Saudi funds vs risk of Russian/Chinese influence.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 veteye 28 Dec 2020

With the imprisoning of the female activist in Saudi Arabia, on spurious charges, for 5 years 8 months, should the UK stop supplying arms to that country, and forego the income (even in these times of national approaching poverty)?

Or do we risk China or Russia jumping in there if we no longer have influence?

I hate the mentality of the rulers, who cannot see that every citizen should have the same rights, and seem to see others as mere plebs.

Yet I hate the increasing encroachment, and possible world domination, by the two past staunch communist countries.

Maybe with the approaching new US presidency, more pressure can be put on the Saudi's by threatening to pull out of their military supply, or am I becoming naive?

 Rob Parsons 28 Dec 2020
In reply to veteye:

Saudi Arabia should obviously be a pariah state.

> Maybe with the approaching new US presidency, more pressure can be put on the Saudi's by threatening to pull out of their military supply, or am I becoming naive?

Don't forget that it was St Obama who supported the Saudi invasion of Yemen in the first place.

2
 Tyler 28 Dec 2020
In reply to veteye:

I don’t know what we should do but if ever there was a reason to pursue a zero carbon policy it is so that we would no longer have to have any dealing whatsoever with regimes such as these and the world can exert pressure on them as we should. 

Post edited at 19:53
Removed User 28 Dec 2020
In reply to veteye:

Quite, British jobs, lots of British jobs vs. the lives of foreign citizens.

You're right that walking away from Saudi would simply mean they bought their bombs from someone with less scruples than us so the UK loses money and influence and not much changes in the real world.

The point of diplomacy in this case and in many others must be to moderate the behaviour of our less scrupulous trading partners while maintaining our interests. That said I would like to see the UK publicly expressing more disquiet over the behaviour of the Saudis than the UK currently does.

2
OP veteye 28 Dec 2020
In reply to Tyler:

Good idea. Get the reliance on petrochemicals much reduced: But again the US are likely to be slow to adopt that idea. Look at all those inefficient gas guzzlers still riding the roads of the state, and the people driving them.

I don't suppose that we can just assinate a few of their leaders. Yet more hypocrisy is not a good idea. (I'm not being serious btw).

1
 Kalna_kaza 28 Dec 2020
In reply to veteye:

The Saudi regime is cruel, backwards by western standards and ideally should be kept at arms length as much as possible. However, multi party democracies are thin on the ground in that region and attempts to overthrow authoritarian regimes (Iraq, Syria, Yemen etc) tends to go badly wrong.

Engagement with such countries to ensure some common sphere of influence has to be better than unbridled collaboration with either Russia or China. 

At some point the oil money will run out and it'll all be petulant children fighting in a big sand pit with big boys toys. There won't be any winners. 

Removed User 28 Dec 2020
In reply to veteye:

> With the imprisoning of the female activist in Saudi Arabia, on spurious charges, for 5 years 8 months, should the UK stop supplying arms to that country, and forego the income (even in these times of national approaching poverty)?

> Or do we risk China or Russia jumping in there if we no longer have influence?

> I hate the mentality of the rulers, who cannot see that every citizen should have the same rights, and seem to see others as mere plebs.

> Yet I hate the increasing encroachment, and possible world domination, by the two past staunch communist countries.

> Maybe with the approaching new US presidency, more pressure can be put on the Saudi's by threatening to pull out of their military supply, or am I becoming naive?

It's not as binary as that.

China and Russia are both on reasonable terms with Iran, so supplying Saudi would be heavily loaded with issues. I think it would be more likely Saudi would go one of the other big systems suppliers like France, Belgium or Austria, or even the quiet arms suppliers from Scandinavia and Japan that are emerging. 

I agree that ruling monarchies should be no less supported than any other dictatorships, but being supplanted by China or Russia would be two very different things; Russia expects doctrinal compliancy with any deal it does, China expects only resources with no regard to any regime. China and Russia's pasts as Stalinist are nearing irrelevancy now, as both are full capitalist forces as able to take on world markets as democratic states do. By capitalisms own rules it's the way it goes.

Biden won't change a thing. He's already inflamed the Saudi's enough with talk of negotiations with Iran, there's no way the US will either pressure them into anything or let China/Russia into the market.

Saudi is held in place not just by western interests, but also by regional ones, as a sort of big brother to some Gulf States and an Arab heavy weight along with Egypt. A decline in Saudi's footprint isn't all about the emboldening of Iran as popular media tells it, it's also (mostly?) about the position of Turkey. 

The scaling down of Saudi influence is coming with the same thing that saw them rise - petro-dollars. The shift of the hydrocarbon supply centre away from the Gulf and onto the Caspian is well under way and with a shift away from the old religious politics that went with it, into something new, that still includes Iran but unleashes new players. Western democracies have far less influence there.

Re British jobs in the arms industries; some will be taken up supplying other nasty countries who've had to wait in line behind Saudi quotas, others will go. No reason they should have special protection not afforded any other industry.

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

> No reason they should have special protection not afforded any other industry.

Other than that export sales essentially subsidise national defence spending, by advertising development costs.

 Phil1919 29 Dec 2020
In reply to veteye:

Good post. 'Laughable' when you hear of what is going on. In my dreamworld I would want the UK to set an example of being a glowing example of democracy and give these states an example to follow. I would expect a fully democratic UK to stop producing weaponry and invest in 'common good' products and a sustainable future which others may just choose to follow.

Post edited at 08:24
2
 sheffieldchris 29 Dec 2020
In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

Holy crap, a concise view, touching on the huge number of multi faceted layers upon layers of influences and objectives of both the regional and the global players involved.

Clearly a person with a little bit more than the normal level of understanding, perhaps a person with time in the region, or working to look at it. Your user name hints a little bit to those that know.

Simple answer to most questions though. Money end of.

On another note to test your ability to the max.

1. Is Kinder in today

2. is 3 pebble slab E1 or HVS

good luck

1
 Big Bruva 29 Dec 2020
In reply to veteye:

Important to remember that the only reason the Saud dynasty governs much of the Arabian peninsula is because the Hashemite dynasty wouldn't recognise the Balfour Declaration and refused to sign imperialist treaties. For that reason the British - who had an international mandate to control much of the region at the time - supported Ibn Saud against Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca. Bin Ali was kicked into what is now Jordan.

Since then the relationship between the UK and SA has been one of mutual dependence and compliance. Ethical considerations come far behind oil, $s and military support for the Saud monarchy.

However, the best reason for not selling arms to the Saudis is because their rules of engagement are very slack and civilians in Yemen pay an extremely high price.

Post edited at 12:10
 Big Bruva 29 Dec 2020
In reply to veteye:

Also the biggest danger perceived by the West in the region is not necessarily Russia or China, but democracy in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood. An Iranian-style Islamic Republic in SA would not serve European or American interests well. Hence the lack of a robust reaction to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

 Timmd 29 Dec 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> > No reason they should have special protection not afforded any other industry.

> Other than that export sales essentially subsidise national defence spending, by advertising development costs.

Economies can change/are dynamic, I dare say, meaning that (in theory) national defence spending could be afford by other things, other sources of income for UKplc?

In reply to captain paranoia:

> by advertising development costs.

Bloody spell checker: that should be 'amortising'...

In reply to veteye:

Sometimes in life there are only bad options, and the best course of action is to choose the least bad option. Maybe there isn't a less bad option here.

Have an allegiance with SArabia or let China/Russia get in there? Tough call but probably the least bad option.

I lived in Riyadh as a teenager.... holy shit, nothing would make me go back to SArabia. Nothing. Horrible place.

Post edited at 18:15
Removed User 29 Dec 2020
In reply to captain paranoia:

> > by advertising development costs.

> Bloody spell checker: that should be 'amortising'...

Ha yes, makes sense now without cryptic logic.

Yes sales do subsidize the budget, but right now that budget is consumed with more risk from internal factors than foreign sales. 

Protecting an industry based on the comings and goings of dubious states like Saudi, who play many sides, has always been a high risk endeavour. Yes, jobs on government contracts should be fortified, whatever industry they are in, but more and more of those jobs are not direct to government but private, with several degrees of separation before the government interface. They are brokered by tenders to commercial companies, not always on the best criteria, and where any job protection probably won't trickle down beyond upper management.

It's a shonky industry where 'protecting jobs' often means the guys who put a grinning face to the contracts, not the guys on the factory floor.

Removed User 29 Dec 2020
In reply to Big Bruva:

> Also the biggest danger perceived by the West in the region is not necessarily Russia or China, but democracy in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood. An Iranian-style Islamic Republic in SA would not serve European or American interests well. Hence the lack of a robust reaction to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. 

Good points.

And China is already well embedded in the KSA any way, the Saudi's play whatever side like, especially with a long term future that isn't so clear any more.

Removed User 29 Dec 2020
In reply to sheffieldchris:

As concise as I can be with several espressos inside me.

Personally I have little experience directly with KSA, mostly with regional players from the outside looking in, so to speak. As one would expect, every regional player has a unique and usually complex view of the KSA and often unaligned with any other one player.

The one thing most can agree on though is that every time something really nasty happens, there's one name that always crops up...

Is 3 Pebble Slab in today? It is if you know how to climb it.

OP veteye 30 Dec 2020
In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

Thank you for all your input, and also to everyone else too.

I have re-learned some things, but also learned some new facts/ideas.

By the way, isn't an anti-theist (on your profile) pretty much an atheist (as I describe myself, although I love sacred music)?

Removed User 30 Dec 2020
In reply to veteye:

Thankyou for an interesting OP. These are the matters of our times and deserve discussion.

There's good info out there so if you're into it plenty to delve into. My own opinions are just that, and will have multiple counters. In most things geostrategic multiple reasons will simultaneously exist. There are methods for choosing a perspective to take.

I hesitate to go into anti-theism as the resulting argument we all know. I will just say I think atheism suffers from a lack of rigor. I too have a sense for the sacred - the brain knows new territory when it sees it.

Removed User 30 Dec 2020
In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

> I lived in Riyadh as a teenager.... holy shit, nothing would make me go back to SArabia. Nothing. Horrible place.

Was it in one of those foreigner business families compounds (as opposed to the compounds the foreign oil workers live in which really do sound close to hell)? I've heard similar from others who lived in those.

It says something to me, living in an international community with people who grew up in places like Mogadishu, Grozny, Algiers and Ashgabat, that most fondly remember these places if not in bizarre ways - but Riyadh not so.

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

No we weren't on a compound, though a lot of friends were. Even as a naive teenager I thought it all so fake.

 aln 31 Dec 2020
In reply to Removed User:

> You're right that walking away from Saudi would simply mean they bought their bombs from someone with less scruples than us 

Less scruples? If we're selling them bombs then we don't have any more scruples than anyone else who sells them bombs. 

1
 Timmd 31 Dec 2020
In reply to aln:

> Less scruples? If we're selling them bombs then we don't have any more scruples than anyone else who sells them bombs. 

Not when they're bombing the Yemini civilians with the bombs we sell them, we don't. We sell the bombs to the Saudis, and give aid to the Yeminis after they've lost their legs/homes/whatever else.

The UK, we're either a moral authority on the world stage and advocates of fair play, or experts at hypocrisy and turning a convenient blind eye...

Post edited at 21:38
 aln 01 Jan 2021
In reply to Timmd:

> Not when they're bombing the Yemini civilians with the bombs we sell them, we don't. We sell the bombs to the Saudis, and give aid to the Yeminis after they've lost their legs/homes/whatever else.

> The UK, we're either a moral authority on the world stage and advocates of fair play, or experts at hypocrisy and turning a convenient blind eye...

Eh, what? I was saying we don't have scruples in our bomb selling. Are you saying we do? 

 Timmd 01 Jan 2021
In reply to aln:

I'm agreeing that we don't.

 TomAlford 01 Jan 2021
In reply to veteye:

Absolutely. 

We gain absolutely nothing from the relationship, the money doesn't benefit our economy in any recognisable way, it doesn't generate the jobs that MPs claim it does (the automotive industry is, for instance, a much better employer and contributer to the economy, relatively speaking). In terms of the influence/democratisation blah blah argument, I'd ask any in agreement to show significant evidence of meaningful democratic/HR progress as a result of the special relationship the sales bring.

Furthermore, I'd argue that the continuing damage to other relationships (particularly in Europe) as a result of the sales outweighs any potential, but so far non-existent, influence in Saudi politics. 

However, viewing arms sales as a purely political/foreign policy based decision is problematic. The shear weight that Raytheon/BAE systems etc are able to throw around in terms of lobbying power is unprecedented. The solution to stopping morally ambiguous arms sales that benefit shareholders and no one is else lies behind significant reform in the defence sector, which won't happen any time soon.

 As for the US question, Biden's current Defence Secretary is a Raytheon board member, so unlikely over there too. 


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...