The United States and Saudi Arabia - Human Rights and Arms Sales

Washington loves to use human rights violations as an excuse to either sanction or take military action against nations that it deems have unacceptable behaviour toward its citizens, and, in a unipolar world, their actions went unchecked.  There is, however, one nation that gets an exemption; Saudi Arabia, Washington's second-best friend in the Middle East and ground zero for a war with Iran.  In this posting, we'll look at what the Department of State has to say about human rights in Saudi Arabia followed by some recent news.

  

On an annual basis, the U.S. Department of State releases Country Reports on many nations around the world.  The latest report on Saudi Arabia opens with this stage-setting information:

 

"The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, who is both head of state and head of government. The 1992 Basic Law sets out the system of governance, rights of citizens, and powers and duties of the government, and it provides that the Quran and Sunna (the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad) serve as the country’s constitution. It specifies that the rulers of the country shall be male descendants of the founder, King Abdulaziz (Ibn Saud).

 

The State Security Presidency, National Guard, and Ministries of Defense and Interior, all of which report to the king, are responsible for law enforcement and maintenance of order. The State Security Presidency includes the General Directorate of Investigation (mabahith), Special Security Forces, and Special Emergency Forces; police are under the Ministry of Interior. Civilian authorities generally maintained effective control over the security forces. There were credible reports that members of the security forces committed some abuses."

 

The report is divided into several sections, however, to keep this posting to a reasonable length, I will deal with two sections along with examples for each section.  It is important to keep in mind that the nation is under sharia law.

 

1.) Respect for the Integrity of the Person

 

a.) Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings:

 

Capital punishment can be imposed for violations including apostasy, sorcery and adultery.  Recently, the Saudi Government announced a moratorium on the deal penalty for drug-related offences by the changes to the law have not been published.  Minors' prison sentences are capped at 10 years (with adults being defined as those aged 18 and older) with the exception of a category of crimes that includes various types of murder and those crimes that carry specific penalties under the nation's interpretation of sharia law.  Lengthy prison sentences or death are prescribed for individuals who are convicted of terrorism or political protests.

 

b.) Disappearances:

 

There are outstanding reports of disappearances carried out by or on behalf of government authorities including several members of the royal family that were detained in March 2020 who stand accused of contact with foreign powers to carry out a coup d'état.  Here is another example:

 

"On April 5, the Specialized Criminal Court sentenced Abdulrahman al-Sadhan to 20 years’ imprisonment, followed by a 20-year travel ban, on terrorism financing and facilitation charges. After his arrest in 2018, al-Sadhan was detained incommunicado for two years before being allowed to speak with his family. Legal proceedings against him began on March 3 in a process that Amnesty International said was marred by rights violations. Al-Sadhan reportedly tweeted comments critical of the government and sympathetic to ISIS, which family members claimed were satirical in nature. Family members alleged that al-Sadhan was physically abused during his detention and that he was unable to present a proper legal defense during his trial."

  

c.) Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment:

 

While the law prohibits torture, there were reports by human rights organizations and the United Nations that such actions had taken place when officials try to extract "confessions" through the use of torture.  Here is an example:

 

"In July Human Rights Watch reported anonymous accounts from prison guards alleging torture of political detainees, including of prominent activists Loujain al-Hathloul and Mohammed al-Rabea. They alleged women’s rights activists and others were subjected to electric shocks, beatings, whippings, and sexual abuse. In February, following her sentencing and conditional release, al-Hathloul’s family reported that an appeals court rejected a lawsuit regarding her claims of torture. In December 2020 the Riyadh Criminal Court had previously dismissed her claim, citing a lack of evidence."

  

Courts also continue to sentence individuals to corporal punishment (i.e. flogging) for offenses including drunkeness, sexual conduct between unmarried persons and false accusations of adultery.  One individual who was found guilty of drug trafficking was sentenced to 5,000 lashes, however, his sentence was changed to five years in prison, a five year travel ban and a large fine.  Saudi activist Raif Badawi was originally sentenced to 1,000 lashes, 10 years in prison and a ten-year travel ban with his sentence including 50 lashes every week for 19 weeks after his initial flogging.  Physicians who examined him stated that his health would not permit further floggings because his initial wounds had not healed properly.  In 2020, Saudi Arabia's Supreme Court announced the abolition of flogging which would be replaced by fines and imprisonment as shown here:

e.) Denial of Fair Public Trial:

 

While the nation's law states that authorities may not detain a persons for more than 24 hours, certain government departments including the State Security Presidency have the authority to arrest and detail persons indefinitely without judicial oversight, notification of charges or effective access to legal counsel or family members even though the law requires that authorities file charges within 72 hours of arrest and hold a trial within six months.  There are reports that authorities have held suspects up to 12 months in investigative detention without access to legal council with authorities complete a full investigation of the case.  Here is an example:

 

"On May 6, Prisoners of Conscience reported that dozens of journalists and bloggers remained under arbitrary arrest. In November Prisoners of Conscience reported that authorities had detained blogger Zainab al-Hashemi and university student Asmaa al-Subaie since May without charge. The two were reportedly arrested with other online activists. As of year’s end, their whereabouts were unknown."

 

While the law states that court hearings must be public, courts can be closed at the discretion of a judge.  Authorities are allowed to close a trial depending on the sensitivity of a case to national security, the reputation of the defendant or the safety of witnesses.   Authorities must offer defendants a lawyer at government expense, however, activists state that many political prisoners were not able to or allowed to retain or consult with an attorney during critical pareses of an investigation or trail.   In certain circumstances, the testimony of a women in court equals one-half that of a man and judges have the discretion to discredit the testimony of non-practicing Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims and persons of other religions.

 

2.) Respect for Civil Liberties

 

a.) Freedom of Expression Including for Members of the Press and Other Media:

 

The law does not provide for or protect freedom of expression inducing for members of the press and other media as quoted here:

 

"Media are prohibited from committing acts that lead to disorder and division, affect the security of the state or its public relations, or undermine human dignity and rights.” Authorities are responsible for regulating and determining what speech or expression undermines internal security. The government can ban or suspend media outlets if it concludes they violated the press and publications law, and it monitored and blocked hundreds of thousands of internet sites. There were frequent reports of restrictions on free speech."

 

Counterterrorism laws are defined as:

 

"...any conduct...intended to disturb public order...or destabilize the state or endanger its national unity.” The law also penalizes “anyone who challenges, either directly or indirectly, the religion or justice of the king or crown prince...or anyone who establishes or uses a website or computer program...to commit any of the offenses set out in the law.”

 

Here are more details on freedom of expression for members of the press including online media:

  

"The law governs printed materials; printing presses; bookstores; the import, rental, and sale of films; television and radio; foreign media offices and their correspondents; and online newspapers and journals. Media fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Media. The ministry may permanently close “whenever necessary” any means of communication – defined as any means of expressing a viewpoint that is meant for circulation – that it deems is engaged in a prohibited activity, as set forth in the law.

 

Government policy guidance instructs journalists in the country to uphold Islam, oppose atheism, promote Arab interests, and preserve cultural heritage. The press law requires all online newspapers and bloggers to obtain a license from the ministry. The law bans publishing anything “contradicting sharia, inciting disruption, serving foreign interests that contradict national interests, and damaging the reputation of the grand mufti, members of the Council of Senior Religious Scholars, or senior government officials.”

 

I think that information the information that I have provided in this posting gives you a sense of "freedom", Saudi Arabian-style.  If you wish to read additional information, please click here for the entire Department of State Report.

  

Now, let's look at recent news as announced by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency which can only have made Raytheon's corner office dwellers happy:

 

 

I find it interesting that the sale of these PATRIOT Missiles will accomplish two purposes:

 

1.) allow Saudi Arabia to protect its borders from Houthi cross-border unmanned aerial and ballistic missile attacks on civilian sites and critical infrastructure in Saudi Arabia not to mention protecting the 70,000 United States citizens who live in Saudi Arabia.  This, despite the fact that the war has resulted in  nearly 15,000 Yemeni civilian casualties, most of them in air strikes by the Saudi-led and American-armed coalition forces as shown here:

 

...and here:

 

2.) Here's a quote from the press release:

"This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a partner country that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Gulf region."

 

In other words, the sale will support Washington's moves toward a war with Iran.

 

This sentence in the press release is for irony-impaired politicians:

 

"The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region."

 

At least not until the Russians or Chinese sell the Iranians additional materiel to counter Washington's sale of $3 billion worth of Patriot missiles and other products from America's defense contractors.

 

While it is not terribly surprising, Washington can clearly speak out of "both sides of its mouth" when it comes to manipulating the narrative to suit its own purposes.  The fact that politicians of both stripes can totally ignore Saudi Arabia's egregious behaviour when it comes to human rights and, at the same time, justify selling the Saudi royal family billions of dollars worth of arms is nothing short of appalling. 

 

Iran - Military Expenditures and Arms Imports

In a recent publication, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute or SIPRI has released a fact sheet that looks at military spending by four of the key nations in the Middle East.  In the first part of this posting, I focussed military spending and arms imports by Saudi Arabia and in this posting, I will focus on Iran and its military spending and imports, a nation that is regarded by both Israel and Saudi Arabia as the greatest threat to stability in the region.

In case you missed my first posting on the subject, let's look at data which will help us set the stage for this posting. Here is a graphic that shows the trend in international transfers of major weapons going back to 1979:

According to SIPRI, United States arms exports grew by 29 percent between 2009 - 2013 and 2014 - 2018 with its share of total global arms exports rising from 30 to 36 percent over the same time period.  

Now, let's focus on Iran and its arms imports.  As you can see on this graphic, when measured in terms of constant 2017 United States dollars, Iran's military spending has remained relatively consistent since the mid-2000s, unlike Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates:

Spending on Iran's military peaked in 2006 and fell by 30 percent between 2006 and 2014 and feel most steeply between 2012 - 2013 thanks to economic sanctions that the European Union imposed on Iran.  When these sanctions were lifted in 2015, Iran's military spending grew by 25 percent over the two year period between 2015 and 2017.  In 2018, Iran's military spending once again fell by 9.5 percent to $13.2 billion as the nation's economy went into a recession.  The 2018 spending of just over $13 billion (or 2.7 percent of GDP - 25th place in the world)) by Iran pales into insignificance compared to Saudi Arabia's military expenditures of $67.6 billion (or 8.8 percent of GDP - 1st place in the world).

As shown on this graphic, Iran's imports of arms have declined significantly since the early 2000s, especially when compared to Saudi Arabia:

The level of arms imports by Iran decreased significantly over the two and a half decades since 1994 and remain at levels that are very, very small compared to its regional peers.  Between 2009 and 2018, the total value of Iran's arms imports was just 3.5 percent of Saudi Arabia's arms imports over the same period.  This is largely due to Iran's economic issues and the imposition of arms import restrictions by the United Nations in 2010 which will remain in place until the end of 2020. 

Here is a graphic showing the nations that supply arms to Iran over five year periods from 1994:

As you can see, Russia and China have both been major suppliers of arms to Iran over the past two and a half decades.  In the most recent period from 2014 to 2018, Russia has supplied 96 percent of Iran's arms imports and China has supplied a rather meagre 4 percent.

Iran is in the fortunate position to be able to arm itself.  It has the capability to develop its own ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, naval vessels and drones which have allowed it to offset the impact of American-led sanctions.

The information provided by SIPRI leads us to one conclusion; the United States arming of Saudi Arabia (and Israel) has led to a significant geopolitical and military imbalance in the region.  With Washington selling tens of billions of dollars worth of high-tech arms to Saudi Arabia and its  annual military assistance and its Excess Defense Articles program which have benefitted Israel to the tune of $125 billion, it is no wonder that Iran feels a need to protect itself from potential hostilities launched by its heavily armed neighbours who are essentially vassal states of Washington.

Saudi Arabia - Military Expenditures and Arms Imports

In a recent publication, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute or SIPRI has released a fact sheet that looks at military spending by four of the key nations in the Middle East.  Given that three of these nations are involved in conflicts in Syria, Yemen and Libya, and the fourth is the target of American-led sanctioning and threats resulting from its alleged involvement in recent attacks in Saudi Arabia and military operations in both Iraq and Syria, the research is particularly pertinent.  In the first part of this posting, I want to look at military spending and arms imports by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and focus on Saudi Arabia and its massive military spending.  In the second part of this posting, I will focus on Iran and its military spending and imports.

Let's start by looking data which will help us set the stage for this posting.  Here is a graphic that shows the trend in international transfers of major weapons going back to 1979:

According to SIPRI, United States arms exports grew by 29 percent between 2009 - 2013 and 2014 - 2018 with its share of total global arms exports rising from 30 to 36 percent over the same time period.  

Now, let's look at what the SIPRI fact sheet says about arms spending by Saudi Arabia and its neighbours, Qatar, Iran and the UAE.  Here is a graphic which shows the military spending in constant 2017 U.S. dollars of all four nations going back to 1994:

Asa you can see, there have been rapid growth in military spending by the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia while military spending both Qatar and Iran have remained relatively constant in terms of 2017 dollars.

Here is a graphic that looks at the volume of arms transfers (i.e. imports) by the four nations broken down into five year periods:

Over the period between 1994 and 2018, Saudi Arabia's imports of arms have grown very significantly and at a far higher level than its counterparts.  In contrast, Iranian imports of arms have declined significantly from the 1990s to the present.

Let's focus on Saudi Arabia.  In 2018, Saudi Arabia's spending on its military was projected to be an estimated $67.6 billion, the third largest in the world and by a wide margin the highest in the Persian Gulf region.  Saudi's military spending rose by 57 percent between 1996 and 1998, by 76 percent between 2003 and 2007 and by 63 percent between 2011 and 2015.  Spending on Saudi Arabia's military dropped in lockstep with declining oil prices after 2015, dropping 28 percent in 2016, rising by 11 percent in 2017 and falling again by 6.5 percent in 2018.

Saudi Arabia's spending on its military was 8.8 percent of GDP, the highest in the world as shown on this graphic from Statista:

In 2018, Saudi spending as a percentage of GDP was down from a peak of 13 percent of GDP in 2015.  On a per capita basis, Saudi spending on its military in 2018 was $2014, higher than all other nations in the world.

Now let's look at Saudi Arabia's arms imports.  Here is a graphic showing the source nations for arms supplied to Saudi Arabia and the relative volume of those imports:

Let's look at two aspects of Saudi arms imports:

1.) Volume of Saudi Arabia's arms imports: arms imports rose markedly after 2009, rising by 192 percent  between 2009 - 2013 and 2014 - 2018, making Saudi Arabia the world's largest arms importer.

2.) Source of Saudi Arabia's arms imports: the United States is, by a wide margin, Saudi Arabia's largest supplier of imported arms, a distinction that it has held since the 1990s.  The United Kingdom and France have also been significant providers of arms to Saudi Arabia over the past two and a half decades.

Saudi Arabia's massive inventory of arms is wide ranging; the United States started delivering the first of 154 F-15SA combat aircraft in 2016, the United Kingdom delivered 72 Typhoon combat aircraft over the years between 2009 and 2017, Spain delivered six tanker aircraft between 2011 and 205 and between 2014 and 2018, the United States delivered 23 Patriot PAC-3 air and missile defense systems.  In addition, over the period between 2014 and 2018, Austria, Canada, France, Georgia, South Africa and Turkey delivered over 4000 armoured vehicles and the United States delivers 338 tanks to bolster Saudi Arabia's ground forces.

Saudi Arabia's massive and ongoing investment in its military has resulted in the Saudi royal family having access to the largest inventory of technically advanced weaponry in the Middle East (excluding Israel since Saudi Arabia does not have access to an inventory of nuclear weapons).  One has to wonder how the sales of American arms has affected the balance of power in the Middle East, particularly when these arms are being sold to a nation with a poor human rights record as shown in this quote from the United States Department of State 2018 Human Rights Report on Saudi Arabia:

"Human rights issues included unlawful killings; executions for nonviolent offenses; forced renditions; forced disappearances; and torture of prisoners and detainees by government agents. There were also reports of arbitrary arrest and detention; political prisoners; arbitrary interference with privacy; criminalization of libel, censorship, and site blocking; restrictions on freedoms of peaceful assembly, association, and movement; severe restrictions of religious freedom; citizens’ lack of ability and legal means to choose their government through free and fair elections; trafficking in persons; violence and official discrimination against women, although new women’s rights initiatives were implemented; criminalization of consensual same-sex sexual activity; and prohibition of trade  unions."

In part two of this posting, I will look at military expenditures and arms transfer data for Iran, the world's current chief boogeyman.

Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States - Who is Responsible for Middle East Instability?

While Washington would have us all believe that Iran and its leadership is one of the most evil nations on earth (along with Syria, Russia, North Korea and China) as you can see here in this recent statement about Saudi Arabia from Donald Trump:

"The world is a very dangerous place!

The country of Iran, as an example, is responsible for a bloody proxy war against Saudi Arabia in Yemen, trying to destabilize Iraq’s fragile attempt at democracy, supporting the terror group Hezbollah in Lebanon, propping up dictator Bashar Assad in Syria (who has killed millions of his own citizens), and much more. Likewise, the Iranians have killed many Americans and other innocent people throughout the Middle East. Iran states openly, and with great force, “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” Iran is considered “the world’s leading sponsor of terror.”

On the other hand, Saudi Arabia would gladly withdraw from Yemen if the Iranians would agree to leave. They would immediately provide desperately needed humanitarian assistance. Additionally, Saudi Arabia has agreed to spend billions of dollars in leading the fight against Radical Islamic Terrorism." (my bold)

It is interesting to see that, in a statement from Washington about Saudi Arabia, a nation with close links to al-Qaeda and the attacks of September 11, 2001, Iran is touted as the world's leading sponsor of terror.  It is also interesting to note that Washington would rather further distort the geopolitical situation in the Middle East by further arming Wahhabist Saudi Arabia (to the tune of $100 billion) and vilifying Shia Iran, two of the most influential military powers in the region.

Let's look at reality for a moment.  In a much ignored statement by Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif from early 2018, we find the following framework for Middle East stability:

“The objective of a strong region — as opposed to a quest for hegemony and the exclusion of other actors — is rooted in recognising the need to respect the interest of all stakeholders.  Any domineering effort by one country is not only inappropriate but essentially impossible: those who insist on following that path create instability. The arms race in our region is an instance of this kind of destructive rivalry: siphoning vital resources into the coffers of arms manufacturers has contributed nothing to achieving peace and security. Militarism has only served to fuel disastrous adventurism." (my bold)

He goes on to note that there has been a long history of a "dialogue deficit" among the major stakeholders in the region which has led to political instability.  If a dialogue were to be opened, all of the nations in the Middle East/Persian Gulf region would realize that they have aspirations and hopes, fears and concerns that they all share in common.  Once dialogue is opened, the nations in the region could eventually create a commitment to non-aggression among themselves and eliminate the need for an arms race.

Here is another quote from Javad Zarif from October 2017 regarding Iran's relationship with Saudi Arabia:

"There is a willingness for rapprochement on both sides, and we are willing to talk to Saudi Arabia about our difference.  We do not believe that Iran and Saudi Arabia should have the type of relationship they have right now...

We believe the posture in the Persian Gulf by Saudi Arabia is not a positive one, (like) the policies they pursue against Qatar.  The concepts they are using to muddy the waters, policies that have brought unfortunate disastrous consequences for our region, cannot be justified by these smokescreens of exporting revolutions."

In recent remarks from Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi who is responding to Washington's recent comments on the links between Iran and terrorism:

"Today the country’s (United States) officials are explicitly, blatantly and with an unprecedented shamelessness promoting a new pattern of defending human rights based on the size of the arms contracts they sign with others, under the banner of deceptive humanitarian slogans and human rights outcries...   

To this end, the US officials give the green light to some of their anti-human allies to slaughter millions of innocent people including women and children in some regional states, to bring them years of drought and disease, and to bomb their schools, hospitals, and their wedding or mourning ceremonies with cutting-edge fighter jets."

Here is a quote from Iran's Prime Minister Hassan Rouhani regarding Iran's relationship with its Gulf region neighbours from March 2018

"When it comes to regional security arrangements, we are ready to talk to our neighbours and friends, without the presence of foreigners…We are, have been and always will be good neighbours.

We don't need foreigners to guarantee the security of our region."

In closing, let's take a look at some of the major arms sales during 2018 by Washington (i.e. sales greater than $100 million) to its Gulf region allies as reported on the Defense Security Co-operation Agency:

In addition, there are smaller sales to Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iraq that didn't make the $100 million cutoff.

Given this information, who is it that is really creating a geopolitical quagmire in the Persian Gulf region?  Can we really blame Iran for developing weapons that can protect it from the products of America's military-industrial complex?  It certainly appears that Iran is at least making overtures to its neighbours that would lead to a lasting stability in the region, a story that receives almost no coverage in the Western media.  Washington's sale of $100 billion worth of arms to the Saudi royal family and its sales to other Gulf nations is going to accomplish one thing - it is going to make Iran's dream of a Gulf region that is independent of outside meddling a near impossibility.

American International Arms Sales and the New Conventional Arms Transfer Policy

In a recent posting entitled "How the United States Exports War", I looked at the sales of arms to foreign nations by the United States for fiscal 2018 (which ended on September 30, 2018).  According to data source from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency in that posting, the United States military-industrial complex sold a total of $59.384 billion worth of materiel and services that are designed to kill and maim humans to governments around the world.  While that may seem like a very significant expenditure, Washington is doing its best to ensure that the United States has the ability to sell even more weapons to the international market.

In July 2018, the United States Department of State announced that it was implementing a new Conventional Arms Transfer (aka CAT) policy that would align America's conventional arms sales with its national security and economic interests but very little detail was released at that time as you can see here:

The plan was to have a three-pronged approach which are little more than motherhood statements:

1.) prioritize strategic competition

2.) organize for success

3.) create conducive environments

After consulting with Congress, the military-industrial complex and the non-governmental community (whatever that is), on November 8, 2018, the Department of State announced a "fleshed out" Conventional Arms Transfer policy Fact Sheet as follows:

In case your eyes glazed over while reading the Fact Sheet, here are a few key points:

1.) the United States will seek to convince its allies and partners around the world that its products are better alternatives than what it's foreign competitors can supply.

2.) the United States will expedite and prioritize arms transfers that are deemed critical to the United States foreign policy and its national security.

3.) the United States will increase the competitiveness of American-built weapons systems that are in high demand.

4.) the United States will ensure that its arms products are both exportable and are interoperable with the arms used by its allies and partners.

5.) the federal government will improve its role as an advocate for American-built arms so it can "apply the full weight and influence of the United States in support of defense exports that are in its national interest".  Along with this, it will improve trade promotion with the goal of supporting American defense manufacturing.

6.) financing options will be developed that will support foreign procurements of American-built arms.

7.) missile technology will be modernized to reflect changing technologies with the goal of constraining the proliferation of systems that can deliver weapons of mass destruction.

Obviously, an announcement of this type would be welcomed by America's defense industry.  The Aerospace Industries Association, a trade association that represents the United States aerospace and defense industries on Capitol Hill released the following missive on the same day as the new CAT policy was announced:

Note the first sentence of the last paragraph:

"History shows that American military strength plays a vital role in keeping the world prosperous and stable".  

Apparently the writer of the press release seems to have forgotten all about the Korean War, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War plus numerous smaller "skirmishes" in Libya and Syria among others.

As well, Eric Fanning, President and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association made the following remarks in response to the CAT policy announcement:

"U.S. industry looks forward to continuing to work in partnership with the government on a modern defense trade system that supports America and our partners and allies as we face the threats of the 21st century.”

Apparently, Washington can never sell too much war to too many nations at a rapid enough rate and the military-industrial complex can never make enough profit from its inventions that kill and maim.