On [Nov. 15] I went to a news conference at the National Press Club, where I am a member, titled “His Royal Highness Prince Turki al-Faisal al-Sa’ud of Saudi Arabia.” I asked a tough question at the news conference — a question that dealt with the very legitimacy of the Saudi regime. Before the end of the day, I’d received a letter informing me that I was suspended from the National Press Club “due to your conduct at a news conference.” The letter, signed by the executive director of the Club, William McCarren, accused me of violating rules prohibiting “boisterous and unseemly conduct or language.” After several days of efforts, I’ve been able to obtain video of the news conference. The video shows that I did not engage in any “boisterous and unseemly conduct or language.”
Saudi Arabia has basically been a center of counter-revolution in Arabic countries. The Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia, as did the Yemeni dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh for a time. The Saudi regime reportedly tried to prevent the Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak from stepping down. Saudi Arabia moved into Bahrain to stop a democratic uprising there. And of course it oppresses its own people, maintaining control through a combination of intimidation and in effect buying off much of the population. When major protests were attempted earlier this year, they were quickly put down and garnished little attention from most media. The Saudi regime arguably represents one of the narrowest of elites — it is not the 1%, it is perhaps the global 0.001% — and with hardly a pretense of merit. The Saudi regime continues to get weapons from the U.S. — see: “U.S. announces $60 billion arms sale for Saudi Arabia,” further preventing the possibility of peaceful change.
Prior to the event, I skimmed some material from Human Rights Watch on Saudi Arabia: “Saudi Arabia: Stop Arbitrary Arrests of Shia,” “Saudi Arabia: Free Islamic Scholar Who Criticized Ministry,” “Saudi Arabia: Women to Vote, Join Shura Council — But Reforms Exclude Other Forms of Discrimination.”
Toby Jones (Rutgers University, author of Desert Kingdom: How Oil and Water Forged Modern Saudi Arabia) recently wrote of Saudi Arabia: “the absence of public protest has little to do with the legitimacy of the ruling family, the uncertain popularity of an aged autocrat or the purported conservative nature of Saudi society. Many Saudis, whether pious or not, harbor deep frustrations with the country’s rulers. They share the same grievances about injustice, oppression and stifling corruption that have mobilized protesters elsewhere.” See also Madawi Al Rasheed “Yes, It Could Happen Here: Why Saudi Arabia is Ripe for Revolution” and Christopher M. Davidson “Lords of the Realm: The wealthy, unaccountable monarchs of the Persian Gulf have long thought themselves exempt from Middle East turmoil. No longer.”
In the course of his over 30 minutes of remarks, Turki took issue with the term the “Arab Spring” — not because he thought a term like “Arab Uprisings” would be more appropriate, as others I know have argued — rather, he said, he preferred the term “Arab Troubles.” I found it quite distressing that someone would openly say that moves toward democracy were “troubles.”
Peter Hickman, the moderator for the event, called on me for the first question. Here is the exchange:
[Transcript and more after the jump.]
Husseini:There’s been a lot of talk about the legitimacy of the Syrian regime, I want to know what legitimacy your regime has, sir. You come before us, representative of one of the most autocratic, misogynistic regimes on the face of the earth. Human Rights Watch and others report of torture, detention of activists, you squelched the democratic uprising in Bahrain, you tried to overturn the democratic uprising in Egypt and indeed you continue to oppress your own people. What legitimacy does your regime have — other than billions of dollars and weapons?
Hickman: Sam, let him answer.
Unidentified speaker: What was the question?
Turki: [motioning Husseini to the podium] Would you like to come and speak here? Would you like to come and speak here?
Husseini: I’d like you to try to answer that question.
Turki: I will try my best sir. Well sir, I don’t know if you’ve been to the kingdom or not?
Husseini: What legitimacy do you have, sir?
Turki: Have you been to the kingdom?
Husseini: What legitimacy does your regime have, other than oppressing your own people?
William McCarren [Executive director of the National Press Club, who had come up to Husseini and was literally-face-to-face]: Put your question and let him answer, we have a whole room of people.
Husseini [to McCarren]: He [Turki] asked me a question. He asked me and I responded.
Turki: No you did not respond.
[Off audio, some back and forth continues between McCarren and Husseini, see below.]
Hickman: Go ahead [Turki] —
Turki: Anyway ladies and gentlemen I advise anybody who has these questions to come to the kingdom and see for themselves. I don’t need to justify my country’s legitimacy. We’re participants in all of the international organizations and we contribute to the welfare of people through aid program not just directly from Saudi Arabia but through all the international agencies that are working throughout the world to provide help and support for people. We admit this, as I said that we have many challenges inside our country and those challenges we are hoping to address and be reformed by evolution, as I said, and not by revolution. So that is the way that we are leading, by admitting that we have shortcomings. Not only do we recognize the shortcomings, but hopefully put in place actions and programs that would overcome these shortcomings. I have mentioned the fact that when you call Saudi Arabia a misogynistic country that women in Saudi Arabia can now not only vote, but also participate as candidates in elections and be members of the Shura Council. And I just refer you to your own experience to your women’s rights, when did your women get right to vote? After how many years since the establishment of the United States did women get to vote in the United States? Does that mean that before they got the vote that United States was an illegitimate country? According to his definition, obviously. So, until, when was it — 1910 when women got to vote — from 1789 to 1910 United States was illegitimate? This is how you should measure things, by how people recognize their faults and try to overcome them.
Husseini: — So are you saying that Arabs are inherently backward? —
Hickman: Sam, that’s enough — this lady to the right, you’re next.
I was very glad to get the question in and and I was happy that Turki responded. I think his response opens the door to a lot more serious reporting. For example, Turki’s response that Saudi Arabia gets legitimacy because of its aid programs is an interesting notion. Is he arguing that by giving aid to other countries and to international organizations that the Saudi regime has somehow purchased legitimacy, and perhaps immunity from criticism, that it would otherwise not have received? This is worth journalists and independent organizations pursuing.
Turki ignored the general question of authoritarianism and human rights abuses, but he cited reforms that the Saudi regime is allegedly going to implement, like allowing women to vote for the first time in the Shura Council elections, slated for 2015. This raises a lot of other questions: Would these reforms, that he seems to take credit for and pride in, have had a chance of happening were it not for what he calls the “Arab Troubles”? And how meaningful are they? Does that mean Saudi Arabia will become democratic in any meaningful way? Or will the same basic monarchical structure continue? Also, Human Rights Watch notes that the regime does not seem to be “reforming other areas of discrimination against women, such as the guardianship system that authorizes male control over women and the ban on women driving.”
The point that I was trying to follow up on — this notion by Turki that somehow because the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting the right to vote on account of gender was not passed until 1920 — that this somehow excuses Saudi Arabia from being so authoritarian and prohibiting women from voting until today seems highly dubious. It seems to accept the notion that Arab people should be behind the United States in reform by 100 years. I’ve heard similar statements by George W. Bush — when he was supposedly pushing for Arab democracy he denounced the notion that democracy was somehow good for some people but not for others. However, this was a very problematic thing coming from Bush given that he was using the rhetoric of “democracy” — as well as “non-proliferation” and “human rights” — to justify war. And it was perhaps most hollow coming from Bush because he was close allies with the most authoritarian of Arab regimes, including Mubarak and the Saudis as he was saying it. So the point is a critical one — democracy, and increasing meaningful democracy, is good for all people. But the point shouldn’t be misused to pursue oppressive policies.
I should note that there have been tensions at the Press Club before, some with me, some with other journalists. See “Banned from First Amendment Room.” Several years ago, McCarren and I were in the elevator together at the Press Building and he told me that I was causing him a great deal of grief because of my questioning of officials. He said that there were a lot of other places in Washington, D.C. — think tanks and such — that host officials without the officials having to deal with such questioning. I told him I understood his point, and even sympathized to a degree. I wasn’t trying to drive officials away, but that this was the National Press Club, that it should be known for its independence and not be a place where officials would come because they expected to avoid serious scrutiny. I said I thought that events at the Press Club would carry more weight and be more interesting the more critical the questioning was — and that events that were simply flacking for an official were hollow and less deserving of thoughtful attention. I walked away feeling like we had understood each other better.
Another issue is that tough questioning seems to be done selectively, and of course this is an issue not just at the National Press Club. When individuals who seem at odds with the establishment, like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Jeremiah Wright have spoken before to the Press Club, they were very critically questioned. Others, however, are treated rather reverentially. I have participated, and at times benefited from some of this. When the Austrian Neo-Nazi Jörg Haider came to the Club, Hickman, the same moderator at the Turki event, allowed me to give him quite a grilling with several followups — at least four or five, much to my joy — and congratulated me for my efforts afterwords.
During the beginning of Turki’s reply to my question, McCarren continued speaking to me, he had walked right up to me and spoke in a rather obnoxious tone, telling me to let Turki answer the question. I told McCarren that I was simply responding to Turki’s question to me. McCarren continued speaking in an obnoxious manner to me and I said to him “are you threatening me?” He responded: “Absolutely.” We had an exchange after I left the news conference as well. After the event, I sent an email to Hickman asking if he knew where I could get video of the news conference and he replied cordially but could not help provide the video, which I was finally able to obtain after several days.
Later that afternoon, I got an email with the notice of suspension signed by McCarren. The letter states: “We are suspending your membership for two weeks, effective immediately, due to your conduct at a news conference held at the National Press Club on Tuesday, November 15, 2011. Your action was in direct violation of House Rule 4 and grounds for immediate suspension.
“House Rule No. 4 states: ‘Boisterous and unseemly conduct or language in or about the Club premises or in connection with any Club-sponsored event is prohibited. Any member so offending shall be liable for immediate suspension by any Member of the board or the manager or his designee pending investigation by the board, which shall render final action.’
“This matter will be review ed by the Club’s Ethics Committee. A meeting will be scheduled prior to the end of your two week suspension to discuss your conduct and the violation. The Chairperson of the Ethics Committee will contact you to schedule the meeting.
“In the meantime, you should not come to the Club or use its facilities for any reason.”
The charge is false. I did not engage in “boisterous and unseemly conduct or language.” I engaged in tough journalism with a powerful government official from an autocratic regime that is allied with the U.S. government. This apparently warrants suspension from the National Press Club in Executive Director McCarren’s view.
Sam Husseini is Communications Director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His personal web site is husseini.posterous.com. He is also founder of WashingtonStakeout.com.
Well, good for you sir. I am not an expert on the Press Club because I hardly get my news from that group as I always thought they are only interested in serving privilege and power. Can you appeal the decision? Where is there a place to turn for serious minded journalists? We the people need more folks like you in the press club and I am speaking from a very common background…thank you and don’t give up, hang in there!
That is awful, inhumane and stupid to suspend a journalist for asking a legitimate question from a well known member of the world greatest brutal dictatorship. What happened to our great democracy? Is it in shamble now? When did the freedom of speech and expression died in our great country? America is no longer the symbol of human rights for entire world? Now we have to be the dictators follower worldwide and get our lessons from them and kiss their a$$es as well. That is ashamed and I truly suggest this notion from now on, National Press Club switch name to National Dictators Club. Might well they close it down and stop further embarrassments.
Good on you prince Turki, USA has no legitimacy before having a slight move to women’s rights. Women still safar discrimination in the US until today. Guantanamo bay is a best example on how human rights look like in democratic country like USA.
Sam was so offensive in asking questions…. and his question was so stupid…. what legitimacy does any regime on planet earth have? he had to be more specific and ask straight forwrd questions rather than wearing Sysrian regime hat and pro-iranian milicias shoes.
Afetr all, who cares for Sam stupidity!!!
we all have ears, a few of us have minds.
go back to the answer of h.r.h and you will find a big lie of hussenie.s aticle ,
the prince said ( We’re participants in all of the international organizations).
that means to those who have minds to think saudia arabia is a memmber of the u.n
now look to what hussenis wrote(Turki’s response that Saudi Arabia gets legitimacy because of its aid programs is an interesting notion. Is he arguing that by giving aid to other countries and to international organizations that the Saudi regime has somehow purchased legitimacy)for those who have only ears this will work.
finally go back to hussenies background and you will understand.
Sam Husseini, GO AND FUCK YOURSELF SIR.
Highly correlated with a certain streak of comments here, is traffic from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s most affluential businesses.
Hats off to you Husseini. You’re obviously aware that you unleashed the anger of the oil state and its US sponsor, so don’t be disheartened by the commentary of such ignorants who will never figure things out, and too threatened to challenge the status quo. The moment one speaks about democracy with a Saudi (leave aside a prince), women are the scapegoat, as if their votes in their dysfunctional good-for-nothing municipality will bring about equality for battered wives, divorcees or Saudi women married to expatriates whose children are denied citizenship (not if a Saudi man married an expat). Not going to even go to locking up social activists for making a video on poverty in Riyadh, or accusing anyone who seeks reform of “suspicious foriegn links” (links all leading to the demonic shia Iran). I sometimes wonder. which is worse, the House of Saud or the House of Zion?
I think Sam did a highly commendable professional thing in raising the issue of Saudi Arabia’s place in the 21st Century. The level of political debate within the Kingdom is almost non-existent and every time there is an opportunity to quiz a representative of that country (especially such a powerful one) there is an imperative of every single human being to demand answers to why women (all women within the Kingdom) are infantised to the degree they cannot go ANYWHERE alone or do anything through both legal and social constraints. Why Shias in the east of the country are physically beaten and suppressed. Why the Hai’a (a bunch of bandits) have the power they do. Saudi Arabia is governed by a disgusting regime. Praise Sam for having the balls to point this out.
There is no need to travel to “kingdom” to see the crimes of Saudi tribal rgeim against humanity. Just look what they do in Bahrain.
THE FACTS SPECKS FOR HIM SELF
GOD BLESS KING ABDULLAH BIN ABDULAZIZ AND GOD BLESS SAUDI ARABIA..WE ARE HAPPY THE WAY WE LIVE..SO PLEASE ACCEPT US THE WAY WE ARE OR LEAVE US ALONE..ITS OUR PROBLEM AND ITS OUR CONCERN AND WE KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH BOTH OF IT..WE DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO HELP US.
Hey Sam. Brooklyn, NY? Arthur Sheehan House? Rainer and Claudia? Matt Tessitore? I heard about you just this morning on “Up” with Chris Hayes. You introduced me to the writings of Noam Chomsky, btw. Omg, is it really you?
I believe that either Mr Husseini impartial or he repeats unconsciously Iran’s governmental media news. Military Regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria which are highly corrupted are not like GCC countries, where royal families are running their countries since hundreds of years. The Iran-Arab conflict has taken advantages of Arab Spring to step in Bahrain, which led to the uprising from a segment of people that has been exploited by Iran secret agents. However, GCC countries as third world countries are missing many FIRST WORLD QUALITIES, but they’re working to gain some of them gradually developments and evolutions, especially those which are resisted by conservative citizens. GCC countries contributes to humanity by offering their people education, scholarships, health care, accommodation, and housing which are not even offered in FIRST WORLD. Women right are ongoing developments that need time and cultural agreement not regime enforcement as what Mr Husseini thinks.
Pingback: Anonymous
RJ,
Who are “we”? People of Bahrain are suffering because of your criminal regime. Shias have no rights to practice their religion without fear of your criminal regime.What are you talking about? God will not bless criminals and traitors to Islam and Arabs.
Hassan Tamimi ,
What has Iran to did with Arab spring? Iran supports people of Palestine and Lebanon for 3o years. You cannot blame Iran for your crimes against humanity. People of Bahrain are fighting that illicit regime for years. In addition, Saudi regime was created by England. And we all know this!
Correction: what has Iran to do ……
Husseini: you invited ur background to post Comments , is this ur legitimacy u want to be in saudia arabia, if you live 1000 years u will not see shia’s (the traitors) to rule the world.
the time of persian’s( kesra ) ended and it will not come back.
the americans who posted comments here, send reqests to husseini to write about iran and the legitimacy of ahmdy najad and the interfering in lebanon , syria , bahrain , kuwait, yemen etc. again husseini the day of kesra had ended. $$$by the way where you get your money from$$$. sorry I forget maybe from one-fifth .
al otaibi bandr,
why do you want to mislead people? Why do you want to change the topic? It is not about persian or Iran. It is about Saudi crimes in Bahrain and against people of Heejaz. wake up and stop dreaming!
Many of the Saudi regime supporters are attempting to obfuscate regime with state. Mr. Husseini asked about the legitimacy of the Saudi regime and not the state.
This has nothing to do with Iran, but since the supporters of the horrid Saudi regime brought it up, it should be noted that Iran is relatively more advanced politically than the Saudi obscurantist regime.
May the Arab Spring topple this gloomy period in Arab history by toppling the House of Saud.
@al otaibi bandr
You people need to stop playing with religion (or Arab and none Arab) card(s). You are using these cards only because of political(power) goals.
Clearly :
You know nothing about history,
the United States went to war with the British until independence,
and later in Philadelphia they declare thier constitution,
and there was a conflict of racial ,lasted many years, first with the Jews, blacks and women,
now, Is America a legitimate state or not.
This is an example,
all countries of the modern world, fought wars and declared independence, is it the legitimacy ,
Now,
Saudi Arabia is a state such states, we are a member of the United Nations, if we were not legitimate, this applies to you too,
Let’s go back to the question of whether the intention is the legitimate or abuse of the Saudi people and offend them.
What is the link between legitimacy and misogyny.
We love our mothers and sisters and our wives.
But you Shia traitors, history will deal with you, after the fall of the Assad regime which is one side for the coin and the other one is najad .the massive killer of ahwaz.
ahmed and hamid are arabic names, why you angry when I mention iran.
I think it is clear now. for me I say no country have legitimacy this is god’s earth, and he will Inherit it.
@al otaibi bandr
Why do you want to play with Arab and none Arab card? You are obviously trying to divide people by playing with Arab and none Arab card, which is a wrong move. However, do you know what “Bandr” means?
Prince Turki responds to Sam Husseini’s question by saying people should come to the kingdom and questioning the validity of criticism from anyone who hasn’t. Women are not allowed to visit the kingdom for personal or business purposes unless they are accompanied by a male relative (husband, father or brother). That excludes a lot of women.
BTW- When I criticized Israel’s apartheid occupation of Palestine in conversation with an Israeli Zionist, I received the same response. In effect, my opinion is worthless because I have not been to the West Bank.
This is a lame & lazy response to criticism.
@Michele
Good point. His responds to Sam Husseini’s question is like if a judge asks a criminal about the reason of committing a crime, and then the criminal replies: “Have you ever been to my house? “! I do not know why the US gov do not arrest these war criminals by their arrival in the US .
@al otaibi bandr
Apparently you can’t distinguish between state and regime. That’s the problem of being ruled all your life, perhaps, by a totalitarian and authoritarian regime, the House of Saud. For the record, state and regime are not the same. Go re-read Mr. Husseini’s questions.
Your sectarian diatribe reveals the social illnesses that this regime has created. The House of Saud are a threat to the Arab peoples as much as Israel is.
Why anyone needs to visit the kingdom to know all the facts? Everything is so obvious that makes it unnecessary to jeopardize your life by visiting the kingdom. I am just wondering how corrupt Saudi king and thousands of a$$hole princes who are running all the Saudi high offices as a family run business. They possess zillions of $$$ in their accounts around the world plus other investments in expensive lands, mansions, vacation resorts, famous islands, factories, sport leagues, clubs, discos, bars, casinos, gambling palaces, castles, publications, news media, paradises, fancy hotels, organizations and even gay bars regardless of billions regime spend yearly supporting and funding terrorists networks around the world such as Al-Qaida and Taliban and more use them as tools to destabilizing other nations and issuing fake Fatwas by Saudi regime Muftis to kill other religious groups members and go to heaven for their own political ambitious and personal advantages. Murdering opposition figures, Saudi dissidents and opponents mysteriously and beheading freedom lovers and those who seek justice or complaint about corruptions are very common. They also promote Sunni Wahabism and Sharia laws around the globe and are trying to convert everyone worldwide to Sunni Wahabi style of Islam. These blood sucker monsters use Arabian treasures OIL& GAS & MECCA profits for their personal use and millions live under poverty inside that kingdom. Saudi people never tasted any kind of democracy and freedom in their lifetime no free elections, no freedom of expressions, or freedom of religions, no freedom of press no freedom of demonstration and protest. Anyone who arrested with any holy books like Bible, Torah or other religious materials other than Quran is subject to harsh punishments or even death sentence by swords. The Saudi royal family has established thousands of Mosques worldwide but they never allowed any Churches, Synagogues, Temples or other religions worship places built in Saudi Arabian soil. Abuse of human rights in that kingdom is severely high Women have no rights at all. Slavery in 21th century is big time high in Saudi kingdom and most blacks, woman and foreigners as well as millions of 3rd class citizens are slaves and servants. They and their family usually being raped and abused daily by princes or their family and friends and no laws are there to prevent such inhumane acts and protect this majority. No condemnation of Saudi dictators and their cruel regime by United Nations, Human Rights Organizations or free world ever so far. This leaves Arabian people with no other choice but start a revolution just like Egyptians and Tunisians against their criminal regime. Kingdom’s fate will be in hands of injured, oppressed, hungry and angry Arabian population who soon be uprising and toppling their regime. Saudi regime have been bribing many world leaders and officials using money, gold, diamonds and other kind of expensive gifts, so they have managed to stay in power up to now. The recent tsunami will send these Arabs& Iran dictators and other dictators in Middle East and around the Persian Gulf region and elsewhere to dumpster of history soon once for all just like Bin Ali, Mubarak and Saddam because no dictator should underestimate the people’s power. These dictators should realize their days are numbered and no longer world powers can save them or overcome their people’s power.
indeed very absurd.
Pingback: Face the Nation or Cheat the Nation | Misleading Media
LOL… Hard for them to argue that you were “boisterous” when we couldn’t even hear your questions in the video, only his responses.
Interesting question. “Legitimacy” is such a murky concept. There’s no independent, objective, consistent-through-time definition of what it means for one regime or another to be “legitimate” or not. For most of human political history it’s been a kind of “golden rule” concept, as in “he who has power, has legitimacy” isn’t it? In which case, the guy’s point stands in a kind of crude circular logic: his regime is legitimate because it’s the current regime in power.
BUT three points:
One, it’s hardly something to brag about that your country meets only the lowest standard of legitimacy (might = right) that –let’s face it– the most primitive human societies in ancient civilizations also met.
Two, regarding the reference to the U.S., to the extent that this country in particular claims to be a democracy (and one can and should argue about to what extent it actually is) obviously legitimacy extends from the government more or less accurately reflecting the will of the people, however flawed that will might be. However, given that it’s true that many human beings were left out of the definition of “people” for a very long time I would agree that the government of the United States, by this definition, was not “legitimate”, not until 1910 but until 1965 when the Voting Rights Act passed.
Three, you could argue that today as the concepts of international law and globalization have emerged, legitimacy now also comes from the global community and that means NOT ONLY official recognition by other nation-states and participation in international organizations, BUT ALSO to what extent a country adheres to certain agreed upon (explicitly in some cases but also implicitly in terms of customary law) standards of behavior regarding how citizens should be treated. And given the track record of the U.S. on abiding by those agreed-upon standards I’d say we still fail the legitimacy test.