November 1, 2007
The Saudis, the British, and Miliband
The king of Saudi Arabia has just made his first royal visit to Britain for 20 years. Roula Khalaf reports that the Saudis were surprised by the anger and criticism that was directed towards them in the British media. They shouldn’t have been. The fact is that the British are extremely uncomfortable about the sleazy nature of British-Saudi relations. I recently met a senior Foreign Office official who was willing to talk unguardedly about all manner of issues, except one thing - relations with Saudi Arabia and, in particular, the decision to drop a corruption inquiry into arms sales. At that point, he just shut up and refused to answer questions. I would say he was squirming, except that senior mandarins don’t squirm - they just look blank.
But it remains the case that when the Brits think about the Saudis, the ideas that are generally brought to mind are: arms deals, corruption, Mark Thatcher, the suppression of police inquiries, human-rights abuses, the sponsorship of terrorism, and the impossibility of buying a drink. None of these are positive images. Under the circumstances it was peculiarly inept of the Saudis to claim that they had provided valuable intelligence on the London tube bombings, which had been ignored. It would be even more appreciated if they stopped funding lunatic Wahabi mosques.
In the US, the early neocon theory (or hope) was that the successful establishment of a democratic Iraq would allow the west to break its "Faustian bargain" with the House of Saud. With our new, westernised Iraqi pals selling us oil - and establishing relations with Israel, drinking whisky and allowing women to drive - we would be able to put two fingers up to the Saudis. Obviously, it hasn’t quite worked out like that. We need the Saudis for all sorts of reasons - Iraq, Iran, $100 oil. Realists in the Foreign Office argue that the current government may be awful, but it is better than any plausible alternative. "Get rid of the House of Saud", says one former ambassador, "and within a year you will be screaming for them to come back."
Given all this, the decision of David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, to skip the Saudi visit in favour of attending the birth of his adopted son in the US has attracted a bit of unfavourable comment. Stephen Glover, one of Britain’s more pompous columnists, suggests that Miliband may go down as one of the worst foreign secretaries of recent times. This is quite a claim, given that his immediate predecessor was Margaret Beckett.
But it is also unfair on other grounds. There was no shortage of other British officials to scrape before the Saudis. Miliband will have other opportunities to meet them; but he will have no other opporrtunities to see his son born. I doubt that any snub was intended - even if that might have been appropriate. (The leader of the LibDems, a minor party without responsibilities, was able to take the high road and boycott the official dinner on human-rights grounds). As it happens, Miliband seems to be shaping up to be a pretty good foreign secretary. American policy wonks who had lunch with him at the British Embassy in Washington recently seem to have come away favourably impressed.
Methinks the Brits were only too happy to drop the corruption enquiry and blame it on the corrupt “Johnny Foreigner”, especially when the foreigners are so obviously alien-looking as the robe clad Saudis who with beards, pot bellies and dark glasses fit the bill as the comic strip baddies so completely.
Let’s remind ourselves that bribery is a TWO-way, consensual kind of corruption. If the Brits who are so quick to claim the higher moral ground had refused to pay the bribe, the Saudis would have been unable to take any and as some bearded dude said a long time ago “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”.
Moreover, as it is often pointed out, the bribes given are often partly recycled back (in one form or another) to the personnel of the briber (attend any of the myriad courses held in the City on money laundering and fraud prevention, for further details!) so one has to ask whether dropping the enquiry was a convenient way to save the British business, and political, establishment from embarrassment and to send the public opinion (and the press) on the wrong scent.
The above points were certainly implicit is what prince Saud Al Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, said about the enquiry being a British matter.
And yes, yes I know that the French (et al) would have merrily taken up the contracts that the British had dropped but, at least, the French have no illusions about what they are and, in any case, before you cast another stone, ask yourself this:
Where is the bigger money laundering capital?:
a-) London
b-) Paris
A couple of other thoughts:
I met someone today who had been to Saudi very recently and had some interesting observations:
- King Abdullah is in favour of some liberalisation (particularly the visible one of allowing women to drive) but this is resisted by many forces within the society.
Unbelievable as it might be to the Westerners, it not the Saudi king that is stopping liberalisation and, if anything, he is trying to push them through against resistance from within the society.
- King Abdullah has had a quiet anti-corruption drive with some successes.
- King Abdullah is trying hard to de-couple the House of Saud from the Wahabi establishment.
- People are hoping that his (allegedly) corrupt crown prince will not survive the king so that he can appoint his own successor and break the Sudairi clan’s stranglehold.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 1st, 2007 at 6:04 pm | Report this commentWhy do we care about who’s in charge in Saudi Arabia? After all, Iran has reliably continued to export oil over the past 25 years, and is actually more open to Western investment than KSA is (if anything, Western investment in Iran is limited by US sanctions, not Iranian decisions). so why not let the Islamists take over in Saudi Arabia too?
In all likelihood, the population there will be thoroughly vaccinated against them because of their incompetence, just like the Iranians were until George W. Bush made the wonderful gift of populist nationalistic fervor to the Iranian theocratic leaders.
And it would eliminate the links autocracy = corruption = West and democracy = Islam in the minds of the population of SA and other similar countries, links which are at the heart of the political arguments that breed terrorists in the region and give them legitimacy.
Posted by: Jerome a Paris | November 1st, 2007 at 8:45 pm | Report this commentI find this piece of writing very perlexing. I think the only positive force in the Middle east at the moment are the Saudis. Egypt, previously the powerhouse of the Arab world is currently bogged down by serious internal problems, everything from presidential elections to constitutional reform, to a growing popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Saudis have found it necessary to insert themselves aggressively on to the scene due to the U.S’s continuing failed regional policies, a destabilized Iraq and the ever-growing power of Iran. Much has been made of Iranian President Ahmadinejad August statement that Iran is ready ” to fill the power vacuum in Iraq”. However, Ahmadinejad said much more than what is being perceived by most as a threat. In addition, he also said, ” we are prepared to fill the gap, with the help of neighbors and regional friends like Saudi Arabia, and with the help of the Iraqi nation.” One could argue that he was not making a threat, but instead conveying a realistic assessment and solution to an ongoing regional crisis. In any event, this invitation to the Saudis did not come out of the blue. Since November 2006, there have been diplomatic meetings and a plethora of statements between the two countries centering on reaching out to each other and on attempts of finding cooperation on the government crisis’s in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq. . Saudi Arabia and Iran know they cannot ignore the other’s significant role and position in the Islamic world with their respective leadership roles among the Sunni and Shia populations, as well as their energy rich geographically strategically placed positions in the region, and probably most important, both Saudi Arabia and Iran share a very real security concern and threat, as they both share a border with a violent unstable Iraq. As such, both Iran and Saudi Arabia could potentially find more to agree on than disagree on. It is quite feasible that the two Islamic powerhouses could work together and stabilize the entire region; figuratively drawing a political line in the sand that if either crossed would be viewed as an act of aggression with serious consequences. King Abdullah does need to think twice about attending Bush’s bogus Middle East conference, i.e. Annapolis. It has the potential of making the Saudis perceived as weak and needy. With the region in chaos and the rise of Iran, this is no time for the Saudis to look weak. Worse, by attending this conference, the Kingdom’s militant extremists enemies will take the opportunity to portray it as a puppet of the U.S. who they liken to a devil with neo-imperialist goals in the region. Saudi attendance at this conference will only advance the interests of extremist political forces in Iran, at a time when more pragmatic forces are surfacing in the Iranian government. It will provide Al Qaeda core and their followers with more propaganda to transmit to many discontented Arabs residents of the region. It will also allow the Bush administration and his neo-con crew a public relations coup after carelessly waging what everyone in the region views as a cruel and failed war. Moreover it will strengthen Israel’s and US’s faulty policy of advancing a West Bank/Fatah only solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.. I note this ridiculous Annapolis Conference could have been more than a photo-op for Olmert and AbuMazen/Abbas IF the US, Brits, Europe and Israelis had worked with the Fatha/Hamas unity government brokered in MECCA by the SAUDIS last March. Instead they did everything to sabotage the deal. There are many reforms going on now in Saudi Arabia , a new succession plan, economic diversity, crack down on radical Islamists, new coed university for science and enginneering students is in the works. To discuss any Arab country, but especially Saudi Arabia as if political Islam did not exist and frame it past, present, and future is absurd. Americans are very limited , even stupid about this, I expect for the British …BTW, the Saudi FM has come up with an idea to defuse the Iran nuclear (weapon) program crisis…it calls for the Gulf Arab states creating a body to give Iran enriched uranium …this would be done in a collective manner and the uranium would be distributed according to need. Each plant will get the necessary amount and the states would ensure that none is used for atomic weapons. As far as the neo-cons go …they have a lot of death and destruction to answer for …the Saudis look like saints next to them.
Posted by: Lisa-Helene Lawson | November 1st, 2007 at 9:46 pm | Report this commentIf I may, I think it’s pretty arrogant to label Wahhabism as lunacy. Indeed, it’s one of the purest forms of Islam and the House of Saud is one of the few nations in the MidEast that engendered its own ascension to nationhood from their tribal roots(unlike the other mandate states).
Wahhabism is simply a doctrine of Islam formulated in the 18th century that advocates strict adherence to the Quran and Hadith and denounces blind adherence to independent interpretations. I may not be a believer, but to call them lunatics is unsavory. Do we call ultra-orthodox Jews lunatics?
The Saudis and Brits have had a mutually beneficial relationship since the early 20th century when Britain’s Sharif Husayne was ejected from the Hijaz by Ibn Saud and company.
Let us be cognizant of our history and acknowledge that much of the problems that exist for us today in the Middle East are largely the product of our own misadventures (or adventures, depending on your views). Calling the ideology of one of the only governments we can rely on in the MidEast today nasty names is distasteful and characteristic of our western tendency to discredit any ideology short of the liberal school of thought.
Btw Gideon, I would also like to express my gratitude for your blog since I did not get a chance to in the previous post. I do enjoy it. Keep it up!
Posted by: kian | November 3rd, 2007 at 1:52 am | Report this commentThat the British hate Saudi Arabia is something evident. Saudies were just a tool they needed in WWI to defeat and break the Ottoman Empire.
While Spain is a friend of Saudi Arabia the UK thinks it is in their interest to overthrow the Saud Monarchy which they think is just a past colonial asset.
Posted by: enrique | November 5th, 2007 at 7:00 am | Report this commentNeither country houses nor conferences capture my interests, unless there is an op to join Prince Harry and his friends for an unfair game shoot. A friend once joined a group in the early ’90s that included Prince Andrew and “Fergie”. I’ve remained fascinated ever since by his imitation of Fergie sounds permeating the corridors in the early hours of the morning. While their marriage soon after was on the rocks, on that occasion Prince Andrew apparently proved he was more officer than gentleman.
Sorry. I’m violating my own standards.
It is good to see David Miliband getting some attention. He should. He reminds me of many friends and colleagues of the same generation, just a short hop behind my own. Their constructs are different. Some matters we still call issues are givens for them. Their style keys on streams -of-consciousness discourse, which for the clever conveniently masks more serious agendas.
Ben Hall and Daniel Dombey also share good insights on Kouchner’s influence in Paris and Washington these days and, in his case, since the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Would it not be fair to detail a bit about the ties that have long linked both men to the Washington neocon cabal? Yes, David Miliband challenged Tony Blair on Iraq, but not on Lebanon. Yes, Bernard Kouchner enjoys an exceptional reputation as a humanist and a doctor (sans frontières).
Are not both men, however, on record as favouring interventionist policies and preventive aggressions? Should the fact of their well-honed professionalism and media instincts permit them to rise above the fracas? Are they not representative of Neocon 2?
As for the Saudis, other Gulfies, contracts and corporate strategies, realpolitik is arguably a lesser evil in the hour. Fundamentals in the region will change this in the not-so-distant future, and that will be soon enough. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to see just what Gulf-money support is behind both Bhutto and Sharif in Pakistan. I fear some will be forced to recognise some painfully bad investment advice very soon.
Posted by: WCM | November 5th, 2007 at 3:50 pm | Report this commentAs Foreign Minister, David Miliband should have been behind his Prime Minister and the Queen on the occasion of the Saudi King’s visit.
His failure to do so is a disservice to the country. If that is not a snub, I don’t know what is.
Give him the Interior Ministry, for Christ’s sake!
You write: “but he will have no other opportunities to see his son born”.
I understand it’s all about the adoption of his second son. If he was witnessing the birth, it would make no difference whatsoever to his son. As Foreign Minister, affairs of state should take precedence over this personal issue.
As you said, the visit has generated some controversies, is that how MIliband intended to show up his Prime Minister and the Queen?
What if another adoption were to coincide with another state visit? Would Miliband be there if the visitor happened to be Ehud Olmert/George Bush?
Posted by: Niall | November 6th, 2007 at 9:03 am | Report this comment