Saudi Arabia: how should the West act in the face of human rights contraventions?

23391_webSaudi Arabia is the world’s last absolute monarchy with an extremely arbitrary, reactionary and obscurantist justice system based on the most fundamental codification of Sharia law.

The kingdom’s medieval system of punishment includes chopping off the hands of thieves, flogging homosexuals, and beheading women for alleged adultery. The death penalty can also be carried out by stoning or firing squad followed by crucifixion.

In 2012, some 79 executions took place. One woman was beheaded for witchcraft and sorcery.

The country’s official murder and rape rates are one of the lowest in the world. The actual number, however, is far higher, and is corrupted by women and other minorities’ fear to report assaults committed against them.

The law is more often on the side of the aggressor than on the side of the victim, especially if the victim is not Saudi and male.

Foreign workers, in particular, have absolutely no protection or rights in the kingdom. At the moment, over 1.5 million female foreign maids live and work in Saudi Arabia, of which the majority is from Indonesia. Physical and mental abuse against them is not a rarity; it is a common practice. Many have had their passports taken away by their bosses. They are second class human beings – modern slaves – and are subject to random and unscrupulous attacks from their masters.

In 2010, an Indonesia maid was hospitalised after her boss burned her with an iron, cut off her lips with a pair of scissors and left her to die. Another maid was seriously injured by nails and other metal objects which were hammered into her body, after she complained about over-work.

Months later, Saudi Arabia beheaded a foreign worker and hanged her mutilated body from a helicopter as a warning to her colleagues.

According to Freedom House’sWorld Index, Saudi Arabia belongs to the ‘worst of the worst’ countries in the world.

Despite such an appalling human rights record, the kingdom is the West’s oldest and one of our closest allies in the Arab world.

This is our history. It is nothing to be proud of.

But what are the options on the table? Can we distance ourselves from the House of Saud? Should we encourage their overthrow if and when the Arab Spring hits the country? The brutal truth is that if the House of Saud were to fall, it would have serious repercussions for the West and several Middle Eastern countries, and would likely make the situation worse – even if that seems hard to imagine now.

The fall of the monarchy would touch upon central security and economic interests.

1. Iran: Saudi Arabia is the major counterbalance to Iran in the Arab world, especially since the end of the Saddam Hussein tyranny, and has contained its influence for decades. The demise of the House of Saud would considerably strengthen the regime in Teheran. While it is not an intelligent policy to control one dictatorship with another, as it is likely to result in a disaster in the long-term, it is of critical importance to take the consequences of that scenario into account.

2.  Regional stability: At the same time, the fall of the monarchy would considerably weaken the sheikdoms of the Gulf and the Hashemite Empire of Jordan. The collapse of King Abdullah’s reign, in return, would put the peace with Israel at high risk and undermine the stability of the region even further, with Syria drowning in blood and Egypt ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood.

3. Oil: The oil for security pact between the US and Saudi Arabia was forged by President Roosevelt and Abd al-Aziz ibn Saud on board of the U.S.S. Quincy in 1945. Nowadays, the US retrieves only 8.1% of its oil from the kingdom, as it is one of the world’s largest oil producers itself. Close to 40% of its oil needs are met at home. Europe, however, is far more dependent on the oil supply from the kingdom and would be subject to another economic crisis, if that flow were to stop.

So, how likely is it that Saudi Arabia will be hit by the tidal wave of change that is sweeping across the region? At the moment, it seems unlikely, but possible, that the Arab Spring will have a major impact on the country. It cannot be ruled out, as the kingdom shares some of the key criteria with other countries affected by the revolutions. For example, it suffers from high unemployment among the youth, no freedom of expression, oppression of minorities (in the case of Saudi Arabia, the Shia minority), and gender apartheid.

The House of Saud is indeed concerned and troubled by that scenario. It has significantly increased its security budget, forged closer ties with allies through the Gulf Cooperation Council (Jordan and Morocco were invited to join), supported revolutions that weakened arch-enemy Iran, such as in Libya and Syria, and on the other hand, supported the embattled monarchy of Bahrain, and pumped millions of dollars into Jordan.

But what should be of uppermost concern for the West is the make-up of the opposition to the House of Saud. Although there are some secularist democrats and moderates, the strongest and best organised opposition faction by far, is that of the Wahhabis. They have been part of the establishment ever since the existence of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, due to the alliance between the House of Saud and the clerics. That puts them into a privileged position and makes them the most likely successors to the monarchy.

Wahhabism is the most extreme form of Islamic fundamentalism prevalent in the Middle East and the origin of the radical ideology to which al-Qaeda is subscribed. Given Saudi Arabia’s immense wealth and largest oil reserves in the world, they could spread terror not only across the entire region but the entire planet.

Where does is leave us? Saudi Arabia remains the most complicated case in the Arab World for Western policy-makers. There is no easy way out of our moral dilemma. Tony Blair once said that if one cannot solve a problem, one has to manage it. As we cannot solve the Saudi problem, the best chance we have is to manage it by continuing to put pressure on the monarchy to engage in genuine reform.

Some steps into the right direction have already been taken; women were allowed to represent the country in the Olympics, and last week the king announced that from now on women can join the national assembly. We should be under no illusion, however, that progress in Saudi Arabia will be anything but painfully slow, and there will be many setbacks still to come.

The Saudi dilemma will stay with us for the foreseeable future, but while the West cannot fix the problem, it can at least apply pressure to make a bad situation better.

Top 50 Favourite Tweeters of 2012

h

There are too many fascinating people on Twitter to name them all but here is a list of those whose tweets I have most enjoyed in 2012. The entries appear in no particular order of relevance or importance.

Tweeps from the United States

Jeffrey Goldberg – National Correspondent, The Atlantic. One of the most reasoned, calm and sane voices

Eli Lake – Senior national security reporter for Newsweek/Daily Beast. Follow him, if you want to know the truth about Benghazi

Abe GreenwaldSenior Editor, Commentary

Ben CohenContributor to Commentary, WSJ, Ha’aretz, NY Post, Jewish Ideas Daily, Fox News, JNS and Jerusalem Post

Ari FleischerFormer White House Press Secretary under President George W. Bush. Probably the funniest guy I follow.

The Bush Center-  Official account of the George W. Bush Presidential Center

Tom Taylor - No one re-tweeted me more often. Thank you!

Condoleezza Rice – Former Secretary of State. Political queen of the universe and parallel universes

John McCain – The man who tirelessly exposes the moral bankruptcy of Obama’s foreign policy

Steven A CookHasib J. Sabbagh senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations

Max Boot – Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations

Josh Rogin – Staff Writer,  The Cable

Jackson DiehlForeign Affairs columnist, The Washington Post

Ian BremmerPresident of EurasiaGroup

Shadi Hamid – Director of Research at the Brookings Doha Center & Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution

Brian StewartUnabashed neocon

Charles KrauthammerThe man behind the ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’

Andrew KaczynskiReporter for BuzzFeed Politics

Tweeps from the United Kingdom

John RentoulColumnist, Independent on Sunday; biographer of Tony Blair. The oracle of Westminster

Nick CohenWriter for the Observer, Time, Spectator and Standpoint. He affectionately calls me a ‘crazed neocon babe’

Stephen Pollard – Editor, the Jewish Chronicle

Tony Blair Office – Official account of the Former Prime Minister

Ruth TurnerCEO of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation and one of the hardest-working and most trustworthy people you will find in British politics

Mr PartisanWriter , Commentary. In his own words: ‘I makes Newt Gingrich look like a Marxist’.

Robert HalfonMy favourite MP

Tom HarrisA fine and immensely entertaining Labour MP

Martin BrightPolitical Editor of The Jewish Chronicle and Spectator blogger

Blairsupporter - I may  resigned from the Blairite attack squadron but he is still standing

Rob Marchant - Blogger and keeps sanity alive on the left

Glen OGlaza – Political Correspondent Sky News

Tim Marshall – Foreign Affairs Editor Sky News (showing his true colours at alter ego Itwitius)

Citizen Sane – His Twitter name speaks for itself: 100% sanity from the political centre

Charles Crawford – Former British Ambassador

Peter WattFormer Labour Party General Secretary under Tony Blair

Jacob CampbellResearch fellow at the Institute for Middle Eastern democracy and Ahmadinejad hater numero uno

Ed WestPrematurely Right-wing London journalist and Daily Telegraph blogger

Sarah Pilchick- My Jewish princess. Plus, we survived the London School of Economics together

Mark WallacePolitical campaigner

Matthew Taylor- Chief Executive of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce

Gary KentAdministrator of the All-Party Parliamentary Group the Kurdistan Region in Iraq

Ben McCcabe – It takes a brave man to wear a Rick Santorum sweater vest at the London School of Economics

 HKK G – The crème de la crème of Twitter Kurds

Matthew d’AnconaColumnist, The Sunday Telegraph

Norman GerasProfessor Emeritus in Politics, University of Manchester

Daniel FinkelsteinColumist, The Times

Hopi SenBlogger

Alex DeanHead of Public Affairs, Weber Shandwick UK

Oliver KammLeader Writer, The Times. No one destroys Noam Chomsky like he does

David AaronovitchColumist, The Times

Heath Pritchard - Political refugee from Obamunist Seattle

Tony Blair: “The West is Not to Blame for Islamic Extremism”

I thought this was worth reposting, while the Muslim world is burning.

This is not because we have done something. You know, at some point — and I say this to you with all the passion I possibly can — the West has to get out of this what I think is a wretched policy or posture of apology for believing that we are causing what the Iranians are doing or what these extremists are doing.

We are not.

The fact is they are doing it because they disagree fundamentally with our way of life and they will carry on doing it unless they are met with the requisite determination and if necessary force.

The fact that — look, President Obama, not President Bush — this is an important point — President Obama goes in March 2009 to Cairo in the heart of Islam. He makes a speech where he says effectively: “Put aside the Bush era. I am now offering the hand of friendship. You, Iran can come into partnership. You are an ancient proud civilisation. We will welcome you in”.

What’s the response he gets? They carry on with the terrorism. They carry on with the destabilisation. They carry on with the nuclear weapons programme. At some point we have to get our heads out of the sand and understand they are going to carry on with this.

Gaddafi’s End should be the Beginning of the End of Assad

Watching the extraordinary scenes in Tripoli, when Gaddafi’s decades of bloody tyranny were finally coming to an end, felt like déjà vu. I was reminded of the fall of Saddam and how the Iraqis had embraced their new freedom.

It is not too bold to say the Arab Spring had its origin in Iraq in 2003. At the time, George W. Bush, Tony Blair and a small group of like minds challenged the received wisdom of Arab exceptionalism – the myth that Arabs are somehow allergic to freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Condemning whole generations to despotism for historical reasons is no less than cultural relativism at its worst.

Bush’s and Blair’s Iraq policy further led to the disarmament of Libya, a result almost collectively ignored by the intellectual elite, political establishment and media. But given the current circumstances, it seems in order to stress once more the reason Gaddafi is no longer in possession of WMDs is because the regime dropped its nuclear advances after the fall of Saddam.

In the Middle East everything is linked. The circle is slowly closing. It provides the West with the unique opportunity to make unequivocally clear the era of dictatorships is over and a new zero-tolerance policy in place.

When Ben Ali’s regime crumbled into pieces, Mubarak said he would not go. Gaddafi reacted similarly when his Egyptian brother fled the country. Now Assad is fervently insisting Syria is not affected by the Arab Spring.

Over 2200 protestors have already lost their lives in Syria – 2200 souls too many. If the West is serious about saving lives, the time for action in Syria is now. There must be a line no sovereign nation should ever be allowed to cross. Assad crossed this line weeks ago and should pay for it.

Humanitarian militarism is far from perfect, but if the point of settlement has passed, the less of all evil. Cameron’s leadership over Libya deserves praise. The intervention also showed that, against all odds, the Blair Doctrine was not buried in the sand of Iraq but is alive and working.

As I have argued before: Those who oppose humanitarian interventionism have to understand that, if innocent people are killed en mass, the decision not to intervene is as much a declaration of interest as a decision to intervene is a commitment to bring to justice those who commit such crimes.