Saudi foreign ministry condemns passage of U.S. Sept. 11 law

The foreign ministry expressed hope that the U.S. Congress would correct the legislation.

REUTERS/Faisal Al Nasser
A Saudi money changer, pictured through a glass, arranges U.S banknotes at a currency exchange shop in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia September 29, 2016.

Saudi Arabia's foreign ministry condemned the passage of a U.S. law that would allow families of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to sue the kingdom for damages, calling it a matter of "great concern" in a statement on Thursday.

"The erosion of sovereign immunity will have a negative impact on all nations, including the United States," said the statement, which was carried on state news agency SPA after a day of stony silence from Riyadh.

The foreign ministry expressed hope that the U.S. Congress would correct the legislation "to avoid the serious unintended consequences that may ensue," without elaborating on what the consequences might be.

The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to approve legislation that will allow the families of those killed in the 2001 attacks on the United States to seek damages from the Saudi government.

Riyadh has always dismissed suspicions that it backed the attackers, who killed nearly 3,000 people under the banner of Islamist militant group al-Qaeda. Fifteen out of the 19 hijackers were Saudi nationals.

The Saudi government financed an extensive lobbying campaign against the "Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act," or JASTA, in the run-up to the vote, and warned it would undermine the principle of sovereign immunity.

But Saudi officials who had lobbied against the bill stopped short of threatening any specific retaliation if the law was passed.

The Saudi riyal fell against the U.S. dollar in the forward foreign exchange market on Thursday after the law was passed.

Analysts said a successful lawsuit against the Saudi government would be unlikely at best, but speculated that the uncertainty surrounding the legal implications could negatively affect bilateral trade and investment with a major ally.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.