Saudi Arabia’s Katrina

Natural disasters involving substantial loss of life almost inevitably spark off recriminations among the bereaved and traumatized. Even events of irresistible force, such as earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes, lead to questions about the extent to which the resulting human catastrophes could have been prepared for and at least minimized.

Although not on the scale of Hurricane Katrina catastrophe in New Orleans, the flash floods in Jeddah at the end of 2009 attracted surprisingly little international attention beyond the region. But many people in Saudi Arabia are saying that the repercussions of the disaster go well beyond the resulting personal and economic damage.

What happened was that at the beginning of the Haj holidays, when hundreds of thousands pass through the port city of Jeddah on the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, an intense rainstorm hit the western region of Saudi Arabia. On the morning of Wednesday 25th of November nearly four inches of rain fell on the city over a period of four hours. Massive flash floods raged through flood plains down to the sea, sweeping away 3000 cars, destroying a bridge and sections of highway and causing over 120 deaths. The rains, normally a blessing in this water-starved region, were the heaviest for 30 years. If the floods had come on a normal day when the schools were full, or at night when most people were in bed, some believe that the death toll could have been in the thousands. Aside from the loss of life, damage to property was estimated at more than a billion Saudi Riyals ($270 million).

What was unusual in a disaster of this magnitude was not the anger and recriminations that followed. The difference was that for Saudi Arabia the public outcry, both in the print media and via the internet, was unprecedented. As with Katrina, accusations abounded of public officials wrongly allowing houses to be built on obvious flood plains, of contractors cutting corners on flood defense projects, and an inadequate search and rescue response to the disaster.

The lack of inhibition with which Jeddawis aired their complaints and grievances was a demonstration of the more open approach to public debate which King Abdullah has encouraged since his accession to the throne in 2005. The King himself responded immediately by ordering an inquiry, and recently more than 30 officials and contractors were arrested pending its completion. A friend who contributes a column to one of the Arabic language newspapers made the point that although the motives of the inquiry were commendable, people should remember that the principle of innocence before being proven guilty applies in Saudi Arabia as in other parts of the world, and that it would be unwise to jump to conclusions about those arrested.

The lesson to be learnt is not only that the authorities are willing to take a firm line in investigating allegations of financial irregularities and shoddy public works, but also that it is harder keep the lid on debate about such practices, particularly with the widespread use of the internet in the country. It’s to the government’s credit that it made no attempt to curb the press coverage of the event. Twenty years ago its reaction might have been different. Many people in the Kingdom are reported as seeing this as a potential turning point towards a more open society, or at least towards more open discussion of the pressing issues of the day – a potential acceleration down the path on which the King is taking the country.

No country is immune to natural disasters. Talking about the event and debating ways to avoid the worst in the future is a normal part of the recovery process.

I spent many happy years in Jeddah. Its people are welcoming, generous and lively. As in the aftermath of Katrina, we should spare a thought for those who lost loved ones in the disaster, for whom there can be little consolation.

Steve Royston – January 2010