Tag Archive for: Mohammed bin Salman

OPEC production cut has Washington questioning the value of its Saudi alliance

During the past month, the relationship between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has fallen to its lowest ebb in a decade. After the shock decision by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (of which Saudi Arabia is a member) to cut oil production by two million barrels a day, US policymakers are calling for President Joe Biden’s administration to recalibrate America’s relationship with its longstanding ally in the Middle East.

Critics of the OPEC decision say it will increase the price of oil at a time when US consumers are already feeling the impact of high energy prices. A higher oil price will also provide a significant boost to Russia’s struggling economy.

There’s palpable anger in Washington with the decision, especially considering the Biden administration’s attempts to re-engage with Saudi Arabia and its de facto ruler Crown Prince (now Prime Minister) Mohammed bin Salman. It’s unclear what long-term impact this latest deterioration will have on America’s strategic interests around the globe.

The US–Saudi relationship has had a long and tumultuous history. Despite disagreements over British-mandated Palestine and the establishment of Israel in 1948, the US and Saudi Arabia agreed that in return for access to vast Saudi oil reserves, Washington would provide security guarantees for Riyadh. The relationship deepened in 1979 when the US lost another important Middle Eastern ally with the overthrow of Mohammad Reza Shah in Iran. During the Gulf War in 1991, US troops were for the first time stationed in Saudi Arabia, establishing a now-permanent presence within the Arabian Gulf’s largest and most significant actor.

Nonetheless, tensions have arisen in the relationship over Riyadh’s curtailing of the rights of women and minorities, and the regime’s strict interpretation of Wahabi Islam and repression of democratic norms.

The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001, orchestrated by Saudi nationals including Osama bin Laden, created a critical fracture, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 soured the relationship further. The creation of a majority Shiite government in Iraq after 2003 gave more power to Saudi Arabia’s strategic rival in the region, Iran.

In more recent times, the assassination of Saudi dissident and journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul in 2018 and the White House’s decision to send US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin instead of Biden to meet with bin Salman have destabilised the relationship further.

So why did this happen? The collapse of US predominance in the Middle East after the invasion of Iraq has left authoritarian countries like Saudi Arabia with more flexibility to pursue independent and different strategies in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia views the strategic realignment in the global order (with the rise of China and, before the invasion of Ukraine, Russia) as an opportunity to alter the region to its advantage. Saudi funding of opposition fighters in the Syrian civil war and the use of ground troops in the Yemen conflict are just two examples.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has lost much of its prestige and is in damage control to rebuild its image internationally and shore up its relations with the US. To reset the relationship in Washington, Saudi-backed lobbyists have spent millions of dollars. Biden responded by visiting Saudi Arabia, presumably as a gesture of goodwill and to attempt some recalibration.

The OPEC decision, however, has damaged whatever goodwill was established. It is likely to prove a strategic blunder for bin Salman. As fuel prices soar and inflation hits double digits in the US, any changes in oil production will have an impact on next week’s mid-term elections. There have been suggestions that the OPEC decision is a form of electoral interference, with Saudi Arabia pushing for Republican wins in the mid-terms. That the rise in oil prices will likely help Russian President Vladimir Putin continue to fund his war of aggression against Ukraine will only further sour the taste of the OPEC decision in Washington.

One indication of Washington’s outrage over the OPEC decision can be found in the calls for an immediate stop to arms transfers to Saudi Arabia by Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and fellow Democrat and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Bob Menendez. In the wake of the OPEC decision, there’s also growing bipartisan support for the ‘No Oil Producing and Export Cartels’, or NOPEC, bill, which would change US antitrust laws to revoke sovereign immunity from OPEC members and their national oil companies. Biden officials have also considered using US businesses as leverage by pulling back US investment in Saudi Arabia, which pressures the kingdom but doesn’t compromise security concerns in the Middle East.

This is a critical moment in US–Saudi relations, and retaliatory moves by either side will have lasting consequences. Saudi Arabia finds itself among a growing number of powerful authoritarian countries and has deepened its strategic partnership with China. Beijing is using Riyadh as a key partner in its Belt and Road Initiative, and Saudi Arabia is pursuing Chinese finance for its ambitious NEOM project near the Red Sea.

The Saudis have signalled that they may lift oil production again in December because of the EU embargo and G7 cap. However, there’s scepticism among US policymakers that the Saudis will be true to their word. December will be a decisive test for the future of the relationship.

If the relationship can’t be reset, the US risks losing one of its largest arms markets. Many US representative districts are reliant on the building of these weapons, and it won’t be easy to find a country to replace the demand that Saudi Arabia has for US weapons. It’s also not feasible for the US to completely decouple from Saudi Arabia given the level of Saudi investment in the US, as well as trade. Saudi Arabia plays a critical role in the Middle East as a strategic balancer against Iran.

But Saudi Arabia also needs the US. Despite China’s growing military power, it can’t provide Riyadh with the security guarantee that Washington does. A more balanced and pragmatic relationship may need to be established.

The OPEC decision to cut oil production will eventually be amended, but US policymakers have long memories. When the US asked for the Saudis help in a time of need, they turned their backs. The US will think twice about the reliability of Saudi Arabia as an ally in the Middle East and, even more importantly, as a strategic balance to Iranian power.

A realist reset for US–Saudi relations

The report issued on Friday by the US intelligence community on the murder of Saudi journalist and permanent US resident Jamal Khashoggi in October 2018 at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, mostly confirms what we already knew. The operation to capture or kill Khashoggi was approved by Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s crown prince and in many ways already the kingdom’s most powerful person. MBS, as he is widely known, wanted Khashoggi dead, both to rid himself of a nettlesome critic and to intimidate other would-be critics of his rule.

We’re unlikely to find a smoking gun, but MBS’s fingerprints are all over Khashoggi’s killing. There’s not only abundant photographic and communications evidence that it was carried out by people close to the crown prince. There’s also the simple reality that nothing of significant political magnitude happens in Saudi Arabia without MBS’s authorisation.

President Donald Trump’s administration looked the other way at the time, as it often did in the face of flagrant human rights violations. Moreover, Trump wanted to avoid a rupture with MBS, whose anti-Iranian policies were appreciated and who was seen as central to his government’s willingness to purchase armaments from US manufacturers.

Joe Biden’s administration feels differently. It has already distanced the United States from involvement in Saudi military operations in Yemen. And human rights are occupying a central role in its approach to the world. The fact that Biden hasn’t communicated directly with MBS, and instead called the ailing King Salman, underscores Biden’s desire to separate the US relationship with the kingdom from the relationship with the crown prince.

But this separation will likely prove impossible to sustain. The US isn’t in a position to prevent his ascension to the throne when his father dies. Any attempt to do so would almost certainly fail, in the process triggering a nationalist backlash, causing domestic instability, or both. And the fact is that the US has many reasons to maintain a working relationship with an individual who will likely lead for decades a country that is critical to setting world energy prices, containing Iran, frustrating terrorism and, if it elects to do so, promoting Middle East peace.

Saudi Arabia is hardly the only country in the world where the US has to deal with a flawed leader. The Biden administration just signed an important nuclear arms control agreement with Russia, even though President Vladimir Putin tried to kill—and has now imprisoned—his main political rival. The principal difference between him and the Saudi crown prince in this instance is their competence at eliminating opponents.

Or consider China. Biden administration officials have accused the Chinese government of carrying out genocide against the Uyghur minority. They are therefore accusing Chinese President Xi Jinping of genocide, as there is no way what is taking place in Xinjiang province could happen without his approval. Yet Biden recently spoke with Xi and is sure to meet with him regularly to discuss North Korea, trade, climate change and much else.

Don’t get me wrong. Biden is right to strike deals with Putin and Xi. US strategic and economic interests demand it, and America’s ability to influence Russian and Chinese behaviour at home is limited. The US can and should criticise and sanction, but it would be feckless and self-defeating to hold the entire bilateral relationship with Russia or China hostage to their domestic policies. Foreign policy is not about virtue signalling; it is about advancing interests. Prioritising and compartmentalising are essential.

In the case of MBS, such realism might lead to opportunity. The promise of meetings with Biden administration officials should be traded for a firm commitment that he will never again target a political opponent in this way and that he will release imprisoned human rights advocates.

Bringing the Saudis into diplomacy might preserve the possibility of a two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The United Arab Emirates agreed to normalise relations with Israel only when Israel agreed not to annex occupied Palestinian territory for at least three years. MBS reportedly is ready to build bridges to Israel, but his father is not, and much of the Saudi population might resist. Even an Israeli government committed to expanding Jewish settlements in the occupied territories might find it difficult to resist curbing them in exchange for peace and diplomatic ties with the kingdom.

It should be a long time before the now publicly exposed MBS is invited to the US, much less to visit the Oval Office. But refusing to deal with him is not the answer. Pragmatic, conditional relations with him could bring protection and freedom to many Saudis, make possible collaboration to impede Iran’s nuclear ambitions, wind down the war in Yemen and advance prospects for Israeli–Palestinian peace. None of this would bring Khashoggi back to life, but it would give added meaning to his death.

Saudi Arabia should face real consequences over Khashoggi killing

Only a week before the disappearance and alleged killing of Saudi journalist and commentator Jamal Khashoggi, it was confirmed that missing Interpol chief Meng Hongwei was being detained in Beijing on corruption charges. The news came amid ongoing investigations over the botched poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the UK earlier this year.

These incidents raise questions about the reach of autocratic states in 2018 and clear concerns about international law and security, diplomacy and human rights. How should the international community respond to alleged state-sponsored abductions, murders and detentions, and what should the consequences be for states that refuse to comply with international human rights norms and legislation?

The British government’s response to the Skripal attack has been one of no tolerance to Russian aggression. The killing of a British citizen on home soil unequivocally justified Britain’s crackdown on the Kremlin’s alleged hitmen, but that’s not to say that a similar ‘mobster strategy’ employed by Saudi Arabia should be wilfully ignored. Despite finally admitting that Khashoggi was murdered inside the consulate, the Saudis appear at the very least to have carried out a state-sponsored abduction, and if it’s to be the last time it happens they need to be taken to task over it.

It appears the true face of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) has been unveiled. Despite some landmark reforms such as reducing the weight of the mutaween (religious police) and permitting women to drive, Khashoggi’s murder is yet another example of reckless and capricious decision-making that has gone badly wrong.

Over the past 12 months, MbS has been locking up critics and dissenters of all stripes, from women activists and Twitterati critics to the bizarre round-up of royals and journalists in the Ritz-Carlton for three days and the detention of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri. In September a regime critic was allegedly followed and beaten up on the streets of central London. Three Saudi princes living in Europe have gone missing, with evidence of their abduction tracing back to the Saudi state.

Khashoggi’s murder was conducted in the most savage of manners, though this isn’t out of the ordinary for the Saudi state, and should its actions go unchallenged, it certainly won’t be the last killing of its kind. The international community must decide whether it wants to be complicit in normalising the flouting of civil rights and other liberal democratic norms, or in paving the way for autocracies to rise.

Donald Trump’s response is telling. Although the US president’s initial statement expressed concern and implied a firm hand would be applied, his comments over recent weeks have gone from one extreme to another. The president quickly backpedalled on his initial response and adopted the Saudi narrative of ‘rogue killers’ as a plausible explanation for the journalist’s death. Then he reverted to criticising the Saudi effort to silence Khashoggi, saying, ‘The cover up was one of the worst in the history of cover ups.’ Trump’s motives are clear: he is reluctant to give Russia and China the opportunity to pick up the cheque for Saudi Arabia’s enormous arms budget and is attempting to protect the relationship with the kingdom in a bid to keep billions of dollars in US defence contracts.

It’s no secret that the US and UK derive enormous economic benefit from being allied to Saudi Arabia, most notably through the sale of military equipment. The countries have also spent years carefully nurturing diplomatic relations, especially after the 9/11 attacks. Severing economic and diplomatic ties with the kingdom would not be without consequences. However, in order to send a loud and clear message that such a flagrant disregard of international principles of law and order and human rights will not be tolerated, serious consideration must be given to cutting those ties.

Assertive and principled leadership is required. It is not enough to make statements calling for answers; the joint statement from the UK, France and Germany was unsubstantial at best, and Trump’s flip-flopping doesn’t inspire a great deal of confidence. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s statement last week stopped short of accusing the Saudi government of killing Khashoggi, but it’s worth recognising that his comments are likely shrouded in the geopolitics of Gulf power plays.

The boycott of Riyadh’s glittering international investment summit known as Davos in the Desert by various ministers and big businesses is a step in the right direction, but a lot more effort needs to be made to demonstrate that the international community is willing to stand up to states and leaders that impose selective interpretations of justice. And although United Nations human rights chief Michelle Bachelet made a statement calling for diplomatic immunity to be lifted, the UN must take the initiative and demonstrate that appropriate measures will be taken.

An independent investigation into the death of Khashoggi that is endorsed by major players and holds those responsible accountable for their actions will be the only outcome that will suffice.