The Shiite Question in Saudi Arabia

**Ray** · 22 Sep 05,, 08:23

The Shiite Question in Saudi Arabia

Middle East Report N°45
19 September 2005

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

From Saudi Arabia's establishment in 1932, its minority Shiite population has been subject to discrimination and sectarian incitement. Beginning in the early 1990s, with then Crown Prince Abdullah's active support, the government took steps to improve inter-sectarian relations. But the measures were modest, and tensions are rising. The war in Iraq has had a notable effect, strengthening Shiite aspirations and Sunni suspicions and generally deepening confessional divisions throughout the region. King Abdullah needs to act resolutely to improve the lot of the two-million strong Shiite community and rein in domestic expressions of anti-Shiite hostility.

While resisting calls from tribal warriors to suppress Shiites violently, the Kingdom from the outset pacified and marginalised them. Shiites remain under-represented in official positions, and students complain of open hostility from Sunni instructors. Jobs in the police and military are rare and promotion prospects there rarer still. While restrictions have loosened, Shiites continue to face obstacles to the free and open observance of their faith.

During much of the nation's history, Shiites were passive but stimulated by events in neighbouring Iran in 1979, their leaders mobilised youth around a message that directly challenged the regime, resonated with feelings of religious and community oppression, and triggered significant mass civil disobedience. Although this phase lasted less than a decade, the events, and the state's heavy-handed response, figure prominently in collective memories.

The Shiite leadership gradually moderated its views, recognising the limitations of agitation and violence and seeking improved ties with a regime whose legitimacy it came to acknowledge and whose role as a bulwark against more extreme Sunni militants it came to accept. In a 1993 meeting, King Fahd promised Shiite leaders to relax political restrictions in exchange for their ending active opposition from abroad. The relative quiet that has prevailed since reflects the enduring impact of that agreement and acknowledgment by Shiite leaders that violence is unlikely to yield results. But it is a quiet that, without further concrete progress, risks exhausting itself.

Saudi Arabia faces a new opportunity and a new urgency, both fuelled in part by external events. The 11 September 2001 attacks and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's subsequent terror campaign inside the Kingdom focused government attention on the most militant forms of religious extremism. They also spurred rapprochement between non-violent Islamists and liberals, Sunni and Shiite, who, faced with the threat of violent Sunni militancy, joined in calling for political and religious reform.

But if al-Qaeda's activities offered a chance to improve sectarian relations, the war in Iraq has pulled in the opposite direction. Emboldened by the example of Iraqi co-religionists, some Saudi Shiites believe they ought to press further, while the sight of Shiite dominance in a neighbouring country heightens Sunni suspicion. Ominously, a rising number of Saudi Sunni jihadi militants have been drawn to Iraq, motivated by opposition to the U.S. but also to the Shiites' increased role. The eventual return of perhaps several hundred battle-tested Saudi mujahidin seems inevitable, raising the possibility that -- like their predecessors from Afghanistan -- they will seek a new battlefield and threaten Western and governmental targets, as well as the Shiite minority.

While sectarian tensions arguably are higher than at any time since 1979, there appears little risk today of violent sectarian confrontation, but that is no reason for complacency. Instead, steps should be taken now to defuse a potential crisis. King Abdullah signalled his support while Crown Prince for more Shiite rights, most importantly by promoting inclusive national dialogues and bringing key members of the Sunni clergy along. But his true test comes now. Moving forward will require a long-term commitment to political and social integration and to combating domestic hate-speech, including:

*
expanding Shiite presence in government institutions, in particular in national and local councils including the Majlis al-Shura and Regional Councils;
*
lifting remaining restrictions on Shiite religious rituals and practices, specifically by allowing construction of mosques and community centres (husseiniyyas) and the production, printing, and circulation of religious materials within their communities. The decision by the government to permit observance of Ashura in 2004 was an important first measure; and
*
encouraging tolerance, eliminating anti-Shiism in mosques and schools, and curbing statements that incite anti-Shiite violence. Alongside its crack-down on al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the government spearheaded an effort to promote tolerance and diversity. But, expressions of sectarian hatred remain common, including by persons in positions of religious authority. The government should organise a national information program encouraging tolerance and emphasising national unity.

Western governments are justifiably concerned about restrictions on religious freedom; in 2004 the U.S. State Department listed Saudi Arabia as a country of concern in this respect. But foreign pressure directly targeting the issue, especially in light of growing suspicions that the U.S. is hostile to Islam and championing Shiites regionally, could backfire. The U.S. and the EU would do better by focusing their public efforts on the need for broad reform, with the goal of expanding the rights and political participation of all Saudis, irrespective of sect.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3678&l=1

The Shite question has become a serious issue ever since the Iraq War and the consequent govt formation where the Shias have taken control.

With Iran and the Central Asian countries all of whom have oil as also the area where oil is there in KSA being Shia dominated, things can boil over.

**indianguy4u** · 22 Sep 05,, 08:24

Originally Posted by Ray

The Shite question has become a serious issue ever since the Iraq War and the consequent govt formation where the Shias have taken control.

With Iran and the Central Asian countries all of whom have oil as also the area where oil is there in KSA being Shia dominated, things can boil over.

I thought KSA was a sunni majority state.

**Ray** · 22 Sep 05,, 17:36

The Shias of Saudi Arabia are Arabs who are indigenous to the eastern province and a re a majority there. The KSA encouraged the Sunnis to move to the eastern province to outnumber Shias by giving them jobs while qualified Shais were denied.

Saudi Arabia has systematically denied Shia by denying them access to education, work, and basic human rights. Prince Faisal, a Princeton graduate portrayed as progressive and modern has never allowed a Shia to serve as ambassador despite the significant percentage of Shia in the country.

The Shias tend to feel that they are under occupation. And the situation is getting worse.

It is believed that there was a plan written by a Wahhabi cleric named Nasir al Omar who wrote about converting Shias to Sunni Islam or else face execution.

Unfortunately it's at a social level now as well. The hatred of Shia is so intense that killing of Shia civilians is widely accepted.

The elections in KSA were hardly elections since the women were not allowed to participate, though at the govt level there are some token ones in the bureaucracy. The elections were also a trifle farcical since half the members are nominated.

Since you raised the issue of Shia - Sunni, there is some information on the ways Islam is practiced.

Islam is the country’s official religion. An estimated 89 percent of Saudis are Sunni Muslims (see Sunni Islam), and about 5 percent are Shia Muslims (see Shia Islam). The government employs the Sharia (Islamic law) as a guiding principle of rule. Consequently, Islamic tenets not only govern spirituality and religious practice, but also guide practices of law, business, taxation, and government.

The form of Islam supported by the government is socially and theologically conservative. While Saudis and foreigners may behave as they wish behind closed doors, they must observe many strict religious requirements while in public. These include conservative dress for men and women, segregation of the sexes, mandatory daily prayers for Muslim men, and the closing of offices and businesses during the five daily prayer times. A government agency called the Committee to Prevent Vice and Promote Virtue sends out official enforcers called mutawwa’in to ensure observance of these rules. Punishments for transgressions can be summary and harsh, including public flogging.

Saudi Arabia’s conservative form of Islam is strongly influenced by a puritanical Islamic movement formed in the 18th century. This movement is often referred to by Westerners and other non-Saudis as Wahhabism, after its founder, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (see Wahhabis). However, the movement’s adherents have never referred to themselves as Wahhabis, and within Saudi Arabia, Wahhabi is often used by non-Saudis or reform-minded Saudis in reproach to refer to conservative Muslims. In modern-day Saudi Arabia, strong adherents of the movement may call themselves muwahhidun (unitarians, from al-muwahhid, Arabic for “those who proclaim the unity of God”) or ahl al-tawhid (people of unity). Less strident followers—a significant portion of the population, including some members of the royal family—may simply say they are part of the harakat al-salafiyya, roughly translated as “the movement following the ways of the Prophet.”

The country’s Shia Muslims are concentrated around the oases of Al Hasa and Al Qaţīf in eastern Saudi Arabia. Strict muwahhidun do not recognize the Shias as true Muslims. Therefore, historically, Saudi authorities have subjected them to discrimination and oppression, arousing resentment and opposition to the regime among the Shias. Other religions are represented among the expatriate population. However, the government does not allow public practice of non-Islamic religions and prohibits missionary activity.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...di_Arabia.html

The problem will become serious since there are many in KSA who believe that the Shias are non Moslem. Once Afghanistan and Iraq is brought under control, the unemployed Sunni terrorists will return to KSA. Having lived a life that is beyond the control of law and being a law unto themselves, they will unleash themselves on the Shias.

It must be remembered that the Eastern part of KSA, which has the Shia majority have the oilfields including those on the seabed!

**Ray** · 22 Sep 05,, 17:45

Discrimination against Shia Muslims in Saudi Arabia: The old and new reality

By Dr. Mohamed J. Al-Hassan (King Saud University)

Talking about discrimination against Shia in Saudi Arabia is a really sensitive issue, and not many want to discuss it publicly, because there is no clear governmental policy regarding this sensitive issue. Another way of saying it, Books that insult Shia are published by government agencies and distributed every where in the country. In addition, religious books that are been taught in universities insult Shia and using demeaning and derogatory words when decribing them, and calling them “Rafida” which means “rejectionists of religion”. It is equal to the word ****** to the black people. Decrees that come out from government religious agencies insult Shia and promote hatred, violence and discrimination against them. These decrees are made available via prints and audio cassettes and promoted on the internet sites. Some of these decrees ask not to have Shia teachers in schools, on the basis of being “Shia” non Muslims. These decrees are not new, they were years ago, and still new decrees come out every now and then.

There are many decrees describing Shia sect of Islam as unlawful, and its followers as non Muslims and claim Shiasm to be a Jewish conspiracy against Islam. World Muslim Youth Association (WAMY) publishes anti-Shia books in several languages that claim Shiasm to be a Jewish conspiracy against Islam and distributed for free. Details are at this link (Book No. 22). WAMY is financed by the Saudi government. Other decrees describe Shia as infringement on Islam, and distorting the real truth of Islam and call them “mushriks” which means polytheists, and are “Dhaal” meaning deviants, and should not be allowed to promote their faith, and there can not be any type of harmony between Shia and other Muslims from other sects, as it cannot happen between “Sunni Muslims and Jews and Christians”. These decrees are many, and the government had done nothing to stop them, may be promoting them, since decrees are from government scholars and published by government agencies. One government scholar (Abdulqader Shaibat Alhamd) few months ago was on Middle East Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) Radio saying about Shia “we should not eat their food, marry from them, or burry their dead in Muslims’ graveyards”, even though Islam says marrying from peoples of faith (Christianity and Judaism) is OK, and even eating from their food. The most sickening decree is made available by a government scholar named Abdulla Ibn Jabreen calling to fight Shia to stop them from showing their “ill faith” and call that as “Jihad.”

No wonder, this status queue continues all over the country, and what I have mentioned above is nothing new. However, new graduates from such colleges and universities are becoming the teachers of our kids, males and females. And over the years of “brain washing” those teachers were reared with hatred, and disgust to everyone different from them, and the calling of “atheist” to all Shia, it became a main stream for those teachers to preach their teaching and pass them to kids. It became obvious and normal that every Shia Muslim suffers from this attitude, wherever he lives in the country, since those graduates are the only ones allowed to teach religious subjects in schools, as long as the government has no objection to sectarian discrimination.

One issue of discrimination, as example, the girls presidency does not allow establishing girls private schools in the Shia majority areas (Qateef, Saihat, Safwa) in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. In fact, not even having day care is allowed to be established by private sector, while it is allowed in all other areas without restriction. And even more, girls presidency never allows a Shia to be a principal in any girls school even in the Shia majority areas. Details in Arabic are at this link.

There are many examples regarding discrimination and hatred and insult against Shia. I remember in 1997, I went to a seminar about the internet in King Abduaziz City of Science and Technology (KACST) and the lecturer was Dr. Bader Hmood Albader. The attendees were around 300, and he was explaining the benefits of the internet (before internet was introduced to Saudi Arabia) and said there were many bad sites disguised as Muslims, like Shia sites. Even after my objection, and talking to the Chairman of KACST (Dr. Al Athel) regarding the issue and its impact on the unity of the country, nothing happened to Dr. Albader. Why? He insulted Shia, and that was not something that deserves punishment!

For the reasons above, and more, Shias in different part of the country are hiding their faith fearing on their lives by those radicals. As a matter of fact, a Shia's student who’s from Madina came by my office and apologized to me. When I asked why? His answer was that he was walking with friends from Sunni sect and they insulted me. So, to show he was Sunni and go along with them, he insulted me with them, even though I have never known those students and did not teach them any course, just for being a Shia. It did not stop there, but on more than one occasion, I have seen writings on my office door insulting me and Shias as a whole. Two years ago, thousands of brochures were distributed all over King Saud University campus insulting Shia, and saying that their "Shia" danger on Islam is greater than Jews and Christians. This type of discrimination and hatred reached to the internet, and sites that promote sectarian hatred, discrimination and violence against Shia are on the rise and promoting destruction of sites via viruses and other means, without being blocked by KACST, the only gateway to the internet from Saudi Arabia, where it has firewall blocking all unlawful and pornography sites. However, Shia sites are being blocked so fast, even though they preach peace, unity and understanding between all Muslims. Some Shia sites were destroyed or hijacked by the same radical groups. Details are at this link.

We, adults, passed through tons of hatred propaganda, but our kids who are in schools should not, at least if we think right. Unfortunately, those radical teachers are subjecting our kids to all types of demeaning words against Shias and other non Muslims, without being “teachers” punished or even being warned. These are not individual incidents that happen on rare occasions, but it happens systematically in almost all schools and almost every kid (male or female) has a story.

In 1998, a female teacher who teaches religion subject in Dar Alsalam School (private school) described Shia as the ones that do not follow the right path of Islam in front of my kid in the fourth grade, and I talked to the teacher (her name is A’esha) and told her that it is not appropriate to talk to the kids with this type of information. Her answer was that is her believes, and will not change it. I sent a fax to the principal and talked to her regarding the promotion of sectarian hatred and the only thing happened to the teacher was “telling her not to talk about anything out of the book” and I was promised that such incidence will never happen again. That’s it. Punishment? No way!

In the year 2000 when my kid was in the sixth grade in the same school, same thing again, but with different teacher (her name Fawziya), and this time my kid stood to her and said “what you are saying is not true. I talked to the principal, sent fax, and asked for firing the teacher from school. Of course nothing happened even though, I was promised by the owner of the school, Princess Munira AlFaisal, that this issue will never happen again. Why? Firing a teacher for insulting Shias! No way! She might be promoted instead! Two years later, this year, 2002, same problem happened with teacher Nora Al-Qahtani.

This time I got sick, and could not tolerate what happened to my daughter. I asked my daughter not to attend her class as an objection to what she said. I sent a fax with harsh words to the school asking for an apology to my kid in front of her classmates or firing the teacher. I then faxed the details of this occurrence to the Girls Presidency Chairman, Dr. Khudr AlQurashi, a new in his office, asking for a stand to get things straight. I also sent a telegram to Prince Sulman Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, the governor of Riyadh regarding the same issue. I was surprised that Dr. AlQurashi called me back and we talked about the issue of discrimination, promotion of hatred in schools and his words were that he is really concerned about the issue and will do an investigation. It happened, and the teacher was asked to apologize to my daughter in front of the principal. But instead of apologizing, the teacher, Nora AlQahtani, insulted the Shias again with harsher words than before, and said apologizing to my daughter will make her (the teacher) atheist. She said that she can not consider the Shias as Muslims since government scholars said so. My daughter came back with tears, instead of being happy, as I thought the issue will be resolved.

I called the principal and Dr. Khudr AlQurashi’s office saying if the teacher is not fired, I will publish the whole issue on the internet. I was promised that the issue would be resolved soon, but, no way. Firing a teacher who described Shias as non Muslims or atheists in front of school kids! This never meets the minimum requirements for punishments! Of course it is not the fault of the teacher, but what is behind the whole issue, no government decree against insulting, demeaning or calling Shias as atheist. Because of that the decrees that come out of government scholars that promote what the teacher had said. So, when a kid is subjected for twelve years of sectarian hatred, discrimination against whomever is different, and then subjected to extra four years of college books full with the same propaganda against others, the result will be clear, as I have seen it, my kid has seen it, and most Shias have seen it too.

It is more that a month since the above tragedy happened, but nothing has come out of it to give my daughter back her right, as being a Muslim citizen. The decision might not be in the hand of Dr. AlQurashi, even though I have great respect for him. I believe that Dr. AlQurashi is genuine and sincere regarding the issue, but without a clear government law regarding the issue, a man, even in a position of a minister, can not do anything. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that many radicals consider Dr. AlQurashi as a liberal (not a good word), and his views are not Islamic views or are pro western views. It is easy to read all about those radical statements on the internet forums, as mentioned, most of them are not blocked. So, Dr. AlQurashi is already considered a liberal, and if he fires the teacher, he might be considered an atheist. Those radicals will view things differently, in a way, the teacher did not do much to be punished, but did less than she should have done. Radicals consider Shias are more dangerous to Islam that other non Muslims, and decrees of fighting and killing them already available.

Even if the teacher wasto be fired (which is almost impossible), what is going to happen to Dr. Albader? Or any one insulting Shias? Is the government going to ban publishing all books that promote sectarian hatred or considering Shias as non Muslims? Is the government going to fire any government scholars who insult Shias? Is there going to be a decree from the government office of Fatwa (religious decrees) considering Shias as Muslim citizens and none should say otherwise? Is there going to be government decree punishing anyone who insults other sects or group of citizens or try to promote any type of action that endanger the unity of the country?

After all what I have mentioned, can any one say that Saudi citizens have similar obligations and rights? Obligations! Might be true, but rights! It is almost a joke.

Dr. Mohammed J. Al-Hassan published this report on the interneton May 23, 2002. The Wahabi government of Saudi Arabia since then has punished Dr. Al-Hassan by asking him to remove his children from school. To read the letter issued by the owner of the school, Princess Munira Alfaisal, please click on this link

http://www.shianews.com/low/articles...cs/0000248.php

This is a report from a Shia professor who has also been punished for his Shia views. That much for Islam practiced in KSA.

Having seen the Shia - Sunni divide first hand, I am not surprised by this article.

**Gazi** · 22 Sep 05,, 23:31

Originally Posted by Ray

The Shite question has become a serious issue ever since the Iraq War and the consequent govt formation where the Shias have taken control.

With Iran and the Central Asian countries all of whom have oil as also the area where oil is there in KSA being Shia dominated, things can boil over.

what have central asian countries, which you mentioned to do with shias? or why should they sympathize with Iranis or Iraqis or else stuff.

**Ray** · 23 Sep 05,, 07:21

Congressional Hearing:
US Interests In The Central Asian Republics
US Congress
February 12, 1998

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. MARESCA, VICE PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Unocal CORPORATION

Mr. MARESCA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's nice to see you again. I am John Maresca, vice president for international relations of the Unocal Corporation. Unocal, as you know, is one of the world's leading energy resource and project development companies. I appreciate your invitation to speak here today. I believe these hearings are important and timely. I congratulate you for focusing on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and the role they play in shaping U.S. policy.

I would like to focus today on three issues. First, the need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas resources. Second, the need for U.S. support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements to the conflicts in the region, including Afghanistan. Third, the need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the development of appropriate investment climates in the region. In this regard, we specifically support repeal or removal of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.

Mr. Chairman, the Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves. Just to give an idea of the scale, proven natural gas reserves equal more than 236 trillion cubic feet. The region's total oil reserves may well reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels. In 1995, the region was producing only 870,000 barrels per day. By 2010, western companies could increase production to about 4.5 million barrels a day, an increase of more than 500 percent in only 15 years. If this occurs, the region would represent about 5 percent of the world's total oil production.

One major problem has yet to be resolved: how to get the region's vast energy resources to the markets where they are needed. Central Asia is isolated. Their natural resources are landlocked, both geographically and politically. Each of the countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia faces difficult political challenges. Some have unsettled wars or latent conflicts. Others have evolving systems where the laws and even the courts are dynamic and changing. In addition, a chief technical obstacle which we in the industry face in transporting oil is the region's existing pipeline infrastructure.

Because the region's pipelines were constructed during the Moscow-centered Soviet period, they tend to head north and west toward Russia. There are no connections to the south and east. But Russia is currently unlikely to absorb large new quantities of foreign oil. It's unlikely to be a significant market for new energy in the next decade. It lacks the capacity to deliver it to other markets.

Two major infrastructure projects are seeking to meet the need for additional export capacity. One, under the aegis of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, plans to build a pipeline west from the northern Caspian to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. Oil would then go by tanker through the Bosporus to the Mediterranean and world markets.

The other project is sponsored by the Azerbaijan International Operating Company, a consortium of 11 foreign oil companies, including four American companies, Unocal, Amoco, Exxon and Pennzoil. This consortium conceives of two possible routes, one line would angle north and cross the north Caucasus to Novorossiysk. The other route would cross Georgia to a shipping terminal on the Black Sea. This second route could be extended west and south across Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.

But even if both pipelines were built, they would not have enough total capacity to transport all the oil expected to flow from the region in the future. Nor would they have the capability to move it to the right markets. Other export pipelines must be built.

At Unocal, we believe that the central factor in planning these pipelines should be the location of the future energy markets that are most likely to need these new supplies. Western Europe, Central and Eastern Europe, and the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union are all slow growth markets where demand will grow at only a half a percent to perhaps 1.2 percent per year during the period 1995 to 2010.

Asia is a different story all together. It will have a rapidly increasing energy consumption need. Prior to the recent turbulence in the Asian Pacific economies, we at Unocal anticipated that this region's demand for oil would almost double by 2010. Although the short-term increase in demand will probably not meet these expectations, we stand behind our long-term estimates.

I should note that it is in everyone's interest that there be adequate supplies for Asia's increasing energy requirements. If Asia's energy needs are not satisfied, they will simply put pressure on all world markets, driving prices upwards everywhere.

The key question then is how the energy resources of Central Asia can be made available to nearby Asian markets. There are two possible solutions, with several variations. One option is to go east across China, but this would mean constructing a pipeline of more than 3,000 kilometers just to reach Central China. In addition, there would have to be a 2,000-kilometer connection to reach the main population centers along the coast. The question then is what will be the cost of transporting oil through this pipeline, and what would be the netback which the producers would receive.

For those who are not familiar with the terminology, the netback is the price which the producer receives for his oil or gas at the wellhead after all the transportation costs have been deducted. So it's the price he receives for the oil he produces at the wellhead.

The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have worked very closely with the University of Nebraska at Omaha in developing a training program for Afghanistan which will be open to both men and women, and which will operate in both parts of the country, the north and south.

Unocal foresees a pipeline which would become part of a regional system that will gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. The 1,040-mile long oil pipeline would extend south through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast. This 42-inch diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day. The estimated cost of the project, which is similar in scope to the trans-Alaska pipeline, is about $2.5 billion.

Given the plentiful natural gas supplies of Central Asia, our aim is to link gas resources with the nearest viable markets. This is basic for the commercial viability of any gas project. But these projects also face geopolitical challenges. Unocal and the Turkish company Koc Holding are interested in bringing competitive gas supplies to Turkey. The proposed Eurasia natural gas pipeline would transport gas from Turkmenistan directly across the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan and Georgia to Turkey. Of course the demarcation of the Caspian remains an issue.

Last October, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline Consortium, called CentGas, in which Unocal holds an interest, was formed to develop a gas pipeline which will link Turkmenistan's vast Dauletabad gas field with markets in Pakistan and possibly India. The proposed 790-mile pipeline will open up new markets for this gas, traveling from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan in Pakistan. The proposed extension would move gas on to New Delhi, where it would connect with an existing pipeline. As with the proposed Central Asia oil pipeline, CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place.

The Central Asia and Caspian region is blessed with abundant oil and gas that can enhance the lives of the region's residents, and provide energy for growth in both Europe and Asia. The impact of these resources on U.S. commercial interests and U.S. foreign policy is also significant. Without peaceful settlement of the conflicts in the region, cross-border oil and gas pipelines are not likely to be built. We urge the Administration and the Congress to give strong support to the U.N.-led peace process in Afghanistan. The U.S. Government should use its influence to help find solutions to all of the region's conflicts.

U.S. assistance in developing these new economies will be crucial to business success. We thus also encourage strong technical assistance programs throughout the region. Specifically, we urge repeal or removal of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. This section unfairly restricts U.S. Government assistance to the government of Azerbaijan and limits U.S. influence in the region.

Developing cost-effective export routes for Central Asian resources is a formidable task, but not an impossible one. Unocal and other American companies like it are fully prepared to undertake the job and to make Central Asia once again into the crossroads it has been in the past. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

More Information on 9/11: Causes, Repercussions and Consequences

This should indicate the importance of the CAR oil.

Iran, a Shia country, is the easiest and the cheapest route to tranship the oil but owing to the belligerence of its Islamic govt, it is a no go. More dangerous is that it is on its way to producing nuclear weapons!

Iran is the natural leader of Shia countries including Iraq.

Azerbaijan is a Shia majority nation and in the other CAR nations, the Shias are in large numbers; enough to create insurrections and make the area unstable with its negative ramification on the oil supply. Therefore, the influence of Iran is of importance. especially in Azerbaijan.

The oilfields of KSA, Iraq, Iran and Azerbaijan is in Shia hands and hence the Shias "control" of the larger part of world oil assumes importance.

Today, KSA is with the Sunnis, but given the new found identity, the Shias may well assert the same in the future and why not?

**indianguy4u** · 23 Sep 05,, 09:01

Thats the big problem of moslems. Every sect considereds the other as non-moslems. Thats why the killing & counter-killing between diff sects.

**~~platinum786~~** · 24 Sep 05,, 14:12

KSA is a majority sunni state with the ruling elite especailly being followers of Abdul Wahab.

the CAR states are not Shia states, who told you that?!