Are countries only allowed to behead people if they are our ally?

OP

Original post by EwanWest

a) Saudi Arabia is actually a legitmate state, Daseh is not

Depends how you define 'legitimate state'.

b) Saudia Arabia does have some kind of legal system (albeit the fairness is disputed)

As do the Islamic State.

c) From a cynical point of view, Saudi Arabia is becoming one of the UK's most important trade partners. Sometimes you have to get in bed with nasty people

So that's a yes?

Reply 3

troubadour.

19

Original post by Reza Pahlavi

x

I read the question wrong. :facepalm:

I meant to vote 'yes', not 'no.' I assumed that, like most polls, it was asking my opinion on what should be the case rather than my judgement on what is presently the case.

Reply 4

OP

Original post by Hydeman

I read the question wrong. :facepalm:

I meant to vote 'yes', not 'no.' I assumed that, like most polls, it was asking my opinion on what should be the case rather than my judgement on what is presently the case.

Damn, I was getting excited for our first disagreement. :colonhash:

Your comprehension skills fail you, and disappoint me.

You can add that to your wall of 'hate'. :wink:

Reply 5

Two main differences:

1) The Saudi government is not a direct threat to us. ISIS are.
2) Western economies rely on oil and Saudi Arabia has a huge amount of leverage because of its scale as an oil producer. If there is an oil shock in any other part of the world, Saudi Arabia is the country with the spare capacity to make it up.

The Saudi regime is distasteful however it comes down to "what do we do about it".

We could make some symbolic gestures, condemn them publicly, place restrictions on their diplomats and so on. They might take offence but they are not going to change their record of human rights because of this.

We could scale it up a bit more by putting some kind of economic sanctions on them but we need their oil so that would hurt us more than them, and they know it.

We could invade them and fight a "regime change" war like in Iraq or Afghanistan. But the breakdown of the Saudi state would cause a massive rise in oil prices that would plunge the world in to recession again, and it would create a power vacuum and the groups that would be likely to fill that vacuum would not be pleasant.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are probably the two countries where we can least afford to have political instability because there are a lot of groups operating there who are hardline fundamentalists who want jihad against the West and in a civil war these groups are a high risk of taking power and because of Saudi oil or Pakistan's nuclear weapons this would be a disaster.

This is why Cameron is in a position where privately he will think the Saudis are disgusting but he is constrained in what he can do and so would any of us be in that position. Even Corbyn would probably do nothing more than that futile moral condemnation, he would not invade Saudi and knock the regime out.

The best thing Cameron can do is to avoid accusations of hypocrisy so think before he starts trying to criticise others for saying "we should talk to Islamic State" etc because lets be honest if Islamic State were successful in establishing a state we would be dealing with them just like we deal with the Saudi government and the Taliban back in the day.

Reply 6

troubadour.

19

Original post by Reza Pahlavi

Spoiler

Reply 7

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by EwanWest

a) Saudi Arabia is actually a legitmate state, Daseh is not
b) Saudia Arabia does have some kind of legal system (albeit the fairness is disputed)
c) From a cynical point of view, Saudi Arabia is becoming one of the UK's most important trade partners. Sometimes you have to get in bed with nasty people

So essentially if ISIS won. Created it's own stable State, had some important economic resource to export and stopped directly attacking the west it would be legit.

Reply 8

OP

Original post by MagicNMedicine

Two main differences:

1) The Saudi government is not a direct threat to us. ISIS are.
2) Western economies rely on oil and Saudi Arabia has a huge amount of leverage because of its scale as an oil producer. If there is an oil shock in any other part of the world, Saudi Arabia is the country with the spare capacity to make it up.

So you are agreeing with me; it is acceptable for countries to behead people if they are our ally?

x

Well thought-out as ever, but I'm not asking for a prescriptive judgement on whether countries who behead people should be allowed to get away with it if they are our ally (for many of the reasons you outline), but the more descriptive judgement of whether this is currently the case (which I posit my two examples in the OP show clearly that it is).

The best thing Cameron can do is to avoid accusations of hypocrisy so think before he starts trying to criticise others for saying "we should talk to Islamic State" etc because lets be honest if Islamic State were successful in establishing a state we would be dealing with them just like we deal with the Saudi government and the Taliban back in the day.

Exactly; the Saudi government are just a more successful (in terms of acceptance by international agencies/perceived legitimacy) Islamic State. Yet they are allowed to conduct themselves in similar ways because they are our ally. And therein lies the answer to the question posed. :wink:

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 9

Well it's acceptable in terms of "we have to accept it because there's nothing we can do about it".

For a case in point look at Western relations with Iran before and after 1979. When the Shah was in power Savak were torturing people all the time and the West just had to suck it up, because the Shah was a generally friendly ally against the risk of Communist expansion through the Middle East. After Khomenei came in, and was no longer a friendly ally, the condemnation of Iran started.

Reply 10

OP

Original post by MagicNMedicine

Well it's acceptable in terms of "we have to accept it because there's nothing we can do about it".

But isn't the whole basis of Cameron's defence of our ties with Saudi because he thinks we can have more of an influence as allies?

Reply 11

Original post by Reza Pahlavi

But isn't the whole basis of Cameron's defence of our ties with Saudi because he thinks we can have more of an influence as allies?

I doubt he has high expectations about being able to get them to change their practices on human rights.

However he probably thinks that being on reasonable terms with them will be helpful in terms of combating jihadi fundamentalists that want to carry out terrorist acts against the West.

The Saudi regime don't hate the West and they probably fear these jihadi fundamentalists as they are a threat to their power in Saudi Arabia. It would be a disaster for us if jihadi fundamentalists were to stage a coup and take over in Saudi Arabia so we sell the regime arms so that if that kind of thing were to happen the Saudi government troops would be equipped to fight them.

Reply 12

OP

Original post by MagicNMedicine

I
It would be a disaster for us if jihadi fundamentalists were to stage a coup and take over in Saudi Arabia so we sell the regime arms so that if that kind of thing were to happen the Saudi government troops would be equipped to fight them.

I agree with the former, but not the latter; the weapons we sell to Saudi seem to be being used to commit war-crimes in Yemen rather than to fight the Islamic State etc.

They do not need missiles for their jets to prevent an internal coup.

Reply 13

Original post by Reza Pahlavi

I agree with the former, but not the latter; the weapons we sell to Saudi seem to be being used to commit war-crimes in Yemen rather than to fight the Islamic State etc.

They do not need missiles for their jets to prevent an internal coup.

Saudi Arabia is a big country and if Islamic State were fighting the government then they would want to carry out air strikes on Islamic State positions. Almost certainly the West would be bombing the crap out of them as well. I think if Saudi oil fields were within danger of any jihadi the US would put ground troops on - they garrisoned Saudi pretty quickly after Saddam invaded Kuwait.

Reply 14

OP

Original post by MagicNMedicine

Saudi Arabia is a big country and if Islamic State were fighting the government then they would want to carry out air strikes on Islamic State positions. Almost certainly the West would be bombing the crap out of them as well. I think if Saudi oil fields were within danger of any jihadi the US would put ground troops on - they garrisoned Saudi pretty quickly after Saddam invaded Kuwait.

If such a situation ever materialised, then I agree it would be in our best interests to provide Saudi with the means of defending themselves so they don't fall to IS (although I'm not sure how an IS-run Saudi would be much different to the current dictatorship, except they wouldn't be pro-West, which I guess is the deciding factor - but that just further substantiates my point in the OP).

But I don't see how that justifies selling them weapons now, when they're not even using them against IS - instead using them to bomb the poorest country in the region.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 15

ubiII

Original post by MagicNMedicine

Saudi Arabia is a big country and if Islamic State were fighting the government then they would want to carry out air strikes on Islamic State positions. Almost certainly the West would be bombing the crap out of them as well. I think if Saudi oil fields were within danger of any jihadi the US would put ground troops on - they garrisoned Saudi pretty quickly after Saddam invaded Kuwait.

i em agreang with u

Reply 16