His remarks come as the government this week published a brief summary of a Home Office-commissioned report into the funding of extremism in the UK. The full report is not being published for security reasons.
Patey stressed he did not believe Saudi Arabia was directly funding terrorist groups, but rather an ideology that leads to extremism, and its leaders may not be aware of its consequences. “It is unhealthy and we need to do something about it,” he said
“The Saudis [have] not quite appreciated the impact of their funding of a certain brand of Islam is having in the countries in which they do it – it is not just Britain and Europe,” he said.
“That is a dialogue we need to have. They are not funding terrorism. They are funding something else, which may down the road lead to individuals being radicalised and becoming fodder for terrorism.”
Patey said the Saudis “find it every easy to back off the idea that they are funding terrorism because they are not.
“What the World Association of Muslim Youth and the Muslim World League are doing are funding mosques and promoting an ideology – the Salifist Wahhabist ideology.
He called for clarity in definitions of funding terrorism and “a grown-up dialogue with the [Persian] Gulf about what we think”. He added there were also “individual [Persian] Gulf citizens that defied their governments to fund terrorism.”
Patey, the UK ambassador to Saudi from 2006 to 2010 and previously head of the Foreign Office Middle East desk, also questioned whether Saudi Arabia and its allies had worked out the implications of their bitter dispute with Qatar.
Three [Persian] Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, along with Egypt have sought to isolate Qatar diplomatically and economically citing its support for terrorism, and groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
“This has all the hallmarks of a policy that has not been thought through. It does not smack of a considered strategy,” Patey said at roundtable discussion in London organised by the Conservative Middle East Council.
“It is not a smart move even if you are sympathetic to their vision. It is a short cut to achieve something quickly and I think they miscalculated and I think they did think that, with Trump behind them, Qatar would back down. They raised these stakes because they thought Qatar would back down in the end so I think they were a bit surprised.”
The boycott had backfired, he argued saying far from leading to a coup inside Qatar, a cult had developed around the newly popular emir. “The Qataris are rallying round their leadership,” he said.
He said he believed the true motive for the dispute was not Qatar’s funding of terrorism, but a wider difference in political vision. “This is about the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a battle for the future of the Middle East.”
Patey also questioned whether all the emirates within the UAE were united behind the boycott. “This is about Abu Dhabi asserting its dominance in foreign policy issues because this is not in Dubai’s interest,” he said.
Speaking at the same event Michael Stephens, head of the Royal United Services Institute Qatar desk, said the [Persian] Gulf row might lead to an intractable dispute that will prompt investors to think seriously about dis-investing across the [Persian] Gulf.
“We are now facing five weeks of the conflict when most people thought it would last 72 hours,” he said, calling for a series of de-escalatory measures leading to a joint agreement to fight extremism.
source: theguardian