This past week the New York Times, in its inimical fashion reported on Saudi Arabia's efforts to contain the tide of change sweeping the Middle East ("Saudi Arabia Scrambles to Limit Region's Upheaval" 05.27.11 ). Aside from dispatching troops to Bahrain, the Times reported on efforts being made by Saud Arabia to stabilize the monarchies of Jordan and Morocco, as well as allowing the Syrian president to remain in power, all in the thrust of "safeguarding our interests" according to Prince Waleed bin Talal al-Saud, the peripatetic Saudi businessman.
The article underlined Saudi concerns that the regional uprisings will present an opening for Shiite Iran to meddle in Arab affairs. That divergent policy with Washington has led to rumblings of Saudi Arabia viewing the United States as an "unreliable partner" and that Riyadh was "ready to go it alone."
Really? What the New York Times did not mention, nor has written about, given its fastidious reporting on Wikileaks as far as this reader can tell, is the news reported a few days before the NYTimes article. Al Jazeera reported "Leaked Cable: Gulf States 'funded extremism" 05.22.11 and Reuters "Wikileaks: Saudi Arabia, UAE funded extremist networks in Pakistan" 05.22.11. Both reports referred to U.S. diplomatic cables dispatched in 2008 informing that financial aid estimated at $100 million a year was coming from "missionary" and "Islamic charitable" organizations "ostensibly with the direct support of those countries governments." Local Pakistani papers were quoted by Reuters that the charities being financed in Pakistan recruited children as young as eight to wage "holy war."
So here we have another example of the New York Times' forever "throwing bouquets" reporting on matters Saudi, dating back years (please see "The New York Times Shamelessly Shills for OPEC"09.12.06 and "The New York Times Pipes the Saudi Production Polka" 06.18.08) and on. If the Wikileaks cables can be reported by Al Jazeera what exactly is the NYTimes' hesitancy to inform its readership about this aspect of Saudi malevolence unless it has an agenda we do not understand?