The Saudi Question
There’s been a lot of discussion in the blogosphere, particularly since the publication of this London Times article, about American policy towards Saudi Arabia. Many commentators have expressed confusion about the right approach to dealing with the Saudis in the context of the war on terror – do we coddle, poke, or threaten them? Dave Schuler, at The Glittering Voice, grapples with this question and decides that there are no good options: “The options for dealing with the [Kingdom of Saudi Arabia] are extremely limited.” Schuler suggests that there is no military solution and that using economic pressure could prove problematic.
But not everyone agrees with Schuler’s pessimistic assessment. Just in time to weigh in on this debate, Shadi Hamid and Stephen McInerney of the Project on Middle East Democracy have written a well-timed article for The New Republic Online that represents an important contribution to this discussion. American policy towards Saudi Arabia should be based primarily on encouraging the transition to a more representative government, they argue. Pushing for democratic reform in Saudi Arabia would be the most effective way of undercutting radical Islam and securing our interests in the region. They also note that the recent Gulf arms deal provides an important opening for such an effort:
Empirical studies increasingly point to the lack of democracy as a key cause of terrorism. Drawing on the findings of their important 2003 study of terrorist attacks, Princeton’s Alan Krueger and Czech scholar Jitka Malecková noted that “the only variable that was consistently associated with the number of terrorists was the Freedom House index of political rights and civil liberties.”
…America can leverage its support to shape Arab regimes’ decisions on democratization. This is particularly true for the ruling al-Saud family, which is intimately tied to the U.S. and dependent on its military backing. The arms deal presents an opportunity for Washington to exert influence in Riyadh. This opening should be seized to push the Saudis along the path of reform, the only path that will lead to long-term security. We have leverage, and we should use it.
Hamid and McInerney go on to argue the following:
First, all arms sales should be contingent on the implementation of the promised educational and judicial reforms. Second, the United States should require progress on political reform, beginning with greater freedoms of press and assembly, and allowing public dissent on policy matters. Beyond this, deadlines should be set for long-awaited Shura (Consultative) Council elections, followed by benchmarks for the steady evolution of the council from an advisory role to a genuine legislative body. Third, transparency and fairness in the justice system, even when dealing with terror suspects, should be required.
For those who are interested, the full article is here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
2 Responses to “The Saudi Question”
I have to say that I disagree categorically with the idea of representative government in Saudi Arabia as the first step. Since the KSA is almost completely lacking in liberal institutions and the Sauds and virulently anti-Western Wahhabi clerics in tag team have taught hate for so long, a more representative government would then be one which, unlike the Sauds who’ll either look the other way in the face of support on the part of its wealthy citizens for radical Islamist violence or enact reforms with geological slowness, would support radical Islamist violence and not produce liberal reforms at all.
I think that we should gently nudge the Saudi towards economic liberalization first in a sort of Chinese model relying primarily on carrots rather than sticks and supporting liberal elements in the society as it’s possible, hoping to cultivate stable liberal institutions as a foundation on which to base a decent representative government.
I would tend to agree with Dave Schuler. Saudis are equally proud as the Americans, probably more so, and don’t like to be lectured or coerced. The nuances of a dialogue with the Saudis have to be as subtle and clever as with the Chinese.
This calls for long term engagement and understanding of the complicated decision-making process in Saudi Arabia.
I don’t think that Saudi King is a sole decision maker in the mould of President Bush and his coterie.
Saudis take a long time in making up their minds and the process involves layers of discussion in a cool and calm manner (not the sledge-hammer approach as witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan).
Like Iraq and other Arab countries, Saudi Arabia has witnessed in the past violent and bloody fights between different tribes, etc, within their own countries.
The present Saudi dynasty has brought about some sanity by subduing the warring factions through a sword – as shown in the Saudi flag. The warring factions now live amicably and their character has somewhat changed when Saudi economy started booming.
If artificial changes are brought about in the style of functioning of the regime there is no guarantee that old rivalries and feuds do not surface again in a virulent manner – as happened in Iraq after the forced departure of Saddam Hussein.
It is nice for all of us to dream of a world where democratic institutions flourish in all countries. Yes, but we have to be patient.
Unfortunately, this laudable desire of the Western nations (and its intellectuals) has recently become suspicious with the US administration itself supporting and funding dictators and taking steps inimical to the development of democracies in some countries.
Saudi Arabia has been suspicious of US motives for decades…and the latter’s role in Iraq and Afghanistan has really complicated the situation.
I don’t think that President Bush and his coterie would generate any confidence. We have to wait for the next President of the United States to get into the White House before any steps can be taken to persuade Saudis to change their way of life.
Dave Schuler is correct.