In January 2015, the flags on Buckingham Palace, the houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey flew at half-mast. They were paying tribute to Abdullah, the King of Saudi Arabia, who passed away at the age of 90.
The gesture seemed somewhat baffling; it was paying tribute to a person whose regime stands against all that these august institutions represent – constitutional monarchy, representative government and the rule of law. Westminster Abbey’s decision to pay its respects to the deceased monarch was equally bewildering when one considers the Saudis’ attitude towards freedom of religion and conversion to any religion apart from Islam.
King Abdullah had been at the helm of Saudi Arabia since 1995; 10 years as de facto ruler during King Fahd’s illness and another 10 years as reigning monarch. Much like the Saudi Kingdom, he was full of contradictions.
Britain and the US considered him a staunch ally. He bankrolled the defence industry by purchasing billions worth in arms. In 2010, Saudi Arabia concluded the US’s largest ever arms deal estimated at $60 billion. It is also perceived to be a key player in the fight against terrorism.
There were also some limited reforms during Abdullah’s reign; women got the right to vote in municipal elections, and a quota of seats in the unelected consultative assembly is assigned to women. Domestic violence is now a crime and the first (and so-far only) co-ed university was inaugurated in the governorate of Jeddah.
Abdullah was also the first monarch to visit a reigning pontiff and he frequently extolled the benefits of interreligious dialogue. This dialogue took place in Saudi Arabia between some leading Shia scholar and Sunni clerics.
Despite these overtures towards apparent reforms, Saudi Arabia has one of the worse human rights records. Abdullah’s successor, the ailing King Salman, seems to be willing to retain this dubious distinction.
It is difficult to determine whether there is a genuine desire to change the status quo within the secretive kingdom. Many observers agree that the ruling royal family tends to be far more open to reform than the actual population.
Others contend that a potential ‘Saudi Spring’ would not lead to a more open society but rather to more draconian measures as well as possible fragmentation of the kingdom.
The most vitriolic opposition towards the al-Saud family does not come from liberals but rather from hardliners who favour a more dogmatic approach to governance.
Wahhabism – a puritanical form of Sunni Islam – has a hold over Saudi Arabia’s ruling elite and several of its governing structures. Regarding the legal code, public beheadings are often mandated for crimes such as murder and rape while public floggings are also common occurrences.
Two high-profile cases which hit the international headlines include the beheading of the Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr and the public flogging of blogger Raif Badawi.
The collusion between the al-Saud monarchy and Wahhabism dates back to the 18th century. In time, the relationship has evolved into a mutually beneficial arrangement. While Wahhabi clerics grant some form of legitimacy to the al-Saud family, the royal family, in turn, imposes certain legal measures favoured by Wahhabi clerics.
Many governments have undoubtedly concluded that the Saudi regime is the lesser of two evils; a guarantor of stability and a reliable ally
This uncomfortable alliance, however, has wide-ranging implications. While the Saudi government nominally opposes terrorism, there is a large number of terrorists who hail from Saudi Arabia and several other groups funded by Saudi organisations. The tax system in Saudi Arabia facilitates such transfers of funds.
Saudi Arabia has no personal income tax rate for its citizens. Instead, Saudis are obliged to pay a 2.5 per cent religious tax to charity. Some of these charities, in turn, serve to fund groups with terrorist links. This transfer of funds takes place through unofficial channels often based on trust and verbal agreements thereby omitting a visible paper trail. Other groups have links to various businesses which indirectly fund their activities.
The Saudi regime itself has also been responsible for spreading Wahhabism by channelling funds towards the construction of mosques, schools and academies as well as the training of teachers and preachers. This situation provides fertile ground for the spread of Wahhabism which has often been described by the former CIA director R. Hames Woolsey as “the soil in which al-Qaeda and its sister terrorist organisations are flourishing”.
Fifteen of the 19 perpetrators of the September 11 attacks hailed from Saudi Arabia. Just one day before the 15th anniversary of these attacks, the US House of Representatives passed legislation that allows the victims’ families to sue the Saudi government for damages. Nonetheless, President Obama vowed to veto this Bill.
The international community finds itself in a difficult position. Many governments have undoubtedly concluded that the Saudi regime is the lesser of two evils; a guarantor of stability and a reliable ally in a region where both elements are conspicuous by their absence.
In doing so, they are deliberately turning a blind eye to the most distasteful elements of this dangerous regime. The supposed champions of pluralism and freedom seem to have become masters of acquiescence and appeasement.
Governments with vastly differing world views should attempt to establish good relations for the sake of stability, yet this does not imply that one side should effectively compromise on certain core issues. Nor does it entail a deafening silence in the face of certain developments. Friendly relations should not turn into subtle servitude.
By towing the Saudi line, some governments risk turning themselves into parodies of what they are meant to represent and the values they claim to hold. The status-quo might be detrimental both to their long-term interests and regional stability.
andre.deb@gmail.com
André DeBattista holds degrees in public policy and international relations and is a member of the Political Studies Association (UK) and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.