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

Saudi 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.

Hezbollah proves EU incapable of having common Foreign & Security Policy

Bulgarian authorities confirmed last week that Iranian-backed, Lebanese Shi’ite terror-organisation Hezbollah was the architect behind the deadly bus bombing that killed five Israeli civilians and the local bus driver in Burgas last summer.

The country’s Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov declared that two of the three suicide bombers “were members of the militant wing of Hezbollah” and that data was “showing the financing and connection between Hezbollah and the two suspects.”

Despite the evidence, both Hezbollah and Iran categorically deny involvement in the attack.

Deputy Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem said Israel was directing “allegations and incitements and accusations against Hezbollah” and added that the organisation “will not submit to these pressures (…) and that the compass will remain directed towards Israel.”

A similar message was conveyed by the regime in Theran: “This has nothing to do with Iran,” Gholamreza Bageri told reporters. “We are against any form of terrorism and strongly condemn such actions.”

What makes the Burgas attack particularly explosive is the fact that it happened on European soil sparking new debate over the EU’s policy towards Hezbollah, which varies widely across the Union. The pressure from the US and Canada to ban Hezbollah once and for all is steadily growing.

Right now, the Netherlands is the only country that has Hezbollah on its official terrorist list. It allows the government to outlaw the organisation’s activities, freeze bank accounts and assets, and put suspected members under surveillance.

The UK has a more ambiguous and problematic policy, making a distinction between the organisation’s ‘political’ and ‘military’ wings, although Foreign Secretary William Hague has indicated that the government would likely back a full ban of the organisation.

Throughout the rest of Europe, Hezbollah can engage freely in political activities and fundraising.

In Germany, up to 950 are believed to operate in the country, which is regarded as a stronghold for the organisation in Europe and key to its fundraising capabilities.

Several EU countries remain in strong opposition to a potential EU ban, most notably France and the Scandinavian countries. The latter have a history of remaining neutral and opposing legislation that takes a stance against one group or another. According to Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, the EU needs to “reflect seriously on consequences of [the] Bulgarian probe naming Hezbollah as behind [the] terrorist attack.”

France, Lebanon’s former colonial power, believes that outlawing the organisation would put French lives at risk and have a negative impact on the relationship between Paris and Beirut.

So it seems highly unlikely that the Bulgarian attack will eventually lead to a significant change in the EU’s approach towards Hezbollah. To alter the current policy, a unanimous vote would be required by the 27 member states. A full and comprehensive ban is thus almost impossible to achieve. The best compromise seems to be following the British example, whereby the EU would make a distinction between Hezbollah’s political and military wing.

The self-defeating structure and decision-making processes of the EU bring out the worst of the organisation. It makes it incapable of taking decisive action and always reduces it to finding agreement on the lowest common denominator, with the result that the problem remains unsolved.

No one is satisfied with the outcome, but at least no one officially rebels against the decision. That is the EU’s modus operandi.

Such sentiments were reflected by the spokesman of the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton, who issued a statement in which Hezbollah was not even mentioned by name: “the terrorists who planned and carried out the Burgas attack must be brought to justice.”

But if the EU cannot even resolve a dispute over such a clear cut case, how is it supposed to deal with far more complex and controversial foreign and security policy issues in a competent way?

Hezbollah’s record leaves little doubt over the organisation’s nature and ideology, which is in clear breach of the EU’s fundamental principles.

Hezbollah is Iran’s terror proxy, a country regarded by several EU member states as the greatest current threat to peace and stability in the world, and responsible for the death of thousands of innocent civilians. The EU itself declared in 2012 that there was “clear evidence of terrorist activity” by Hezbollah.

The dichotomy of a political and military wing is misguided and dangerous. Just as much as Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness had influence over the IRA’s military council, so has Hassan Nasrallah the ultimate power over all Hezbollah activities. Hezbollah is not a charitable, social movement. It is a terrorist organisation with global outreach, funded by pariah state Iran, which hides behind hospitals and schools to cover up its true agenda and ideology.

The trail of blood speaks for itself.

Hezbollah was responsible for the 1983 Beirut bombing that killed 58 French peacekeepers and 241 American Marines, regularly engages in deadly attacks against Israeli civilians, and supports the mass-murdering regime of Bashar al Assad in Syria.

But the EU’s incompetence to speak with one voice in the wake of a crisis has once more been exposed. All the evidence is not enough to compete with the different national policy agendas of EU member states, and to lead to an unequivocal ban of Hezbollah.

The winners are our enemies. They take advantage of such weakness, and exploit our differences. And Europe is letting them.

The “Blood for Oil” Conspiracy is Dead

When the US-led coalition invaded Iraq in 2003, one of the most common perceptions was that the primary motive behind the war was the country’s significant oil reserves.

According to a 2002 Pew Poll, 44 per cent British, 75 per cent French, 54 per cent Germans, and 76 per cent Russians were greatly suspicious of US intentions in Iraq and bought into the “blood for oil” narrative. On the contrary, only 22 per cent of Americans believed that the Bush administration’s policy was driven by oil interests.

At the time, experts pointed out that this argument was deeply flawed and a lazy mantra of the war opponents.

While Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, its output in the early 2000s was modest and accounted for only 3 per cent of total global productivity. Due to the geology of the oilfields and, above all, the poor infrastructure destroyed by years of war, Saddam’s negligence, and the sanctions regime, Iraq had the lowest yield of any major producer, amounting to just 0.8 per cent of its potential output.

The Economist cited a joint study by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James Baker Institute of Rice University, concluding that

it would take nearly a decade and up to $40 billion to revive Iraq’s oil sector. That could lift Iraqi output to 4.2m-6m barrels per day, up from around 2.5m bpd today. However, it would still fall far short of Saudi Arabia’s whopping output of over 8m bpd today.

By the end of 2011, the US had spent almost $802bn on funding the war and, as the Centre for Strategic and International Studies pointed out, Iraq had additional debts of over $100 billion.

On top of that, the US only imports 12.9 per cent of its oil from the Middle East. The vast majority, 8.1 per cent, is provided by Saudi Arabia.

In other words, invading Iraq was an extremely expensive undertaking for the US-led coalition with no guarantee or prospect of considerable profitability.

As Daniel Yergin argued at the time: “no US administration would launch so momentous a campaign just to facilitate a handful of oil development contracts and a moderate increase in supply-half a decade from now.”

The “blood for oil” thesis, at best, represents a small proportion of the truth.

10 years after the invasion of Iraq, who is profiting most from the country’s oil reserves? The US? The UK? No. PetroChina, Russian Lukoil, and Pakistan Petroleum – fierce opponents of the war.

On the other hand, as Germany’s leading weekly news magazine DER SPIEGEL reported this week, “America has not a single, significant oil deal with Baghdad” anymore.

EXXON is moving out of Iraq and PetroChina has taken the lead in the auction of West Qurna – one of the largest oil fields in the world – with Russian Lukoil as a potential competitor. If the Chinese bid is successful, the country will account for 32 per cent of total oil contracts in Iraq.

The “blood for oil” conspiracists owe President Bush an apology.

Top 50 Favourite Tweeters of 2012

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 Greenwald – Senior Editor, Commentary

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

Ari Fleischer – Former 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 Cook – Hasib 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 Diehl – Foreign Affairs columnist, The Washington Post

Ian Bremmer – President 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 Stewart – Unabashed neocon

Charles Krauthammer – The man behind the ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’

Andrew Kaczynski – Reporter for BuzzFeed Politics

Tweeps from the United Kingdom

John Rentoul – Columnist, Independent on Sunday; biographer of Tony Blair. The oracle of Westminster

Nick Cohen – Writer 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 Turner – CEO of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation and one of the hardest-working and most trustworthy people you will find in British politics

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

Robert Halfon – My favourite MP

Tom Harris – A fine and immensely entertaining Labour MP

Martin Bright – Political 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 Watt – Former Labour Party General Secretary under Tony Blair

Jacob Campbell – Research fellow at the Institute for Middle Eastern democracy and Ahmadinejad hater numero uno

Ed West – Prematurely Right-wing London journalist and Daily Telegraph blogger

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

Mark Wallace – Political campaigner

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

Gary Kent – Administrator 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’Ancona – Columnist, The Sunday Telegraph

Norman Geras – Professor Emeritus in Politics, University of Manchester

Daniel Finkelstein – Columist, The Times

Hopi Sen – Blogger

Alex Dean – Head of Public Affairs, Weber Shandwick UK

Oliver Kamm – Leader Writer, The Times. No one destroys Noam Chomsky like he does

David Aaronovitch – Columist, The Times

Heath Pritchard - Political refugee from Obamunist Seattle

Will Israel attack Iran?

It looks as if Netanyahu is going to present Obama with an ultimatum tomorrow in regards to Iran. Frankly, it comes as no surprise to those who are closely following the events in the Middle East.

I spent last week in Israel as part of a delegation and met with Israeli and Palestinian officials. It was not the stalled peace process which was on top of the agenda but the possibility of a nuclear Iran. Israel is acutely aware of the complexity and severity of the situation. A military strike is considered to be highly risky and the Arab Spring makes it even more unpredictable and explosive.

But the bottom line is that a nuclear Iran is simply unacceptable. It is no option for Netanyahu’s government.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of the regime in Teheran are regarded as an existential threat to the state of Israel. Not because many believe they would use them, in fact that is unlikely, but the possibility that they will pass on their know-how or trigger an unstoppable arms race in the region. The strategic power balance would drastically shift and change. That, too, is perceived as an existential threat.

It leaves Netanyahu’s government with little option and he is increasingly under pressure, especially from Barak’s quarter, to deal with the problem. Iran is a master of survival under isolation, which is why sanctions are most likely not going to work and affect the civilian population more than the potency of the regime.

Containment and appeasement policy allowed Iran’s arch enemy Saddam to play the international community for over 12 years. Netanyahu does not have the time. In fact, time is running out for him rapidly. Israel must act soon, decisively, and precisely.

A military strike against Iran will not necessarily result in a full-scale war. It is possible that Israel will successfully take out strategic targets, vital for developing nuclear weapons, and thus effectively destroy or at least compromise Iran’s nuclear programme for years.

But Israel is realistic enough to understand that Iran is not an isolated case. The conflict could easily escalate and spill over to other countries, destabilising the entire region. Iran has been fighting Israel through surrogates ever since the Revolution in 1979 and its firm grip on Hezbollah and Hamas is an important factor in the equation.

One Israeli commentator went so far as to predict a Blitz-like attack on Tel Aviv in case of a military strike against Iran. But even under these bleak predictions he concluded that Iran must be dealt with. His opinion mirrored the consensus from across the political spectrum.

Israel will rather strike with great risk and might be not as successful as it wishes to be than doing nothing. Netanyahu is not the Prime Minister under whose leadership Iran is going to go nuclear. He is also not the Prime Minister to test whether Iran is a rational or messianic, apocalyptical actor. The stakes are simply too high.

If necessary, Israel will act unilaterally. It has the required capabilities and has done so many times in the past. Israel will not put the existence of its state in the hands of a US President who visited the country not once since his election. When it comes to its survival Israel trusts itself – and only itself.

An attack on Iran is inevitable. It is not a question of if but when.