Falk writes: "Saudi impunity makes us appreciate the value of normal
relationships that do not require promises of impunity in relation to
international crimes and human rights violations."
Saudi king Salman talks to the media during a meeting with US president
Barack Obama in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, September
4, 2015. (photo: Yuri Gripas/AFP)
Saudi Arabia and the Crime of Royal Impunity
By Richard Falk, Middle East Eye
06 October 15
It's awkward for the US government to champion human rights while refusing
to blink when it comes to accountability for Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia enjoys a spectacular level of impunity from international
accountability. This is not only because it has the world's richest and
largest royal family with influence spread far and wide. And it is not even
just about oil, although having a quarter of the world's pre-fracking energy
reserves still engenders utmost deference from those many modern economies
that will depend on Gulf oil and gas for as long as the precious black stuff
lasts.
However, the recent election of Saudi Arabia to the UN Human Rights Council,
partly due to a secret vote swap with the UK, seems to have crossed a line.
Mainstream eyebrows that have usually looked the other way when it came to
the Saudi record on human rights have now been raised.
And if that was not enough of an affront, the Saudi UN ambassador has just
been selected to chair the influential Human Rights Council "consultative
panel" that recommends to the president of the council a short-list of whom
shall be appointed as Special Rapporteurs, including on such issues as
rights of women, freedom of expression and religious freedom. This news is
coupled with confirmation that Saudi Arabia has inflicted more beheadings
than ISIS this year - more than two a day - and has ordered Ali Mohammed
al-Nimr to be executed by crucifixion for taking part in an anti-monarchy
demonstration when he was 17.
In another representative case, the popular blogger Raif Badawi was
sentenced to a long prison term and 1,000 lashes in public for criticising
the monarchy. This behaviour resembles the barbarism of ISIS more than it
exhibits qualifications to occupy senior UN positions dealing with human
rights.
Additionally, Riyadh, like Damascus, seems to be guilty of severe war crimes
due to its repeated targeting of civilians during its dubious Yemen
intervention. The worst incident was an airstrike targeting a wedding party
on 29 September, killing 131 civilians, including many women and children.
Indispensable asset
This mismatch should be considered a grotesque anomaly. Instead, it fits
neatly into a coherent geopolitical pattern. Ever since World War II Saudi
Arabia has been an indispensable strategic asset for the West. Oil is the
core explanation of this affinity, but it is far from the whole story. In
the post-war period, Saudi anti-Communism was important, a kind of health
insurance policy for the West that the government would not be lured into
the Soviet orbit or adopt a non-aligned position in the manner of Nasser's
Egypt, which could have disastrously undermined energy security for Western
Europe.
In recent years, converging patterns of extreme hostility toward Iran that
Saudi Arabia shares with Israel has delighted Washington planners who had
long been challenged by the difficulty of juggling unconditional support for
Israel with an almost absolute dependence of the West on Gulf oil being
available at affordable prices.
This tension had come to a head in the aftermath of the 1973 Middle East War
in which Saudi Arabia expressed the dissatisfaction of the Arab world with
Western pro-Israel positioning by imposing an oil embargo that caused a
global panic attack. This crisis took the double form of a high road
revealing Western vulnerability to OPEC oil supplies and a low road of
severe consumer discontent with long gas lines attributable to the embargo.
It was then that war hawks in the West murmured aloud about coercively
ending the embargo by landing paratroopers on Saudi oil fields. Henry
Kissinger, never troubled by war scenarios, speculated that such an
intervention might be "necessary" for the economic security of the West. The
Saudi rulers heard this "never again" pledge, and have since been careful
not to step on Western toes.
Against such a background, it is hardly surprising that NGO concerns about
the dreadful human rights landscape in Saudi Arabia falls on deaf ears.
President Obama, who never tires of telling the world that the national
character of America requires it to live according with its values, centring
on human rights and democracy, keeps mum when it comes to Saudi Arabia. He
is busy reassuring the new Saudi king that the US remains as committed as
ever to this second "special relationship" in the Middle East, the first
being, of course, with Israel.
If we look beneath the word "special," which conveys the added importance
attached of the relationship, it seems to imply unconditional support,
including a refusal to voice criticism. US geopolitical backing confers
impunity, shielding the beneficiary from any pushback by the international
community at the UN or elsewhere. There are other perks that come with this
status additional to impunity. Perhaps none more notable than the favour of
hustling Saudi notables out of the United States the day after the 9/11
attacks. Remember that 15 of the 19 plane hijackers were Saudi nationals,
and the US government will still not release 28 pages of detailed evidence
on Saudi connections with al-Qaeda gathered by the 9/11 investigative
commission.
Surely if Iran had remotely comparable linkages to those notorious events it
would likely have produced a casus belli; recall that the justification for
attacking Iraq in 2003 was partially based on flimsy fictitious allegations
of Baghdad's 9/11 complicity.
Supporting the dollar
The Saudi special relationship - unlike that with Israel - is more mutually
beneficial. Because of the enormous revenues earned by selling 10 million
barrels of oil a day for decades, Saudi's unwavering support for the dollar
as the currency of account has been a crucial help to American ambition to
dominate the global economy. Beyond this, the Saudis, after pushing the
world price of oil up by as much as 400 percent in the 1970s, quickly healed
the wounds by a massive recycling of so-called petrodollars through
investments in Europe and North America, and especially appreciated was the
Saudi purchase of many billions of dollars worth of arms.
The United States did its part to uphold the relationship, especially by
responding to the 1990 Iraqi attack on Kuwait that also menaced Saudi
Arabia. By deploying 400,000 troops in Saudi Arabia and leading the
successful effort to compel Saddam Hussein's Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait,
American reliability as the Saudis' protective brother was convincingly
upheld.
Despite the major strategic benefits to both sides, the most remarkable
aspect of this special relationship is its survival in the face of the Saudi
role in funding Islamic anti-Western militancy throughout the world. Saudi
promotion of religious education with a Wahhabist slant is widely believed
to be largely responsible for the rise and spread of Jihadism, and the
resultant turmoil.
I would have thought that the West, especially after 9/11, would insist that
Saudi Arabia stop supporting Wahhabist-style extremism abroad, even if it
overlooked Riyadh's repression at home. More damaging than being the
enforcer of Saudi impunity is the US acceptance of the anti-Iranian
sectarian line that Saudis rely on to justify such controversial moves as
direct interventions in Bahrain and Yemen, as well as material support for
anti-Assad forces in Syria.
Saudi opportunism became evident when the kingdom threw its diplomatic
support and a large bundle of cash to a coup in Egypt against the elected
Muslim Brotherhood government. Saudi's true enemies are Iran as regional
rival and democracy as a threat to royal absolutism. What counts most is the
regional rivalry with Iran and the danger that Arab democracy anywhere
nearby poses a threat to the royal regime.
Saudi impunity makes us appreciate the value of normal relationships that do
not require promises of impunity in relation to international crimes and
human rights violations. These special relationships have become politically
costly in this century, especially if used to shield rogue states.
Accountability is better for stability, security, and sustainable peace than
impunity. It is awkward for the US government to champion human rights while
refusing to blink when it comes to accountability for Saudi Arabia or
Israel.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Saudi king Salman talks to the media during a meeting with US president
Barack Obama in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, September
4, 2015. (photo: Yuri Gripas/AFP)
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/saudi-arabia-and-crime-royal-impunity-1
98710381http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/saudi-arabia-and-crime-royal-im
punity-198710381
Saudi Arabia and the Crime of Royal Impunity
By Richard Falk, Middle East Eye
06 October 15
It's awkward for the US government to champion human rights while refusing
to blink when it comes to accountability for Saudi Arabia
audi Arabia enjoys a spectacular level of impunity from international
accountability. This is not only because it has the world's richest and
largest royal family with influence spread far and wide. And it is not even
just about oil, although having a quarter of the world's pre-fracking energy
reserves still engenders utmost deference from those many modern economies
that will depend on Gulf oil and gas for as long as the precious black stuff
lasts.
However, the recent election of Saudi Arabia to the UN Human Rights Council,
partly due to a secret vote swap with the UK, seems to have crossed a line.
Mainstream eyebrows that have usually looked the other way when it came to
the Saudi record on human rights have now been raised.
And if that was not enough of an affront, the Saudi UN ambassador has just
been selected to chair the influential Human Rights Council "consultative
panel" that recommends to the president of the council a short-list of whom
shall be appointed as Special Rapporteurs, including on such issues as
rights of women, freedom of expression and religious freedom. This news is
coupled with confirmation that Saudi Arabia has inflicted more beheadings
than ISIS this year - more than two a day - and has ordered Ali Mohammed
al-Nimr to be executed by crucifixion for taking part in an anti-monarchy
demonstration when he was 17.
In another representative case, the popular blogger Raif Badawi was
sentenced to a long prison term and 1,000 lashes in public for criticising
the monarchy. This behaviour resembles the barbarism of ISIS more than it
exhibits qualifications to occupy senior UN positions dealing with human
rights.
Additionally, Riyadh, like Damascus, seems to be guilty of severe war crimes
due to its repeated targeting of civilians during its dubious Yemen
intervention. The worst incident was an airstrike targeting a wedding party
on 29 September, killing 131 civilians, including many women and children.
Indispensable asset
This mismatch should be considered a grotesque anomaly. Instead, it fits
neatly into a coherent geopolitical pattern. Ever since World War II Saudi
Arabia has been an indispensable strategic asset for the West. Oil is the
core explanation of this affinity, but it is far from the whole story. In
the post-war period, Saudi anti-Communism was important, a kind of health
insurance policy for the West that the government would not be lured into
the Soviet orbit or adopt a non-aligned position in the manner of Nasser's
Egypt, which could have disastrously undermined energy security for Western
Europe.
In recent years, converging patterns of extreme hostility toward Iran that
Saudi Arabia shares with Israel has delighted Washington planners who had
long been challenged by the difficulty of juggling unconditional support for
Israel with an almost absolute dependence of the West on Gulf oil being
available at affordable prices.
This tension had come to a head in the aftermath of the 1973 Middle East War
in which Saudi Arabia expressed the dissatisfaction of the Arab world with
Western pro-Israel positioning by imposing an oil embargo that caused a
global panic attack. This crisis took the double form of a high road
revealing Western vulnerability to OPEC oil supplies and a low road of
severe consumer discontent with long gas lines attributable to the embargo.
It was then that war hawks in the West murmured aloud about coercively
ending the embargo by landing paratroopers on Saudi oil fields. Henry
Kissinger, never troubled by war scenarios, speculated that such an
intervention might be "necessary" for the economic security of the West. The
Saudi rulers heard this "never again" pledge, and have since been careful
not to step on Western toes.
Against such a background, it is hardly surprising that NGO concerns about
the dreadful human rights landscape in Saudi Arabia falls on deaf ears.
President Obama, who never tires of telling the world that the national
character of America requires it to live according with its values, centring
on human rights and democracy, keeps mum when it comes to Saudi Arabia. He
is busy reassuring the new Saudi king that the US remains as committed as
ever to this second "special relationship" in the Middle East, the first
being, of course, with Israel.
If we look beneath the word "special," which conveys the added importance
attached of the relationship, it seems to imply unconditional support,
including a refusal to voice criticism. US geopolitical backing confers
impunity, shielding the beneficiary from any pushback by the international
community at the UN or elsewhere. There are other perks that come with this
status additional to impunity. Perhaps none more notable than the favour of
hustling Saudi notables out of the United States the day after the 9/11
attacks. Remember that 15 of the 19 plane hijackers were Saudi nationals,
and the US government will still not release 28 pages of detailed evidence
on Saudi connections with al-Qaeda gathered by the 9/11 investigative
commission.
Surely if Iran had remotely comparable linkages to those notorious events it
would likely have produced a casus belli; recall that the justification for
attacking Iraq in 2003 was partially based on flimsy fictitious allegations
of Baghdad's 9/11 complicity.
Supporting the dollar
The Saudi special relationship - unlike that with Israel - is more mutually
beneficial. Because of the enormous revenues earned by selling 10 million
barrels of oil a day for decades, Saudi's unwavering support for the dollar
as the currency of account has been a crucial help to American ambition to
dominate the global economy. Beyond this, the Saudis, after pushing the
world price of oil up by as much as 400 percent in the 1970s, quickly healed
the wounds by a massive recycling of so-called petrodollars through
investments in Europe and North America, and especially appreciated was the
Saudi purchase of many billions of dollars worth of arms.
The United States did its part to uphold the relationship, especially by
responding to the 1990 Iraqi attack on Kuwait that also menaced Saudi
Arabia. By deploying 400,000 troops in Saudi Arabia and leading the
successful effort to compel Saddam Hussein's Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait,
American reliability as the Saudis' protective brother was convincingly
upheld.
Despite the major strategic benefits to both sides, the most remarkable
aspect of this special relationship is its survival in the face of the Saudi
role in funding Islamic anti-Western militancy throughout the world. Saudi
promotion of religious education with a Wahhabist slant is widely believed
to be largely responsible for the rise and spread of Jihadism, and the
resultant turmoil.
I would have thought that the West, especially after 9/11, would insist that
Saudi Arabia stop supporting Wahhabist-style extremism abroad, even if it
overlooked Riyadh's repression at home. More damaging than being the
enforcer of Saudi impunity is the US acceptance of the anti-Iranian
sectarian line that Saudis rely on to justify such controversial moves as
direct interventions in Bahrain and Yemen, as well as material support for
anti-Assad forces in Syria.
Saudi opportunism became evident when the kingdom threw its diplomatic
support and a large bundle of cash to a coup in Egypt against the elected
Muslim Brotherhood government. Saudi's true enemies are Iran as regional
rival and democracy as a threat to royal absolutism. What counts most is the
regional rivalry with Iran and the danger that Arab democracy anywhere
nearby poses a threat to the royal regime.
Saudi impunity makes us appreciate the value of normal relationships that do
not require promises of impunity in relation to international crimes and
human rights violations. These special relationships have become politically
costly in this century, especially if used to shield rogue states.
Accountability is better for stability, security, and sustainable peace than
impunity. It is awkward for the US government to champion human rights while
refusing to blink when it comes to accountability for Saudi Arabia or
Israel.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize