saudi higher education has (despite its best intentions) created an academic
environment that prioritises producing employees over scholars, blurring the
boundaries of academia. Liberating Saudi academics from this
scholastic-industrial complex by creating and expanding technical colleges
would give greater focus to both areas and produce Saudi workers better
qualified to reduce reliance on foreign labour.
down generous scholarship programmes to universities abroad and focusing on
quality over quantity in domestic education should do much to improve this
long-standing labour issue. The new economic platform must include even broader
restructuring of education expenditures to earn better returns on those
the support enjoyed by the soon-to-be-announced National Transformation
Programme to past labour reforms, the failure of the oil-based welfare state's
Saudisation policies helps explain the warm reception of the economic policies
now being revealed.
around, the economic programme can and should emphasise a population capable
and encouraged to explore all fields of work - including technical work.
Otherwise, the issues that now plague the oil-based economy will remain.
excitement in the air these days and the Saudis are in a state of optimism
while anticipating the announcement of the national vision program, which is
circulating in various media circles.
the information that is being exchanged, Saudis are awaiting with hope and
passion to hear details about this ambitious program.
is changing and Saudi Arabia is also part of this changing world. Therefore, it
is natural that the changes are desired and expected by the Saudis as well.
to what we have been hearing through the media the ideas about the national
transformation program seems to be bold, ambitious and promising.
Arabia is changing in a changeable world and it is therefore the right of every
Saudi citizen to dream of an ambitious national vision, which should feature
clear objectives and a road map for a leap into a real quality life in future.
projects with a fixed vision and long-term goals will always chart a future of
are now of the view that the implementation of huge national projects based on
long-term vision will be bold and challenging and this will certainly make all
There is a
big difference between those who have a date with history or have a date with
the future. Saudi Arabia is a young country, not exceeding 100 years since it
was founded and 60 percent of its population is under the age of 25.
generation needs a new vision to address their queries and remove all the
obstacles from their way and open the way for new opportunities.
believe that they are prisoners of bureaucratic decisions and these
bureaucratic ideas kill ambitions and exaggerates fear of change that lead to a
monotonous point of boredom, which affect their pattern of thinking.
ourselves to our neighbors in the past we were far more advanced then but now
the situation has reversed.
There is a
conviction among the Saudis that they have the ability to provide creative
ideas but the climate of administrative restrictions existing at present does
not help them and therefore there are many voices calling to embark on the
development and improvement in the management across all sectors.
are now convinced that their association with oil-based economy over time is
over and it is now time that they face the new reality and plan accordingly for
the future without relying on a single-item based economy.
national transformation program, which the Saudis are anticipating and
optimistic about, is a rare moment in the nation’s history and it is a
long-awaited move the citizens are waiting for.