U.S. Told To Lessen Saudi Dependence

Wed May 22, 6:47 PM ET

By CAROLYN SKORNECK, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Lawmakers angered by what they view as a one-sided U.S.-Saudi relationship were told Wednesday the United States should lessen U.S. dependence on the kingdom for oil and bases.

"Had we not sent 500,000 American troops to the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia today would be the 20th province of Iraq," said Rep. Tom Lantos , D-Calif., the top Democrat on the International Relations Committee. "One would expect the government to show a modicum of appreciation for the fact that the United States saved the House of Saud."

R. James Woolsey, a former central intelligence director, said the United States must maintain cordial relations, especially in light of Crown Prince Abdullah's recent Middle East peace initiative. Abdullah offered Israel diplomatic and commercial relations with the Arab world in exchange for full withdrawal from territory captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war.

Yet the United States must curb its reliance on Saudi Arabia, Woolsey told the International Relations Committee's Middle East panel. He suggested shifting much of the West's oil purchases to Russia, as a reward to Russian President Vladimir Putin for his positive steps.

The United States also should take steps to withdraw its military forces, as long as it is clear the United States not acting out of pressure from al-Qaida or others, Woolsey said.

Leaving would ensure the Saudis can't constrain U.S. forces as they did during the bombing campaign in Afghanistan, said Richard Murphy, a longtime foreign service officer who was once ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

Riyadh let the Pentagon use a crucial command and control facility at Prince Sultan Air Base, but barred the United States from basing its bombers on Saudi territory, he said.

Woolsey also characterized any moves to remove forces as an appropriate response to the Saudis' lack of cooperation in the Riyadh and Khobar Towers bombings in 1995 and 1996 in which 23 Americans were killed.

Lawmakers expressed anger with anti-American, anti-Semitic propaganda seen in Saudi government-run media, statements from government officials and clerics, and schools in the Muslim world.

"Saudi money — official or not — is behind much of the Islamic-extremist rhetoric and action in the world today," said Rep. Ben Gilman, R-N.Y., chairman of the panel. "Saudis poured funds into the madrassahs in Pakistan that spawned the Taliban fighters." In addition, he said, "They have given, in effect, every potential suicide bomber or other anti-Israel terrorist a free life insurance policy."

At the same time, Gilman praised the peace initiative: "As flawed as it is, it nevertheless provided an impetus to certain states to rethink their rejection of Israel."

But that proposal drew criticism as well.

While calling Abdullah's offer an "encouraging sign," Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said the crown prince should have supported a peace proposal two years ago from then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said Congress should applaud Abdullah's proposal.