Is Saudi Arabia a rogue state? Foreign policy rethink
In the sense that, it is an appalling hereditary despotism and human-rights abuser, a weapons proliferator, a proliferator of religious intolerance, supporter of terrorism, haven for criminality and abuser of the spirit of the Vienna Convention. They supply about 2% of our imported oil, and they buy a fair whack of military equipment from us.
Human rights
Human rights speaks for itself. All meaningful power is vested in the 6,000 male descendents of King Ibn Saud, who collectively choose the Crown Prince and constitute almost the entirety of the executive branch,, whose personal wealth is indistinguishable from and intermingled with state-revenue. They have restrictions for women that would be seen as extreme in Iran, they chop off body parts for punishment etc etc.
Proliferation
In terms of proliferation, Saudi Arabia stumped up billions of US dollars to cover most of the costs of both the Pakistani and Iraqi nuclear programmes so they could see the development of an "Islamic bomb". This predictably led to illicit proliferation in Syria, Iran and North Korea. They also have an agreement with Pakistan to supply them with five or six nuclear weapons on short notice if there is a sharp deterioration of the security situation in the gulf.
They have also contributed considerably to conventional proliferation in the region by importing Chinese medium-range ballistic missiles, and on-selling American munitions and technology. They also contributed by handing over $25 billion to Iraq in the 1980s to buy weapons to fight Iran (before having to cough up $60 billion to defend against the same weapons in the Gulf War).
Diplomacy and criminality
Their abuse of the Vienna Convention is legendary. Every one of the 6,000 or so Saudi princes travels internationally on a diplomatic passport, and they don't hesitate to use it as a shield to prosecution or detention. The diplomatic passport and Saudi Arabia's refusal to sign up to meaningful extradition treaties makes it a haven for criminality, right through from Prince Nayef whose private plane was seized with 2 tonnes of cocaine on board in Paris, to ex-dictators like Ben Ali of Tunisia, to Saudi citizens who kidnap their children and disappear into the kingdom knowing the Saudi police will do nothing.
Financing of International Terrorism
Perhaps most objectionable, they turn a blind eye to terrorist financing, not least because militant Islamic fundamentalism has committed and entrenched adherents and sympathisers at the highest levels of Saudi society (not just in the conservative clerical caste, but also in the royal family / government).
The Taliban are, in large part, are funded by rivers of cash from well-heeled, conservative Saudi donors. Ditto 90% of the Salafist madrassas in the Muslim world, which have had a negative effect on local minority Muslim sects and interpretations, and on Islamic religious plurality. The consequences of this can be seen most clearly for the girl children of Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan.
Equally, they were one of only two countries in the world to recognise the Taliban regime in Afghanistan from 1996-2001, providing it with diplomatic cover (the other being Pakistan, with whom they're joined at the hip in a special relationship, particularly on foreign policy and nuclear), as well as providing substantial financial support to it and the government of Sudan (which, as it happens, was the other country which acted as a terrorist sanctuary for Bin Laden during the 1990s)
Most egregious is the still-unexplained involvement of elements of the Saudi intelligence service and royal family in the 9/11 plot, by putting their funds and agent networks in Southern California at the disposal of the San Diego hijacker cell, providing them with accommodation, cash, logistical support, etc.
Foreign policy
A foreign-policy made subservient to Arabian oil is a very outdated; Britain now imports less than 5% of its total oil consumption from the Middle East (down from about 3/4s in the 1950s). The Persian Gulf is not as crucial as it once was to international geopolitics.
They buy our weapons, but that is offset by the fact that the cost of those programmes are simply tacked onto the price of oil, and more considering the gigantic bribes / commissions demanded by Saudi princes when they do business with overseas contractors and suppliers.
In the past it may have made sense to view Middle East policy through the prism of energy security. But the equation has changed beyond recognition due to the large decline in our Mid-East oil imports, the end of the Saddam regime and the changed circumstances in Egypt and Iran.
So...
Other than oil, we have essentially nothing in common with Saudi Arabia. When you add up all the costs of Saudi complicity in international Islamic terrorism and financial and diplomatic support for the former Taliban regime and government of Sudan (essentially, we wouldn't even be in Afghanistan if it weren't for Saudi Arabia), the cost to international peace and stability of their funding of Madrassas, their proliferation activities, general tendency to criminality by princes, diplomats) and human rights considerations, I don't think it's outweighed by what they spend on British kit.
Human rights
Human rights speaks for itself. All meaningful power is vested in the 6,000 male descendents of King Ibn Saud, who collectively choose the Crown Prince and constitute almost the entirety of the executive branch,, whose personal wealth is indistinguishable from and intermingled with state-revenue. They have restrictions for women that would be seen as extreme in Iran, they chop off body parts for punishment etc etc.
Proliferation
In terms of proliferation, Saudi Arabia stumped up billions of US dollars to cover most of the costs of both the Pakistani and Iraqi nuclear programmes so they could see the development of an "Islamic bomb". This predictably led to illicit proliferation in Syria, Iran and North Korea. They also have an agreement with Pakistan to supply them with five or six nuclear weapons on short notice if there is a sharp deterioration of the security situation in the gulf.
They have also contributed considerably to conventional proliferation in the region by importing Chinese medium-range ballistic missiles, and on-selling American munitions and technology. They also contributed by handing over $25 billion to Iraq in the 1980s to buy weapons to fight Iran (before having to cough up $60 billion to defend against the same weapons in the Gulf War).
Diplomacy and criminality
Their abuse of the Vienna Convention is legendary. Every one of the 6,000 or so Saudi princes travels internationally on a diplomatic passport, and they don't hesitate to use it as a shield to prosecution or detention. The diplomatic passport and Saudi Arabia's refusal to sign up to meaningful extradition treaties makes it a haven for criminality, right through from Prince Nayef whose private plane was seized with 2 tonnes of cocaine on board in Paris, to ex-dictators like Ben Ali of Tunisia, to Saudi citizens who kidnap their children and disappear into the kingdom knowing the Saudi police will do nothing.
Financing of International Terrorism
Perhaps most objectionable, they turn a blind eye to terrorist financing, not least because militant Islamic fundamentalism has committed and entrenched adherents and sympathisers at the highest levels of Saudi society (not just in the conservative clerical caste, but also in the royal family / government).
The Taliban are, in large part, are funded by rivers of cash from well-heeled, conservative Saudi donors. Ditto 90% of the Salafist madrassas in the Muslim world, which have had a negative effect on local minority Muslim sects and interpretations, and on Islamic religious plurality. The consequences of this can be seen most clearly for the girl children of Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan.
Equally, they were one of only two countries in the world to recognise the Taliban regime in Afghanistan from 1996-2001, providing it with diplomatic cover (the other being Pakistan, with whom they're joined at the hip in a special relationship, particularly on foreign policy and nuclear), as well as providing substantial financial support to it and the government of Sudan (which, as it happens, was the other country which acted as a terrorist sanctuary for Bin Laden during the 1990s)
Most egregious is the still-unexplained involvement of elements of the Saudi intelligence service and royal family in the 9/11 plot, by putting their funds and agent networks in Southern California at the disposal of the San Diego hijacker cell, providing them with accommodation, cash, logistical support, etc.
Foreign policy
A foreign-policy made subservient to Arabian oil is a very outdated; Britain now imports less than 5% of its total oil consumption from the Middle East (down from about 3/4s in the 1950s). The Persian Gulf is not as crucial as it once was to international geopolitics.
They buy our weapons, but that is offset by the fact that the cost of those programmes are simply tacked onto the price of oil, and more considering the gigantic bribes / commissions demanded by Saudi princes when they do business with overseas contractors and suppliers.
In the past it may have made sense to view Middle East policy through the prism of energy security. But the equation has changed beyond recognition due to the large decline in our Mid-East oil imports, the end of the Saddam regime and the changed circumstances in Egypt and Iran.
So...
Other than oil, we have essentially nothing in common with Saudi Arabia. When you add up all the costs of Saudi complicity in international Islamic terrorism and financial and diplomatic support for the former Taliban regime and government of Sudan (essentially, we wouldn't even be in Afghanistan if it weren't for Saudi Arabia), the cost to international peace and stability of their funding of Madrassas, their proliferation activities, general tendency to criminality by princes, diplomats) and human rights considerations, I don't think it's outweighed by what they spend on British kit.
(edited 11 years ago)
Any country controlled by a monarch is going to be terrible, time for them to accept its the 21st century, and rid of their "royal" family.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Kill them all.
My moral compass cares.
Original post by cl_steele
But on a slight tangent human rights is a bit of a misnomer isn't it seeing as the majority of people don't have them it makes it less of a right but more of a privilege wouldn't you say?
But on a slight tangent human rights is a bit of a misnomer isn't it seeing as the majority of people don't have them it makes it less of a right but more of a privilege wouldn't you say?
The fact that Hitler killed most of the Jews in Europe didn't make it a privilege for the remaining ones simply to live.
Just because your human rights are being abridged doesn't mean their legal character and solidity is denuded.
This is why they are called inalienable; they can't be alienated by consent, by contract or conduct (behaviour that would allow a reasonable observer to infer that you had ratified the breach of your human rights).
There are greater issues at hand.
For one, Saudi are a dog on a leash, we know what they do, but they need us, that is what keeps them in check, and further to that, they keep other Middle Eastern states in check, or try to at least. Yes it's an awful regime, yes their leadership are awful people. But International Relations are not as simple as 'doing whats right', it would be wonderful it were, but that's not the case.
For one, Saudi are a dog on a leash, we know what they do, but they need us, that is what keeps them in check, and further to that, they keep other Middle Eastern states in check, or try to at least. Yes it's an awful regime, yes their leadership are awful people. But International Relations are not as simple as 'doing whats right', it would be wonderful it were, but that's not the case.
Saudi Arabia is a hub for terrorism. Fighting in Afghanistan and whatnot is simply dealing with the symptoms not the cause. I don't see how it benefits the West to leave the Saudis alone when they export terror and hateful Islamist ideologies worldwide.
Just to point out. Much of their significance as an oil producer is not just how much we buy from them. They are one hell of a power in OPEC and help keep prices down low. Saying that we deal with them far more than we should and many of our problems with terrorism come from Saudi Arabia.
Original post by MostUncivilised
The fact that Hitler killed most of the Jews in Europe didn't make it a privilege for the remaining ones simply to live.
Just because your human rights are being abridged doesn't mean their legal character and solidity is denuded.
This is why they are called inalienable; they can't be alienated by consent, by contract or conduct (behaviour that would allow a reasonable observer to infer that you had ratified the breach of your human rights).
Just because your human rights are being abridged doesn't mean their legal character and solidity is denuded.
This is why they are called inalienable; they can't be alienated by consent, by contract or conduct (behaviour that would allow a reasonable observer to infer that you had ratified the breach of your human rights).
Stop talking rubbish hitler doesn't factor in here at all.
Besides the point of my comment seems Ro have escaped your mind anyway or you'd have noticed what you've said is tosh.
And for the record they most certainly aren't inalienable. I can give you a huge list of people who'd have a thing or two to say about these 'human rights' and why they don't get them. Once again they are at current a privilege not a right, much like say private health insurance(for example) everyone should be entitled to top notch health care but they're not.
Original post by Steevee
There are greater issues at hand.
For one, Saudi are a dog on a leash, we know what they do, but they need us, that is what keeps them in check, and further to that, they keep other Middle Eastern states in check, or try to at least. Yes it's an awful regime, yes their leadership are awful people. But International Relations are not as simple as 'doing whats right', it would be wonderful it were, but that's not the case.
For one, Saudi are a dog on a leash, we know what they do, but they need us, that is what keeps them in check, and further to that, they keep other Middle Eastern states in check, or try to at least. Yes it's an awful regime, yes their leadership are awful people. But International Relations are not as simple as 'doing whats right', it would be wonderful it were, but that's not the case.
I'd beg Ro differ if anything we need them far more, not saying they don't need us but if they stopped exporting the price of oil would go through the roof laying waste to many economies would it not?
Original post by cl_steele
I'd beg Ro differ if anything we need them far more, not saying they don't need us but if they stopped exporting the price of oil would go through the roof laying waste to many economies would it not?
It would be a problem.
But their economy would fail if they stopped exporting oil and they import a huge amount of goods from the West. They could not afford to stop exporting their oil, I mean it literally is their economys' base.
Original post by MostUncivilised
Proliferation
In terms of proliferation, Saudi Arabia stumped up billions of US dollars to cover most of the costs of both the Pakistani and Iraqi nuclear programmes so they could see the development of an "Islamic bomb". This predictably led to illicit proliferation in Syria, Iran and North Korea. They also have an agreement with Pakistan to supply them with five or six nuclear weapons on short notice if there is a sharp deterioration of the security situation in the gulf.
They have also contributed considerably to conventional proliferation in the region by importing Chinese medium-range ballistic missiles, and on-selling American munitions and technology. They also contributed by handing over $25 billion to Iraq in the 1980s to buy weapons to fight Iran (before having to cough up $60 billion to defend against the same weapons in the Gulf War).
In terms of proliferation, Saudi Arabia stumped up billions of US dollars to cover most of the costs of both the Pakistani and Iraqi nuclear programmes so they could see the development of an "Islamic bomb". This predictably led to illicit proliferation in Syria, Iran and North Korea. They also have an agreement with Pakistan to supply them with five or six nuclear weapons on short notice if there is a sharp deterioration of the security situation in the gulf.
They have also contributed considerably to conventional proliferation in the region by importing Chinese medium-range ballistic missiles, and on-selling American munitions and technology. They also contributed by handing over $25 billion to Iraq in the 1980s to buy weapons to fight Iran (before having to cough up $60 billion to defend against the same weapons in the Gulf War).
The agreement was never proved, it was by Cicero and no one really picked up on it from what I remember, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia obviously denied such agreements and I don't think anyone found different. Also Saudi Arabia are part of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East, in-fact I believe they are the founders of the operation for a Nuclear Free Zone.
What they do with China is a transaction relationship, it isn't anything like Israeli-US relations for example. I wouldn't be that worried about China and the weapons, Chinese weapons are terrible anyway.
Overall I would not call Saudi Arabia a rouge state, just a state with self-interest like all states
also what is with the Saudi Arabia threads lately? 
Original post by tehFrance
The agreement was never proved, it was by Cicero and no one really picked up on it from what I remember, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia obviously denied such agreements and I don't think anyone found different
Clearly, the intelligence community has strong reasons to believe the agreement exists, such an agreement would be consistent with what is publicly known of the scope and character of the Pak-Saudi special relationship, with Saudi official visits to Pakistani nuclear facilities, public statements, the acquisition of DF-3A.
Also Saudi Arabia are part of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East, in-fact I believe they are the founders of the operation for a Nuclear Free Zone.
And if they did breach the treaty, it would certainly be the first time a country has acted contrary to its international obligations. Shocking.
What they do with China is a transaction relationship, it isn't anything like Israeli-US relations for example. I wouldn't be that worried about China and the weapons, Chinese weapons are terrible anyway.
That's actually part of the worry. These CSS-2 missiles aren't accurate, they have a CEP (50% of warheades will hit within) of about 1km. At estimated payload of about 2,000kg with a conventional warhead (the Chinese only ever had nuclear warheads for the DF-3), you get a 15 psi blast wave (destruction of most reinforced above-ground structures) in a 500 metre radius.
They have no real function except as a future insurance policy for when/if the House of Saud needs a deterrent, quickly, and believes it has a vendor for the physics package.
Overall I would not call Saudi Arabia a rouge state, just a state with self-interest like all states
I suppose other states at least try to pretend that their government operates in the interest of the nation collectively, rather than primarily for the aggrandizement and financial benefit of one family.
also what is with the Saudi Arabia threads lately?
I saw the other thread and I thought I could do better in terms of an interesting proposition. I had the arguments already worked out for another purpose, was just interested in responses and thoughts.
Original post by cl_steele
Stop talking rubbish hitler doesn't factor in here at all
Perhaps you didn't understand, or didn't fully read my comment.
It's called reasoning by analogy. By comparing it to a situation where you would certainly (or at least presumably) agree that the rights of a particular group were infringed, even barring any express statute or legal provision, and that the abridgement of the right to life in the case of European Jewry did not extinguish their right to life and/or transform it into a privilege at the whim of whichever state they lived under, I imagined you would grasp the comparison and the analogy, and reflect a little more on your reflexive opposition to anything labelled human rights (like the right not to be extrajudicially murdered , the right not to be tortured, etc).
For those who've done some reading on the subject, it would also be an invitation to offer some view on natural rights, what distinction you make in terms of positive and negative rights, and so on. But.... nothing.
Besides the point of my comment seems Ro have escaped your mind anyway or you'd have noticed what you've said is tosh.
I usually give people the benefit of the doubt, but are you drunk? You don't express yourself with any great precision, and are quick to anger.
In terms of how much it would cost to run the car, that's a totally unsupported remark, considering the low proportion of Saudi Arabian oil imports to the total national consumption (mid-to-low single digit percentages from year-to-year)
And for the record they most certainly aren't inalienable. I can give you a huge list of people who'd have a thing or two to say about these 'human rights' and why they don't get them. Once again they are at current a privilege not a right, much like say private health insurance(for example) everyone should be entitled to top notch health care but they're not
Again, you've failed to exercise any great degree of precision or clarity in your comment. Inalienability doesn't mean you can't be practically deprived of the benefit, what it means is that you can't be legally deprived of it, which is a standing and permanent protection against any claim that you consented or acceded to its deprivation or that consent could be inferred from your conduct.
Perhaps you can provide a credible list of lawyers, civil servants, business-people or academics who have argued consistently against any of the unqualified articles of the European Convention on Human Rights?
Saudi Arabia will never be considered a rogue states despite all the human rights abuses that happen within its borders as it aligned itself firmly with the US and thus the West. Why would anyone brand an ally a rogue state?
Plus if you think that western leaders actually care about the human rights situation in SA you're profoundly wrong. As you might also know it is a sovereign state and any outside interference in its affairs is criminal as the majority of the population is deeply conservative and thus supports the policies of the ruling elite.
Plus if you think that western leaders actually care about the human rights situation in SA you're profoundly wrong. As you might also know it is a sovereign state and any outside interference in its affairs is criminal as the majority of the population is deeply conservative and thus supports the policies of the ruling elite.
Original post by Steevee
It would be a problem.
But their economy would fail if they stopped exporting oil and they import a huge amount of goods from the West. They could not afford to stop exporting their oil, I mean it literally is their economys' base.
But their economy would fail if they stopped exporting oil and they import a huge amount of goods from the West. They could not afford to stop exporting their oil, I mean it literally is their economys' base.
Oh no I agree I was merely saying that whilst it would be self destructive it would also likely be more damaging to the west due to the far ranging consequences of it, especially since half of the states there are running out of oil, the rest are unsafe and we've embargoed the other :L
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Muslim grouping OIC says measures needed to prevent Quran desecration
- super confused ! SOAS or city for masters ??
- CertHE Or MBBS
- The G20 Leaders Hurt/Heal Game
- Climate Change in Saudi Arabia
- Alevel subject availability in ksa
- Has anyone got 22-25 marks on an A Level history essay?
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B: 9PL0 3B - 17 June 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Dissertation questionnaire participants needed
- kcl foundation year
- Teaching English aborad
- GCSE Drama Devising piece help
- Is AIT still a non-profit organization?
- AQA A Level History Paper 1 (options A to L) 7042/1C - 26 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A-level History USA: Making of a Superpower (7042/1K) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Placement Year (International)
- Umrah and Madinah
- history epq
- Muslim Female accommodation
- can anyone mark my 16 mark gcse history question
Latest
Last reply 1 hour ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Can I do economics degree without a level maths?Last reply 1 hour ago
How to choose unis in UCAS application for CS undergraduate course?Last reply 1 hour ago
Rishi Sunak pledges to remove benefits for people not taking jobs after 12 monthsLast reply 2 hours ago
Got my crush's number 2 days ago and no reply yet. What could be the reasons?Posted 2 hours ago
GB News set to axe 40 jobs after channel posts heavy lossesPosted 2 hours ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKTrending
Last reply 20 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 20 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
