Analysis: Terrorism - burden of proof lies with defender

The Government of Saudi Arabia has now arrested dozens of its citizens and charged some for the May 12 Riyadh bombings. Various sweeps in Makkah and Madinah may have netted potential terrorists who are accused of collaborating with Al Qaida.

Equally important, several hundred clerics were fired and, according to an official spokesman, Riyadh actually suspended many preachers for allegedly preaching hatred and intolerance.

These are serious steps and a direct response to the many charges that Saudi Arabia has become a breeding ground for terrorists.

According to Adel Al Jubeir, an advisor to Saudi Crown Prince Abdallah bin Abdul Aziz, "hundreds of imams who violated prohibitions against preaching intolerance have been removed from their positions and more than 1,000 have been suspended and referred to educational programmes."

Al Jubeir was caught off-guard a few days ago when quizzed about Saudi financial support for Hamas and Al Qaida members. He managed as best as he could against seasoned sharks ready to shred to pieces anyone who pretends to offer an explanation.

Boldly, Al Jubeir outlined new regulations, including updated banking controls and procedures introduced to prevent charitable organisations from donating funds outside the Kingdom. This is the second major question in the Kingdom's war on terrorism that deserves attention.

In the aftermath of the September 11 attasks, several influential policy-makers and analysts strongly criticised Saudi Arabia for allegedly promoting terrorism and "funding" hatred.

Innumerable senior members of the U.S. Congress, as well as highly-placed intelligence officers, concluded that funds earned from the sale of petroleum was the main source of financing available to terrorists.

They called for an end to the Western "addiction to oil" without, naturally, offering a way out. Others called for removing U.S. troops from the Kingdom. Still others chastised Riyadh for tolerating religious extremists within its ranks.

Prominent think-thanks joined the bandwagon. In July 2002, for example, a briefing prepared by a RAND Corporation researcher and presented to the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board (a group that includes such neo-conservative masters as Richard Pearl and Henry Kissinger) declared that the Kingdom was "the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent (of the United States) in the Middle East."

Worse, the briefing further advanced as fact the notion that "Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader."

In October 2002, the influential New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) published a report titled Terrorist Financing, which stated "unambiguously what U.S. government spokespersons (allegedly) have not: For years, individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia have been the most important source of funds for Al Qaida; and for years, Saudi officials have turned a blind eye to this problem."

Charges like these, made by respected organisations like RAND and the CFR, prompted families of 9/11 victims to file multi-billion dollar suits against Saudi Arabia, its financial organisations, several charitable institutions, leading business enterprises, and me-mbers of the ruling family.

What is the actual status of any such financial support and are the accusations correct? Few analysts would dispute that some Saudi individuals knowingly or unwittingly have provided financial support that ended up in Al Qaida hands.

A number of "documents" have been published describing alleged complex financial transactions between Saudi citizens and known terrorists, their supporters, and organisations.

Some Western intelligence sources even claimed that Riyadh "purchased protection from Osama bin Laden", as he promised to refrain from conducting operations in Saudi Arabia.

This may well be the case, but a series of bombings in several Saudi cities between 1995 and 2003 illustrate that Riyadh may have entered into a deal with a party that did not honour its end of the bargain.

Yet, the rationale for such erroneous conclusions, that Riyadh pays for its security, originate in the Kingdom itself because Saudis have tolerated similar rumours throughout the past few decades.

It was generally assumed that Saudi Arabia relied on "Riyal Diplomacy" to ensure its security. Even if this were true in some cases - i.e. with specific Palestinian organisations - it is illogical for the Saudis to pay protection money to an ideological nemesis.

In fact, Saudi Arabia, as a "State" has not sanctioned any financial support to its conceptual opponents.

Yet, there is the latest conundrum - Riyadh outlining new regulations to deny charitable organisations from distributing collected funds overseas - that gives ammunition to the Kingdom's enemies.

Herein lies the problem: Saudi officials have declared the imposition of new laws but they did not make them public.

What are the specifics and how will they be enforced, critics assert? In other words, Saudi efforts to streamline antiquated or non-existent regulations are dismissed because Riyadh's packaging is poor. What is necessary is a degree of transparency.

The burden of proof is on Saudi Arabia to show its citizens, Muslims at large, and the rest of the world, that it is adhering to its own regulations that meet international standards.

Still, when a Saudi, or an expatriate in the Kingdom, wires funds out of the country, those funds enter the international banking system that is mostly dominated by American, European and Japanese institutions.

Riyadh can do a lot but it can only succeed in preventing "terrorists" from gaining access to those funds when everyone cooperates.

Bogus accounts bristle in sanctioned Caribbean nation-states, legal offshore entities (the Isle of Man in the United Kingdom), and sensible European states that promote secrecy. To ask only Saudis, as some are, to adopt strict measures on charitable donations and auditing accounts is unfair.

The writer, author of several books, is an expert on Gulf and Middle East affairs.