Abdullah ibn Abdulaziz, King of Saudi Arabia passed away after a bout of pneumonia today (January 23 local time). He will be succeeded by his half-brother Crown Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud. Politicians, diplomats and economic watchdogs have been on edge for quite some time as the elderly King of Saudi Arabia deteriorated in health. What direction would Saudi Arabia take under new leadership? Will the kingdom move to the right or the left? Will clerical hardliners have more influence or less? All are questions which reveal how central Saudi Arabia is to the Middle East region. ISIS still controls much of Iraq, a civil war continues to rage in Syria and there has just been a coup in Yemen, a country where, in the past, Saudi Arabia supported royalist forces in a previous civil war. With all of these things happening, it is a bad time for King Abdullah to exit this life as he was, on the whole, a more beneficial leader for the region than would likely otherwise be the case.
I have said before, as a pan-monarchist, Saudi Arabia is not one of my favorites. There is much to be critical of there. Personally, I don't like the whole way the country came into being and would have taken a Hashemite over a Saud. However, I have also always said that I support the Saudi monarchy, distasteful as many find it, because the alternative would be worse -not better. He has been more "progressive" (for lack of a better word) than I think many people realize. Under his leadership, as we have mentioned on this weblog over the years, the power of clerics to declare fatwas was restricted, the first woman was appointed to a government ministry-level position and there was a measure of very limited democracy introduced on a very low level. It was nothing revolutionary or earth-shattering as such a thing would have simply caused instability and probably civil war but nonetheless it is an undeniable fact that under King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia was inching closer to the norms of the rest of the world and away from the values of the hard-line religious radicals. It remains to be seen whether these policies will continue under Salman but it seems likely.
Of course, there are many who will say that King Abdullah did not go far enough. That may be but I really have no interest in what the laws in Saudi Arabia are. That is their own business and not mine and if their punishments are harsh and their freedoms few, it really doesn't concern me at all. What is an issue is the well established fact that many in Saudi Arabia have exported a radical brand of Islam abroad that has inspired terrorists to attack numerous countries. That is something I cannot overlook and a major reason why I could never have a totally favorable view of Saudi Arabia. However, we must also keep in mind that even Saudi terrorists, and none were more prominent than the late Usama bin Laden, hated the Saudi monarchy as well and wanted to overthrow it because it was "too friendly" to the west. The point is that liberal, progressive secularists do not exactly have a large following in a country like Saudi Arabia and if the House of Saud were overthrown tomorrow, what replaces them would most likely be a theocracy on steroids that would make the Ayatollah in Iran seem like a pussycat. That reason alone would be enough to make me wish the House of Saud well through this time of sorrow and transition from one king to the next.
Showing posts with label saudi arabia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label saudi arabia. Show all posts
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Monday, February 14, 2011
Friday, September 24, 2010
On the Subject of Saudi Arabia

I will state up front that there is a great deal I do not like about Saudi Arabia, a great deal I find distasteful and a great deal I disapprove of. My reasons involve not only the actions of the country today, their policies and so on, but going right back to the founding of the current kingdom by the Saud dynasty. However, for all of the terrible things that go on there (again, by western standards and even in my opinion) I sometimes feel there is a tendency to ‘pile on’ Saudi Arabia. Say what you will of the country, they do not pretend to be something they are not. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, proudly so, with Islam as the official religion and Islamic law is the law of the land. Even the national motto is the Shahada (“there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is His Prophet”). If you are not Muslim, you are generally neither wanted nor welcome. For this, many westerners condemn Saudi Arabia for being so intolerant but expecting western countries to tolerate them.
In this case, again, I think people are too hard on Saudi Arabia. They are, after all, living as they always have. They did not first demand tolerance from the West, it was the West that offered it. It is not the fault of Saudi Arabia that western nations have largely abandoned their own religion and, in most countries, emphatically stated in law that they have no religion. Western nations could be just as staunchly Christian (they once were) as Saudi Arabia is Muslim and it is not the fault of Saudi Arabia or any other country that they are not. Saudi Arabia is Muslim, officially and legally and they are not welcoming of non-Muslims and do not pretend to be anything else. Yet in the west many countries have no official religion or are not religiously exclusive and so have little room, as I see it, to complain that others do. What concern is it of anyone else what policies Saudi Arabia enacts in its own territory? If you don’t like it, don’t go there. Why do so many obsess over Saudi Arabia but not other equally less “free” or even worse countries around the world?
Where I think Saudi Arabia is to blame is in trying to play both sides of the fence and some of their actions truly baffle me. One is their funding and promotion of schools which teach a very fundamentalist brand of Islam out of which quite a few terrorists have come. What puzzles me about this, aside from any moral issues, is the fact that these people are generally not supporters of the Saudi monarchy. Osama bin Laden himself is an example. Many of those who condemn Saudi Arabia might be surprised to know that Osama bin Laden fully agrees with them. He is, of course, not upset about the lack of equal rights for women or thieves getting their hands cut off. He is upset that Saudi Arabia allows U.S. military bases on its soil, that the Saudi Royal Family is friendly with western powers and lives a rather different lifestyle quite often while abroad than when they are at home.
This, finally, is the most important reason why, despite my opposition to so much that goes on in Saudi Arabia, I remain at least a nominal supporter of the monarchy there. There is no doubt in my mind that if the House of Saud falls it will be a man like Osama bin Laden who replaces them. The change, I am convinced, would be one to make the change from Shah to Ayatollah in Iran seem miniscule in comparison. That is because the enemies of the Saudi monarchy, on the scene, do not oppose it for the same reason that the liberal-minded west does but rather because they do not view them as strict enough. It is also true that the Saudi monarchy has recently, slowly, been moving more toward the moderate direction. The King recently placed certain restrictions on religious leaders and, for the first time, appointed a woman to a government post. If this is the right policy only time will tell but despite outward appearances Saudi Arabia is far from secure. Already most of the oil industry is run by imported foreign workers while the native population to a considerable degree lives off the largesse of the Saudi monarchy. Aside from the radical religious opposition they are going to be in a very tight spot if the “green” movement succeeds in eliminating “our” dependence on oil. If that day ever comes the high standard of living in Saudi Arabia today will be gone and the people will be left with nothing but a giant sandbox and a population of angry, unemployed and religiously motivated young people. Mind your step Saudi Arabia.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
The Obamas Meet Royalty

In his first overseas trip as President and First Lady the Obamas have made some tongues wag over their interaction with royalty. Could it be the simple mistakes of the New World versus the Old World? Possibly, but taken altogether many people are wondering if there is not more to it than this. The two incidents which made the most headlines were Michelle Obama putting her arm around Queen Elizabeth II, thus violating the taboo of not touching royalty, and Barack Hussein Obama bowing very low to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Liberals of the "Obama can do no wrong" crowd are inclined to dismiss both the over-familiarity with the British Queen and the over-reverence to the Saudi King -as inconsistent as that is. Others, in the more critical camp, tend to be outraged for a number of reasons.
The Obamas have behaved oddly if not badly toward the British from day one. First there was the snubbing of Prime Minister Gordon Brown on his visit to the US, accompanied by a White House aid saying there was nothing "special" about our relationship with Britain and efforts to brush it off by saying that Obama (one of the youngest presidents in US history) was simply "tired". They also note that while Obama barely gave Queen Elizabeth II a nod he bowed nearly to the hip to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Family history has also caused some to question whether or not the two extremes were intentional. Obama's grandfather was put in prison for a couple years in Kenya for revolutionary activity against the British Crown and the family claims the British authorities tortured him. On the other hand Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was a Muslim, Obama Jr's step-father in Indonesia was a Muslim and he himself was listed as a Muslim on his school records in that country. Obama has since stated he is a Christian though since being elected president he has yet to attend any services.
There is also quite a vast gulf of difference between the Saudi and British monarchies. Whereas Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy with elected leaders, freedom of speech, assembly, religion and all the rest of it, Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy with none such freedoms where Bibles are shredded at the border and women are not even allowed out in public without a male escort. This has left many Americans wondering why, if Obama is going to bow to a monarch, would he bow to the King of Saudi Arabia instead of Queen Elizabeth? This is what puzzles me about the President's behavior. I really have no problem with Obama bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia; he is royalty and one would try to show all due respect for the customs and traditions of the people one is dealing with. However, why is the British monarch treated with such familiarity and the Saudi monarch with such obeisance?
The White House has denied that Obama bowed to the Saudi king but frankly that only seems to have made the situation worse because the video and the pictures speak for themselves. He did it. When taken in context with his other words and writings over the years and his family history it does seem that the Obamas have a certain disdain for Great Britain whom, Michelle Obama in particular it has been said, still associate the British with the British Empire and, let me just say she does not seem to view the British Empire as the glorious past organization that I do. Given Obama's politics and family history I would not expect his view to be very different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)