Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Bush of Arabia: What All the Talk Shows Missed

Posted by Barry Lando, AlterNet at 7:22 AM on January 17, 2008.


While Bush was suggesting Arabs might lower their oil prices, they were using their profits to pick up a slice of America's most powerful bank.
bushabdullah
BUSH and Saudi King

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

For late-night talk show hosts, yukking up George W. Bush’s visit to the Middle East was like shooting fish in a barrel. Supposedly on a mission promoting peace (between Israel and the Palestinians) the President spent most of his trip rattling sabers against Iran. He spoke glowingly in Abu Dhabi of democracy, but spent most of his trip brandishing swords and holding hands with dictators who are the U.S.’s allies across the region.

One flagrant incongruity, however, seems to have gone unnoticed: Bush’s timid request to Saudi King Abdullah and other rulers in the Gulf to rein in soaring oil prices because, said Bush, they are hurting the U.S. economy.

But the point is that the current economic crisis in America was not triggered by Arab but by American greed: the disastrous mortgage melt down provoked by sub-prime loans. That collapse was the result of the Bush administration and U.S. regulatory agencies refusing to reign in the unscrupulous policies of the mortgage industry, despite repeated warnings of looming calamity.

Second point: while our media was focused on Bush’s pitch to the Arabs for lower petroleum prices—which was politely but firmly turned aside by a Saudi official—at the same time, hugely wealthy Arab investors were helping to bail out some of America’s largest financial institutions, staggering in the wake of the sub-prime crisis.

For instance, as Bush was dancing with King Abdullah, the King’s nephew, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, was increasing his stake in Citigroup. This was not the first time the Prince had invested in the stricken company. In fact, he was already Citigroup's largest individual shareholder: Kingdom Holding, which he controls, owns 3.6% of Citirgoup. Meanwhile, the Kuwait Investment Authority, another sovereign wealth fund, with at least $225 billion in assets, announced it would invest $3 billion in Citigroup and $2 billion in a very grateful Merrill Lynch.

Those were just the latest investments by Middle Eastern sovereign funds in ailing U.S. financial institutions. Last November, the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority paid 7.5 billion dollars for a 4.9% interest in Citigroup.

The Arab investors are not acting out of altruism. As Harvard University economics professor Kenneth Rogoff put it last Fall, “some people might view Abu Dhabi as buying Citigroup at a "fire-sale price."

Add up the percentages that those different sovereign funds hold in key institutions like Citigroup and they start looking impressive--as does their influence over management.

Back in 2006 Prince Alwaleed bin Talal declared that shareholder patience was wearing thin over rising costs at the bank.

"We have to take draconian, and I say draconian, measures to control the costs," he announced.

What additional policies of major U.S. financial institutions could be influenced by the Prince and other immensely wealthy investors from the Gulf?

The ultimate irony: Those huge sovereign funds riding to America’s rescue are, of course, fueled by the rampant petroleum prices that Americans (among others) are paying.

At what point does all this become a major U.S. political issue?

Digg!

Tagged as: petroleum, george w. bush, saudi arabia, sovereign funds

Barry Lando, a former 60 Minutes producer, is the author of "Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush." He also blogs at Barrylando.com.


Report: Obama Prepared to Talk to Hamas
Barack Obama is reportedly planning to ditch President Bush's strategy of isolating Hamas, and will instead move to open contacts with the group.
Post by Faiz Shakir. January 8, 2009.
Obama Can Learn from Bush: 'We Tried' Ain't Enough
We will need to remind Obama again and again that for those voters concerned about immigration, 'almost' just ain't gonna cut it come 2012.
Post by Paco Fabian. January 8, 2009.
Rachel Maddow on 'Daily Show': 'Insulted,' 'Embarrassed' By Bush
Jon Stewart and Maddow talk Bush, Obama, Bill Clinton, MSNBC and the Munsters.
Post by Danny Shea. January 8, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Speaking of oil
Posted by: madmacrcm on Jan 17, 2008 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While we are on the subject of oil. Why, if we control the second largest oil deposits (Iraq) in the world, is oil $100.00 a barrel? Just a little food for thought.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Speaking of oil Posted by: monkeywrench
salamah mahdi
Posted by: salamah on Jan 17, 2008 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to ask the author 3 questions.
1. Why is it that when the Chinese and Jews buy up US assets and financial institutions, there is no hue and cry like the one being raised in this article?
2. Why is it that when the US invades Afghanistan for the sake of an oil & gas pipeline and invades Iraq for its oil, Arabs are not allowed to protest and resist in any and all ways available to them?
3. Aren't Americans going to GAIN from Arab investments in Citicorp and Merril Lynch?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: salamah mahdi Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
» RE: Response Posted by: lessbread
Selling an empire
Posted by: hilaryuk on Jan 17, 2008 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All empires crumble and disappear, but will America's be the first to sell itself piecemeal?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Picture: How to get a better deal with the Saudis.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 17, 2008 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tongue or no tongue; what's a president to do?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Could we please rein in the use of "reign in"?
Posted by: Linda in VT on Jan 17, 2008 11:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is probably the fourth article I've read today that misuses the homonyms "reign" and "rein," and Lando does it twice in two paragraphs. Enough, already. "Reign" means rule, as in "I reign supreme in my house, no matter what the cats think." "Rein" is a piece of leather or other material used to curb the progress of a horse (or mule or donkey, etc.) one is riding or driving. The metaphor "rein in" (prices, Saudi sheikhs, whatever) is taken from the action of slowing or governing a horse (etc.). There is no such thing as "reigning in" a trend or whatever. The only use of the phrase "reign in" would be something like "I mean to reign in my house, but the cats won't let me." Here "in" refers to place, and not, as in "rein in," to the action itself. Can we get this right, please? -- before it goes the way of lie and lay?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think...
Posted by: adp3d on Jan 17, 2008 10:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that the reason Shrub is in the Mideast is because he is stumping for a job after his term expires. I think he is looking for a place for self-exile, beyond the reach of U.S. Justice. And I think that Cheney wil end up back with Haliburton, headquartered now in Dubai.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does America Own America?
Posted by: tommy1957 on Jan 22, 2008 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The answer is a very loud "Hell No"! The republicans (excuse me); the "Party of the Wide Stance" has sold this country to anybody with a buck; to include our very own enemies like the commies. Fuck them all; I say lets say fuck your paper and forgive our own debt. Yes the US dollar would be worthles on the world market; and a lot of rich assholes would loose their shirts, but who cares. We could start building and buying made in the USA products again. Oh wait; wait a minute. Some of those products are just as shity as the stuff we by from the commies, because of greedy corporations. We're fucked! I guess greed is the beast and he is winning.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]