TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- With Regards To Saudi Arabia
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
With Regards To Saudi Arabia
The following post contains my views and theories, which while I can't support via sources, seem to make logical sense to me...
Saudi Arabia has long been known as a religiously conservative country. after all, Islam's holiest cities (Mecca and Medina) are situated in it. As such, religious leaders extoll a huge influence on the public.
Saudi Arabia is also a country steeped on the tradition of having a royal family in power. I believe that based on the actions and attitudes of the royal family displays abroad, that they are a very tolerant group of individuals. At the same time they have to be careful not to show off an overly lavish and non-religious lifestyle in their own country. After all, that is what got the Shah of Iran in trouble. It wasn't so much his supression of some of his opponents as much as the fact that the religious leaders of Iran didn't like that he was trying to modernize Iran too quickly.
As such, the Saudi monarchy has to play a delicate game of balance between slowly giving more rights and freedoms to its people, while not upsetting the religious leaders in the kingdom.
It seems wrong to me to point fingers at Saudi Arabia in connection to 9/11 b/c the Saudi individuals responsible for the dreadful attacks on US soil are considered enemies of the state in Saudi Arabia. The kingdom has been trying to crack down on homegrown terror, as well as to avoid supporting terrorist organizations abroad. Pro-Iranian supporters have been giving the Saudis slack for not supporting Hezbollah last year, and b/c the Saudis seem to be supporting Sunnis in Iraq.
The Saudi royal family tries to have its pulse on the nation. They know that many Saudis have travelled abroad to the West, and even moreso to countries like the UAE and Jordan. Saudi youths enjoy partying it up in places like Aquaba or other popular Arab resorts. They have access to world news and entertainment, and the Saudi government knows that over time the general public's acceptance of different things grows. At the same time many Saudis are still very religious and wouldn't like to see the status quo change.
I believe Saudi Arabia is slowly but surely making progress as far as giving more rights and protection, like for example to its women. Things are in no way moving as quickly as I'd like to see them move, but again there could be a severe homegrown backlash if there's too rapid of a movement forward.
Democratic reformation is always good, but the US needs to practice a policy of respecting national self-determination as it does with Saudi Arabia. Just because a country is not a liberal capitalist republic doesn't mean it should be labeled as an axis of evil. The difference between Saudi Arabia and others like Iran is that Iran won't conform.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton but the US needs to practice a policy of respecting national self-determination |
"the right to self-determination holds the prestigious position of Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)."
wiki (if wiki ain't good enough for you, I can certainly find more sources)
It is recognized in the UN Charter and therefore is a part of international law. It is also one of the key concepts in sovereignty, also recognized in the UN Charter as the right every state has.
The neocons on this board constantly want to defend ESPECIALLY the west's interference in Iran for the past 100 years, yet fail to realize this is against international law and is OUTRIGHT DISRESPECT of our neighbors in the world. They shouldn't be surprised when they storm our embassy or act out in ways we find repulsed by.
Right, but my point is this. The Treaty of Westphalia, upon which the UN Charter and other documents are supposedly based, makes absolutely no explicit mention of either sovereignty or self-determination. In fact, it only served to solidify the status quo of hierarchy in Europe following the 30 Years' War, whereby the Holy Roman Empire had administrative authority over the individual German republics, and Spain, France, and Sweden just acknowledged their inability to wrest those German principalities from Holy Roman control. Nobody was interested in asking the Germans what they wanted, whether independence or allegiance to a particular party. It was simply a formal declaration of the way power in Europe was distributed.
And yet, that is precisely where we get the concept of self-determination. So my argument is that not only is the contemporary concept of self-determination faultily grounded, but it has never actually been practiced either. You can point to the Founding Fathers, but the United States did not fight the Revolutionary War for some lofty principle of self-determination. We fought it for a variety of reasons, not least of which that we wanted to pay less for imported goods from other countries.
The Atlantic Charter touted the principle of self-determination as well, but was then used to justify lumping together the Czech Republic and Slovakia as one country, and all of the Balkan states as one entity. Again, it was imposed upon them from above. And what did the Charter accomplish regarding colonialism, probably the most egregious breach of the principle of self-determination in world history? Remember, the United Nations wrote its Charter in 1948, but Ghana, the first African state to receive its independence from a European colonial power, did not receive independence until 1957. And colonial independence was certainly not a gesture of goodwill toward the internationally-agreed-upon principle of national sovereignty either - it was simply a prudent measure taken by Europe to avoid violent conflict, such as what arose in Algeria, Angola, the DRC, Kenya, or Zimbabwe.
Non-interference in domestic affairs is also something that has never existed. Washington warned of entangling alliances, but lest we forget how we won our independence we should note that it was an alliance with France that proved critical in driving off the British. Had the Marquis de Lafayette not arrived, and France not fought the British over control of the Channel, America would undoubtedly still be part of the Commonwealth. So to argue that a nation (which doesn't really exist either - reference Benedict Anderson) can put into place its own system of government of its own choosing is often naive.
Furthermore, the United States is far from the only country that interferes with the domestic affairs of sovereign states. The United Nations, European Union, ASEAN, NATO, etc. are supranational entities with some level of authority over the actions and behavior of member states, who willingly give up some of their sovereignty to join. That's the way the international system works. For each state to remain completely independent of one another, the world trade system would completely collapse, arms races would be the norm, and war more frequent. There would be no mediatory authority in any regard to interaction between states.
Lastly, I will leave with some thoughts on the relevance of self-determination today. In 1998, a Symposium on the continuing political Relevance of the Peace of Westphalia, then�NATO Secretary General Javier Solana said that "humanity and democracy [were] two principles essentially irrelevant to the original Westphalian order" and levied a criticism that "the Westphalian system had its limits. For one, the principle of sovereignty it relied on also produced the basis for rivalry, not community of states; exclusion, not integration." In other words, self-determination carried out to its logical conclusion implies that there is no oversight over bad behavior - rivalries grow as states compete for power and security, and the lack of economic or political linkages makes it appealing for states to attempt to expand their sphere of influence through power projection and the use of force. Furthermore, sovereignty allows no provision for human rights and the treatment of an individual population. For instance, what is happening in Burma would likely happen all across the world - think about the Middle Ages in Europe, when foreign policy isolationism was probably at its apogee. Europe devolved into hegemonic principalities based on the tenets of Machiavellian leadership - whoever could demonstrate the most power, be it through violence or culture, retained control. Principalities were expanded not through economic linkages and exchange of thought, but through convulsions of violent conflict.
Also, in 2000, then�German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer referred to the Peace of Westphalia in his Humboldt Speech, which argued that the system of European politics set up by Westphalia was obsolete: "The core of the concept of Europe after 1945 was and still is a rejection of the European balance-of-power principle and the hegemonic ambitions of individual states that had emerged following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, a rejection which took the form of closer meshing of vital interests and the transfer of nation-state sovereign rights to supranational European institutions." The international system is migrating to more global governance through the creation of institutions that promote global issues and understanding. I don't see how this is a bad trend. After all, violent conflict between member states of the EU seems absurd.
If you look to see who is arguing for increased national sovereignty today, it's reactionary people like Pat Buchanan and Jean-Marie le Pen, and groups like al-Qaeda. In the aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks, Lewis �Atiyyatullah, who claims to represent the terrorist network al-Qaeda, declared that "the international system built-up by the West since the Treaty of Westphalia will collapse; and a new international system will rise under the leadership of a mighty Islamic state".
Globalization and internationalization of politics has been a very good trend. It has maximized production through the liberalization of trade and it has provided greater peace and security than at any other point in history.
To implement protectionist and non-intervention principles into the American body politick would, I believe, be extremely detrimental to the international system.
Damn that was some good reading. Thanks Lebezniatnikov 
I am all for free-trade and international relations. But as democracies of the world who respect the basic rights of life, liberty, and private property, we should also apply these concepts to the international curcuit. Which would mean the respect of their liberty (self-determination), private property (sovereignty), and life (refrain from war).
Don't take me as saying the turmoil of the world is all because of the US. That is not my point or argument. I focus on the US because this is my country, and I want to focus on how my country can change so as to better the world equilibrium. As an American, I have the power to influence change in my country only, and cannot focus on changing the policies of other nations. That is their citizens own job not ours.
I realize that the norm is contrary to the principles I stand for, but I will try my damned hardest to empower my government to serve the people, and follow these principles so we can live in peace. The neocons believe contrary to these essential principles, and I will fight them until their factions are destroyed so we can live in peace, and not be viewed as the "American Empire" we are viewed as today.
I love free market capitalism and American prosperity. But at what cost? Peace, integrity, reputation? Come on, let's not implement the ambitions of a few at the cost of many..
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton I am all for free-trade and international relations. But as democracies of the world who respect the basic rights of life, liberty, and private property, we should also apply these concepts to the international curcuit. Which would mean the respect of their liberty (self-determination), private property (sovereignty), and life (refrain from war). |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Who is "they" - the liberty of a regime, or the liberty of its people? Because the people of Darfur and the Sudanese government, for instance, are very different entities with very different ideas about self-determination. Complete respect of a nation's self-determination means that the international community should turn a blind eye to places like Darfur and Burma, and those are my main contentions with the concept, even more so than international trade. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton The supreme authorities of all recognized nations. Humanitarian aid and economic sanctions are the highest means of helping nations in civil wars and humanitarian crises started by the government. But never should we invade or threaten a country because of what happens inside. You can still respect sovereignty and self-determination and not turn a blind eye to humanitarian crises around the world. |
Re: With Regards To Saudi Arabia
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CHRles The following post contains my views and theories, which while I can't support via sources, seem to make logical sense to me... Saudi Arabia has long been known as a religiously conservative country. after all, Islam's holiest cities (Mecca and Medina) are situated in it. As such, religious leaders extoll a huge influence on the public. Saudi Arabia is also a country steeped on the tradition of having a royal family in power. I believe that based on the actions and attitudes of the royal family displays abroad, that they are a very tolerant group of individuals. At the same time they have to be careful not to show off an overly lavish and non-religious lifestyle in their own country. After all, that is what got the Shah of Iran in trouble. It wasn't so much his supression of some of his opponents as much as the fact that the religious leaders of Iran didn't like that he was trying to modernize Iran too quickly. As such, the Saudi monarchy has to play a delicate game of balance between slowly giving more rights and freedoms to its people, while not upsetting the religious leaders in the kingdom. It seems wrong to me to point fingers at Saudi Arabia in connection to 9/11 b/c the Saudi individuals responsible for the dreadful attacks on US soil are considered enemies of the state in Saudi Arabia. The kingdom has been trying to crack down on homegrown terror, as well as to avoid supporting terrorist organizations abroad. Pro-Iranian supporters have been giving the Saudis slack for not supporting Hezbollah last year, and b/c the Saudis seem to be supporting Sunnis in Iraq. The Saudi royal family tries to have its pulse on the nation. They know that many Saudis have travelled abroad to the West, and even moreso to countries like the UAE and Jordan. Saudi youths enjoy partying it up in places like Aquaba or other popular Arab resorts. They have access to world news and entertainment, and the Saudi government knows that over time the general public's acceptance of different things grows. At the same time many Saudis are still very religious and wouldn't like to see the status quo change. I believe Saudi Arabia is slowly but surely making progress as far as giving more rights and protection, like for example to its women. Things are in no way moving as quickly as I'd like to see them move, but again there could be a severe homegrown backlash if there's too rapid of a movement forward. |
I'm reading the articles right now.
The one you indicated as the most important doesnt really reveal anything I didnt know
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040...di-paradox.html
For example, the following quote was demostrated in the movie Syriana:
"Ever since King Fahd's stroke in 1995, the question of succession has been hanging over the entire system, but neither prince has enough clout to capture the throne."
Syriana also talked about the problems the Saudi economy and people are facing.
Also pay attention to the wording towards the bottom of the article:
"For the most radical Saudi clerics, these enemies include Christians, Jews, Shi`ites, and even insufficiently devout Sunni Muslims. "
It says that for the most radical Saudi clerics, not all or even the majority of them.
The second article is also quite interesting, but basically concludes that bribery and corruption between Saudi and American officials are the problem:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/995
The next article talks at some point about how Saudi Arabia has been much more stable politically then many of its neighbors:
http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.c..._the_saudis.htm
So again, this goes back to a need to have a delicate balance. Since some religious clerics are so powerful that is why some Saudi money ends up in the hands of anti-western organizations.
The article also rightfully so points out that Russia's power as an oil-producing country is rising.
A quote from the article:
"The sheiks, however, are being led by events that are rapidly careering out of their control. If Saudi Arabia pumps less oil, there will be shocks and disruptions, but eager new producing countries will soon fill the void; if the Saudis export more, then the price may well collapse altogether"
And just below it reads:
"In sum, a Saudi Arabia with a sizable debt and no real nonpetroleum economy needs consumers as much as, or more than, buyers need Middle Eastern producers. Saudi Arabia is ever so slowly losing its vaunted place as the world�s price-fixer, and its past history and present machinations reveal it to be no more or less a friend of the United States than any other Islamic exporting country. If the Saudis declared another embargo, it might fare about as well as Saddam Hussein�s recent ban of exports to the United States�and cause a surge in pumping and exploration from Russia and South America."
Very good artcile though, and it does put Saudi Arabia in a more agressive/agressor position then an innocent party.
The most interesting piece of news I found in the next article, from 2002 mind you, is this one:
"The anti-Saudi views expressed in the briefing appear especially popular among neoconservative foreign policy thinkers, which is a relatively small but influential group within the Bush administration. "
So appearantly the neocons are only a small group with the Bush administration.
The next article paints Saudi Arabia pretty much in a one dimensional light. Though it hints at the complexities of the country, it doesnt deliver like the other articles to show where these complexities come from:
http://newamericancentury.org/saudi-052302.htm
The article from the Telegraph was pretty funny actually. Consider the following:
"The manifesto, presented as a "manual for victory" in the war on terror, also calls for Saudi Arabia and France to be treated not as allies but as rivals and possibly enemies."
France as a possible enemy? Shhhyeah right. Let's blame France for 9/11, LOL. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Is that what the war hawks really indicated we should do? hahaha.
The article, which was written in 2003, does talk about how the Iranian regime at the time was different, when you didn't have Ahmedanijad in power:
"Though on leave recovering from a prostate cancer operation, Mr Powell summoned reporters to his bedside to hail "encouraging" signs of a "new attitude" in Iran and call for the United States to keep open the prospect of dialogue with the Teheran authorities."
Thanks for the links though. Most of the articles were very informative, and does help one gain more perspective on the issue at hand.
See, this is why I started this thread in the first place. I wanted to get peoples resctions and views
| quote: |
| Originally posted by CHRles So appearantly the neocons are only a small group with the Bush administration. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley America's relationship with Saudi Arabia is very dangerous, because American support in the Middle East is the "kiss of death" - by befriending the Americans, Prince Abdullah loses a lot of influence at home and ultimately his reformist policies will fail whist ever Prince Nayef can convince the country that these policies are an attempt to Americanise the country... |
I actually downloaded Syriana but never got round to watching it so while my armchair football supporting mates hog the telly I might have a gander as it looked pretty good (altho 1. it is Man Utd vs Roma and 2. please don't base ANY of your political beliefs on a Hollywood film!)
As for the Middle East's concerns over Iran, it is rooted in the hatred between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. You've heard of the "Shiite Crescent"? That stretches from Lebanon, through Iraq and to Iran, who all have large Shiite populations. The rest of the Middle East countries fear that because they are Sunni and hate the Shiites. That is why Saudi Arabia is opposed to Iran. And that is why the other Middle East countries do not fear Saudi Arabia, because they are on the same team.
As for Iranian sponsorship of terrorism around the globe, other than two Hizballah attacks in Argentina in the early 1990s (if we claim that was Iran backed) then I'm not aware of any other terrorist attacks carried out by Hizballah (and therefore Iran if we follow that line of thinking) other than in Lebanon (where they are based) or Israel (who invaded Lebanon) or Iraq. Saudi money, on the other hand...well, anywhere al-Qaida has struck, including in New York and Washington...
But can you tell me about your views on "Iranian-backed" international terrorism because I know the Americans make these noises all the time recently but they never quite seem to back it up with any evidence...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley It is purely because of America's reliance on Saudi Arabian oil. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo no it's not. it's about non-proliferation. the propaganda is that it's all about Saudi oil when the reality is we produce for ourselves many times the amount of oil we get just from the peninsula. at one point in this country around 50% of the oil we imported we got from the Saudis. we use magnitudes more since then but at the same time thanks to alternative sources we've weened and we're down to less than 10%. we will continue to ween from Saudi oil. we have to. everyone will have to well within your lifetime. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Reliance on Saudi Oil does not mean it is physically used in the US, it means a reliance on the money it generates, or how that money can influence US policy. I don't know how many, but I'm sure there are lots of American petroluem companies operating in Saudi Arabia and when they tell the US government to jump, they say how high. The money generated by Saudi Oil for the royal family also makes them hugely influential in America (according to Michael Moore, which to be fair I don't actually trust as a reliable source, Saudi investment in America is huge, making them extremely important allies) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo those companies, those global companies, are there and have been there naturally because A) the Saudis make it easy for them to be there finacially and B) because Saudi oil is the standard to which all oil prices are pegged. it is the finest crude in the world. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley But can you tell me about your views on "Iranian-backed" international terrorism because I know the Americans make these noises all the time recently but they never quite seem to back it up with any evidence... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley And? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Reliance on Saudi Oil does not mean it is physically used in the US, it means a reliance on the money it generates, or how that money can influence US policy. |
| quote: |
| I don't know how many, but I'm sure there are lots of American petroluem companies operating in Saudi Arabia and when they tell the US government to jump, they say how high. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo i will. i can do it all night. |
| quote: |
| thats just Islamic Jihad. i can go on with Hizbullah in Argentina, Spain, Lebanon. |
| quote: |
| before 9/11, before Iraq, Iran's proxies Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad had killed more American servicemen and civilians than Al Queera. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo you've fallen like a girl at a Stone Roses concert for the propaganda. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Nope you've listed a load of attacks that happened in Lebanon, Argentina and Israel, all of which I had already mentioned. ALL attacks targetted Israel and are not international terrorist activities, they were all concerned with the localised issue of expelling Israel from Hizballah's native country. |
| quote: |
| But nobody cares about what happened before 9/11, it's insignificant. |
Oh and seeing as how you hate Iran so much and love Saudi Arabia so much, perhaps you would like to compare the two countries for me?
Please tell me about how Saudis enjoy more liberties than Iranians
Please tell me how no Saudi Prince would ever think to sponsor terrorists like al-Qaida, and it is in fact Iran that sponsors al-Qaida
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.