How bad are the Saudis?

Last week's decision to suspend an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) into corruption between Saudi Arabia and BAE systems during one of the largest defence deals in UK history, raises old concerns about who our allies are and what we are prepared to indulge of them. The deal was undoubtedly beneficial to the UK in economic terms; Saudi Arabia is a key ally against international terrorism, especially when sharing intelligence; and of course there is the oil. But against these obvious positives in the relationship, we have allied with an undemocratic state with a poor human rights record, who wrongfully torture British citizens and plays host to Wahhibist extremism exported to Iraq, previously to Afghanistan and for a certain15 individuals to New York. With friends like these, who needs enemies - is the cry. In the world of realpolitik, yes this relationship is acceptable, in the same way that the UK and US have supported authoritarian regimes in the past. But remember those Bush words about states that harbour terrorism. Well the Saudis funded and recognised the Taliban, previously funded mujahedin that would form Al-Qaida, preside over a collection of charities that fund Hamas, so without going in to Michael Moore territory, this is all a bit dubious.

Regardless of their questionable actions and obvious excesses, what does the future hold and can the Saudis reform or will they implode. Parallels with the Shah and Iran exist, but the ruling family retain popularity and critically wealth. Poverty and unemployment are low, but any revolution won't be for another 40 years or at least while the oil revenues keep coming.

But the main point that Britain should consider is the human rights question. Human Rights Watch's analysis: "Saudi law does not protect many basic rights. The government does not allow political parties, and places strict limits on freedom of expression. Arbitrary detention, mistreatment and torture of detainees, restrictions on freedom of movement, and lack of official accountability remain serious concerns." This description would not be out of place for a Third world dictatorship, rather than a vital economic influence. But when Britain is prepared to be accused of double standards over economic and strategic interests, a spiral of antipathy will only continue. 15 of the 18 hijackers were Saudis for this reason.

The Clinton doctrine?

There was such a thing? Well any one leading a superpower in a turbulent period that was the 1990s, would have created some sort of foreign policy. His detractors believe that no doctrine existed.

To say that a Clinton doctrine was absent over the period 1993-2001 is not fully correct. From inauspicious beginnings, a range of foreign policy doctrines emerged but they often lacked coherence, or were flawed in their implementation. Three strands of foreign policy doctrine developed, directly influenced by the condition of the international system: enlargement; interventionism; containment of rogue states. However Clinton’s personal failings, plus difficulties within his administration; domestic factors and the practical implementation of these doctrines led to an often incoherent and ineffective foreign policy.

Clinton’s administration, elected three years after the end of the Cold War, was born in an international system described as unipolar and also uni-multipolar – one superpower and several major powers. The United States was pre eminent in this new era, in terms of economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological and cultural power. Major regional powers below held limited pre eminence but lacked the US global reach. Below this, lay secondary regional powers. A similar interpretation shows the United States, at the top level, as unipolar militarily; multipolar at an economic level; but below this, power is dispersed across borders and outside control of governments. Regional and ethnic conflicts could be included in this bottom level. Conflicts that had been simmering in the Cold war but fitted in rigid alliance structures had greater potential to develop under these new conditions. Lines in conflicts would be drawn between civilizations with threats from the Middle East and West Asia. The period also saw further globalisation and interdependence between states; the rise of non-state actors; transnational actors (multinational corporations, NGOs) and international actors (United Nations, World Trade Organisation, European Union).

Despite historic events – the collapse of communism and the Gulf War – taking place in the previous three years, the 1992 US election focused on economic issues. Foreign policy was an element of Clinton’s campaign and in televised debates he exhibited a tough stance on Bosnia and China, but domestic policy was his priority. Faced with inherited and emerging international issues but with no desire for active foreign policy, the Clinton administration was hesitant in adopting a strategy.

This is an abstract from my first essay of the year.

Pinochet - another dictator escapes justice

With the exception of his dedicated hardline supporters and Margaret Thatcher, the world will shed no tears at the death of General Augusto Pinochet today, aged 91. His death could be the second of three this year for notorious dictators: Milosevic died in March; Saddam is due to be executed before the year is out. But none of them are perceived to have received the justice they deserved or has at the least received a reciprocal of the injustice they gave out. Sadly all three had the foresight to cover their murderous tracks and make future criminal proceedings difficult and controversial. Secondly the international justice system has not developed sufficiently to prosecute dictators and war criminals with efficiency. The protracted Milosevic war crimes indictment and deeply flawed Saddam trial showed the difficulties in either form of justice.

Pinochet is the last client state leader of the Cold war to pass, on the US side at least. Castro and Kim Jong-il remain for the Soviets. The General who came to power on the other September 11th, in 1973, represented all that was bad under Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy. Project FUBELT, the codename for the CIA operations, against Allende's democratically elected government, created an environment for him to seize power and torture at will. Kissinger's motivation for sanctioning this action is beyond patronizing: "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

What lessons can be drawn? Well, it was the same policy in 1973, that extended to Iran and the Shah, was also seen elsewhere in Latin America and also Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. That is, support for geo-politically strategic allies over human rights considerations. Despite the positive influence of the United States in ending the cold war, the side effect can be seen in anti-Americanism that developed after. Latin America has rejected American values in recent times, but on a political-economic level. However support for dubious leaderships in the Middle East during the Cold war has led to the current well of antipathy seen there today.