And the violence caused such silence
What if the end justifies the means?
What if the removal of Saddam Hussein was alright because he was an evil dictator with demonstable links to Al Qaeda?
Would that make it alright?
Would we be okay to move in on any country we considered to be a threat to global security? An ally of global terrorism? A friend to Osama bin Laden?
Consider this:
Saudi Arabia is an extremist state. As wikipedia says:
"Under the authoritarian rule of the Saudi royal family, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has enforced strict laws under a doctrine of Wahabism (a fundamentalist interpretation of sharia, Islamic religious law). Basic freedoms as described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are not allowed; capital punishment and other penalties are often given to suspected criminals without due process. Saudi Arabia has also come under fire for its oppression of religious and political minorities, torture of prisoners, and attitude toward foreign expatriates, homosexuality, and women. Though major human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have repeatedly expressed concern about the states of human rights in Saudi Arabia, the kingdom denies that any human rights abuses take place."
Abuses of human rights are apparently commonplace. According to an Amnesty report in 2003, torture, flogging & bodily mutilation (the amputation of hands and feet) were common for even minor offences. People were executed for "apostasy, witchcraft, sexual offenses and crimes involving both hard and soft drugs". In the wake of 9/11, over 500 arrests were made with the suspects being held without access to lawyers or judicial proceedings (the names of the detainees were kept secret by the state).
In spite of this appalling record, foreign governments have supplied Saudi Arabia with tools that could be used to torture or ill-treat prisoners. For example, between 1980 and 1993 the US government authorized licences worth $5 million under the category OA82C, which includes thumb cuffs, leg irons, shackles, handcuffs and other police equipment.
They are also one of the world's largest buyers of defence equipment: total defence spending was estimated at US$ 18.2 billion in 1997 alone. Amongst those to have benefitted from this largesse are the USA, UK, France, Germany, Canada, Italy and Belgium.
So far so bad. It gets worse.
15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi citizens.
Members of the Saudi royal family and Saudi officials have been linked to the hijackers, and may have provided them with financial support.
Some of this evidence appears to have been covered up by the Bush administration. 27 pages were cut from a 900 page report released by the US senate intelligence committee in 2003. The missing pages are said to discuss the link between the terrorists and the saudi government.
To top it all, Osama bin Laden himself was born and raised in Saudi and has close links with the ruling dynasty.
I don't know about you, but this all seems to add up to some kind of case that Saudi Arabia was fairly heavily involved in the 9/11 attacks. 15 of the 19 hijackers. Just think about that for a minute.
So why Iraq? Why the hell didn't we storm into Saudi Arabia and demand to know what the hell was going on? Regime change sounds like it might be a good idea here too.... Saddam is no angel, but these guys don't exactly smell of roses....
Hmmmm.
Iraq:
total value of exports ($m) 7,587
total value of petroleum exports ($m) 7,519
proven crude oil reserves (million barrels) 115,000
Saudi Arabia:
total value of exports ($m) 92,029
total value of petroleum exports ($m) 84,908
proven crude oil reserves (million barrels) 262,730
Source: Opec
On July 31, 2003, Saudi Arabia and the United States signed an agreement to strengthen commercial and investment relations. As a result, the U.S.-Saudi Council for Trade and Investment was established to meet at least once a year to enable representatives of both countries to review the signing of additional agreements on trade, protection of intellectual property rights, investment, vocational training and environmental issues. With almost 300 joint ventures, American companies are the largest group of foreign investors in the Kingdom.
source: saudi embassy
2004
US Exports to Saudi Arabia: $3737m (compared to 669.2 to Iraq)
US imports from Saudi Arabia: $14,545m (compared to 6098.3 to Iraq)
Source: US Census Bureau
Hmmmm. Surely it can't be to do with the massive amount of trade the USA is doing with Saudi Arabia? It can't be their dependence on importing Saudi oil?
In our haste to overthrow Saddam, and with our eyes fixed firmly on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, have we been overlooking one of the major sources of instabilty in the middle east? in the world?
I want answers.
---
forgot to mention - this debate started over here at AravisArwen's place....
What if the removal of Saddam Hussein was alright because he was an evil dictator with demonstable links to Al Qaeda?
Would that make it alright?
Would we be okay to move in on any country we considered to be a threat to global security? An ally of global terrorism? A friend to Osama bin Laden?
Consider this:
Saudi Arabia is an extremist state. As wikipedia says:
"Under the authoritarian rule of the Saudi royal family, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has enforced strict laws under a doctrine of Wahabism (a fundamentalist interpretation of sharia, Islamic religious law). Basic freedoms as described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are not allowed; capital punishment and other penalties are often given to suspected criminals without due process. Saudi Arabia has also come under fire for its oppression of religious and political minorities, torture of prisoners, and attitude toward foreign expatriates, homosexuality, and women. Though major human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have repeatedly expressed concern about the states of human rights in Saudi Arabia, the kingdom denies that any human rights abuses take place."
Abuses of human rights are apparently commonplace. According to an Amnesty report in 2003, torture, flogging & bodily mutilation (the amputation of hands and feet) were common for even minor offences. People were executed for "apostasy, witchcraft, sexual offenses and crimes involving both hard and soft drugs". In the wake of 9/11, over 500 arrests were made with the suspects being held without access to lawyers or judicial proceedings (the names of the detainees were kept secret by the state).
In spite of this appalling record, foreign governments have supplied Saudi Arabia with tools that could be used to torture or ill-treat prisoners. For example, between 1980 and 1993 the US government authorized licences worth $5 million under the category OA82C, which includes thumb cuffs, leg irons, shackles, handcuffs and other police equipment.
They are also one of the world's largest buyers of defence equipment: total defence spending was estimated at US$ 18.2 billion in 1997 alone. Amongst those to have benefitted from this largesse are the USA, UK, France, Germany, Canada, Italy and Belgium.
So far so bad. It gets worse.
15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi citizens.
Members of the Saudi royal family and Saudi officials have been linked to the hijackers, and may have provided them with financial support.
Some of this evidence appears to have been covered up by the Bush administration. 27 pages were cut from a 900 page report released by the US senate intelligence committee in 2003. The missing pages are said to discuss the link between the terrorists and the saudi government.
To top it all, Osama bin Laden himself was born and raised in Saudi and has close links with the ruling dynasty.
I don't know about you, but this all seems to add up to some kind of case that Saudi Arabia was fairly heavily involved in the 9/11 attacks. 15 of the 19 hijackers. Just think about that for a minute.
So why Iraq? Why the hell didn't we storm into Saudi Arabia and demand to know what the hell was going on? Regime change sounds like it might be a good idea here too.... Saddam is no angel, but these guys don't exactly smell of roses....
Hmmmm.
Iraq:
total value of exports ($m) 7,587
total value of petroleum exports ($m) 7,519
proven crude oil reserves (million barrels) 115,000
Saudi Arabia:
total value of exports ($m) 92,029
total value of petroleum exports ($m) 84,908
proven crude oil reserves (million barrels) 262,730
Source: Opec
On July 31, 2003, Saudi Arabia and the United States signed an agreement to strengthen commercial and investment relations. As a result, the U.S.-Saudi Council for Trade and Investment was established to meet at least once a year to enable representatives of both countries to review the signing of additional agreements on trade, protection of intellectual property rights, investment, vocational training and environmental issues. With almost 300 joint ventures, American companies are the largest group of foreign investors in the Kingdom.
source: saudi embassy
2004
US Exports to Saudi Arabia: $3737m (compared to 669.2 to Iraq)
US imports from Saudi Arabia: $14,545m (compared to 6098.3 to Iraq)
Source: US Census Bureau
Hmmmm. Surely it can't be to do with the massive amount of trade the USA is doing with Saudi Arabia? It can't be their dependence on importing Saudi oil?
In our haste to overthrow Saddam, and with our eyes fixed firmly on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, have we been overlooking one of the major sources of instabilty in the middle east? in the world?
I want answers.
---
forgot to mention - this debate started over here at AravisArwen's place....
10 Comments:
At 2:21 am, OLS said…
Some of my family members live (and one works) in Bahrain, which is just off the coast of Saudi and joined to it by a massive bloody bridge. It has such close ties to Saudi that it is practically a part of Saudi and my family members often shop in Saudi and spend time there.
Anyway, from what they have said (having lived there for many years now), I think that Saudi has never got the bad name that other countries like Iraq and Afganistan have got because the extremist behaviour has been restricted to the countries own nationals and not extended to westerners who live/work there or tourists.
I don't doubt your cynicism mind you - I share it. But I think there are other reasons as well or why wouldn't the media be all over it?
- OLS
At 4:12 am, Jenni said…
I have also questioned why we are not more active in Saudi Arabia. The Kerry campaign or Kerry-supporting special interests, not sure which, claimed that it was because of the close ties between the Bush administration and the Saudis. I don't know Bush personally, so he hasn't told me if this is true or not. Why isn't the media on it, even if it is just to offer an explanation so we don't have to ask questions about it?
At 5:58 pm, swisslet said…
John wrote [via email as Blogger was playing silly buggers]:
We didn't go wading into Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11 - we went wading into Afghanistan. We went wading into Iraq after Bush's popularity numbers began to fall back again and he needed a boost (and Tony dragged us along too).
Saudi may not be the nicest place in the world to live if you're a gay thief or a female stripper - but they don't do the kind of international sabre rattling that Saddam got involved in prior to the invasion of Iraq - hence, they tend to get ignored on that front.
To say that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, ergo the Saudi people as a whole were involved, is a bit dodgy. 99% of the people who have carried out terrorist acts on behalf of the IRA have been Irish or Northern Irish, but that doesn't make me a terrorist.
There were masses of English and Italian people nvolved in (and to blame for) the Heisel disaster - but neither government sent them there to do what they did.
Bin Laden is connected to the Saudi royal family - but we can look a lot closer to home for troubles with royal connections. Prince Philip was schooled in Schloss Salem in Germany. No big deal, except for the fact that the school was part of the Hitler Youth movement and funded by the Nazi party. Philip's first nephew (his sister's eldest child) was named Karl Adolf - I suspect you might be able to guess who he was named after.
Ultimately, you can find connections between anyone and anyone - in theory, you yourself are at most six steps from the Saudi Royal family (in fact, you're three - a friend of my family is an advisor to king Fahd) or George Bush (in fact, you're three there too - another friend of my family went to school and college with him and still visits the ranch) or the nazi party (in fact, you're... no - I don't know how I'm connected to the Nazi party, but I probably am).
Fair enough, OBL's connections were slightly more robust - but you can't blame the Saudi Royal family because one of their citizens has gone bananas.
Also - speculation about what edited pages from a report were "said to discuss" is pointless. I could turn to my coworker now and say that those pages discussed the fact that no one has ever landed on the moon, and technically, the pages could then accurately be "said to discuss" just that. Maybe they did discuss links between the Saudi government and the terrorists - or maybe they contained classified information better kept out of the public domain.
I think there's something gone wrong if we start accusing Bush of NOT invading somewhere. What about the terrorists who weren't from Saudi? Do we have to go and invade their countries too? What about the British national who commits murder on foreign soil - does the country whose law he violated have the right to overthrow our government by military force? I hope not. You asked:
What if the end justifies the means?
That's the argument Bin Laden used to justify crashing planes into buildings.
What if the removal of Saddam Hussein was alright because he was an evil dictator with demonstable links to Al Qaeda? His links with Al Qaeda constituted being approached for help with weapons acquisition by Bin Laden and then telling him to sling his hook. By the same token, I have links about as strong with several terrorist organisations on the basis that I went to school with some people who are now in prison for being bad boys. (Oh yeah, and links are "demonstRable" typo boy)
Would that make it alright?
Would we be okay to move in on any country we considered to be a threat to global security? An ally of global terrorism? A friend to Osama bin Laden? Definition is the problem - we're back to "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" - who defines which side is in the right? The majority? If so, how is that administered? We don't live in a true democracy - we don't get to vote on the issues, we only get to vote on the people we want to trust to decide the issues. It can never be alright to invade a country just because we don't like the way they conduct their affairs or because we perceive that they might want to attack us in the future - if it was OK to do that, no one would have been pissed off with Bin Laden when he did just that on September 11th.
At 6:02 pm, swisslet said…
[my response, also by email - John has since emailed me to say he is too lazy to add his comment in himself, and would I mind very much..... it being my blog and all....]
John,
That's ultimately my point though -
"It can never be alright to invade a country just because we don't like the way they conduct their affairs or because we perceive that they might want
to attack us in the future"
All I'm trying to say here (and judging by your response, not very clearly) is that we are apparently picking and choosing the ones we do intervene in. I think we would have AS GOOD a justification for wading into Saudi as we did Iraq. That is not the same as saying that I think we should, or that I think we did have good enough justification to go into Iraq.
We need blogger to start working so we can formalise this discussion.
and leave my typos alone. It was after midnight and I was just back from the pub quiz.
At 7:46 pm, John McClure said…
Thanks for posting for me - I was, as you said, much too lazy to do it myself.
At 7:50 pm, Anonymous said…
Agreed. Twas about oil really. It wasn't about a man who threatened our Freedom, Liberty or Justice. That would be an attack on David Himmler Blunkett.
There is a sad state of affairs brewing. Its a large anti-muslim sentiment across the globe. The fact that large muslim organisations/groups don't help their cause by demanding their Islamic rights all over the place, but ignoring the demands of people who want human rights in largely muslim countries, doesn't help at all. Did you know that there is a demand for sharia law to be included in the UK justice system? Its so odd, that church and state are going to be mixed in this day and age.
Tiny irrelevant things like that, just cause turmoil in international relations, and serve as fuel for support of the war by those who don't get the full picture.
In truth, Saddam was a bad man. He ordered the killing of people without solid reasoning that would stand up to external scrutiny. However, we should have brought him down in an open and honest way - without adding fuel to what I believe is a fire that will no longer take backstage.
Ho hum.
At 8:20 pm, swisslet said…
Hi Anon. I saw that thing on Sharia law in the UK and was planning to do a post about it actually.... at some point.... blogger and time allowing.
Welcome to Jim as well.... nice to have you onboard.
At 8:18 am, Aravis said…
A lot of good points made here. I agree that it is wrong to hold all Saudis responsible for 9/11. However I also agree that they get away with quite a lot due to oil, mostly. Realizing that I don't have any original thoughts right now, I'll bow out for the time being and simply say:
Thanks for the link ST. :0)
At 8:20 pm, Anonymous said…
You are taking the mick out of islam,our contry Saudi Arabia and the rulz and yet you still dont know half of what you are saying. If you knew the real truth about islam and Saudia Arabia you would want to convert to islam.
# So Do muslims all a faver and think befor you Speek
At 8:37 pm, swisslet said…
dude, this was written in 2004. And if you actually read what I've written here then it should be clear that I have no problem at all with Islam (except the same problem that, as an atheist, I have with all religions). I'm also not really having a pop at Saudi, I'm suggesting that if there was enough reason for the USA to invade Iraq, then why by the same standards won't they do the same for Saudi? I'm not suggesting that they should, only highlighting the hypocrisy and double-standards of the US Government, something that perhaps you might agree with.
If you've got something constructive to say that adds to the (now 4 year old) debate, then by all means go right ahead and say it.
ST
Post a Comment
<< Home