Saudi Arabia says "NO" to free speech

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110305/ts_nm/us_saudi_protests

and Americans will continue to say "YES" to Saudi oil.

soo much for our commitment to democracy, freedom, and liberty.

[Darth Rotor]

Saudi Arabia says "NO" to free speech

In other news, summers in Death Valley are terribly hot.

[LashL]

And Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

[Thunder]

well, maybe we need to stop supporting dictatorships.

[MG1962]

Got them in the office pool for next bunch of crooks to get run out of town

[theprestige]

well, maybe we need to stop supporting dictatorships.

Maybe dictatorships need to stop having positions of power and influence in the world, such that it is impossible to pursue one's own national interests without making some kind of deal with some kinds of dictatorships.

Personally, I'm all for giving the dictatorships of the world their walking papers, by force if necessary, whatever the cost, annexing their territories, and giving their oppressed peoples the same deal the US gives Puerto Rico.

But nobody ever seems to want to talk about real opposition to dictatorships in positions of power and influence.

[angrysoba]

well, maybe we need to stop supporting dictatorships.

I know. I would happily see the end of the Saudi regime but I know what will happen if the US/The West puts them on some kind of pariah list. They'll be accused of fostering the very oppressive nature of the regime by being hostile to it.

If you look at relations between the US and, say, Cuba or North Korea, the criticism tends to be "The US is so mean to those countries and because it doesn't trade with them or even talk to them and refuses to support their economy is it any surprise at all that they oppress their peoples blah, blah, blah..."

If you look at places like Saudi Arabia (probably one of the most oppressive regimes in the world) or Uzbekistan the US is criticized for its tolerance or very mumbled protests of those countries' oppressive nature.

Or with Libya or Iraq they are wrong for at some point persuing both policies.

I'd happily see a more consistent line and be hostile to all oppressive regimes and seek out other ways of achieving national interests. (For example, lots more nuclear power stations and closing down and not building any more oil-fired power stations - a grotesque waste of a scarce resource).

But the point is that there is nothing that the US can actually do without attracting the ire of a certain political class. IF US does X it is wrong because the US does it. If the US does -X it is wrong because the US does it.

I'd prefer to see a less simplistic analysis if possible.

What say you Thunder?

[PogoPedant]

If you look at relations between the US and, say, Cuba or North Korea, the criticism tends to be "The US is so mean to those countries and because it doesn't trade with them or even talk to them and refuses to support their economy is it any surprise at all that they oppress their peoples blah, blah, blah..."

This is anecdotal at best, but my impression is that the critisism you're mentioning never applies to US-NK relations, although it is often appiled to US-Cuban relations.

[Corsair 115]

...and Americans will continue to say "YES" to Saudi oil.


U.S. crude oil imports from Saudi Arabia in thousands of barrels, 1993-2009. The figure in parentheses is the percentage of total crude oil imports. Data comes from the EIA:

1993: 467,753 (18.9%)
1994: 473,356 (18.4%)
1995: 459,826 (17.4%)
1996: 456,896 (16.6%)
1997: 472,093 (15.7%)
1998: 512,452 (16.1%)
1999: 506,272 (15.9%)
2000: 557,569 (16.8%)
2001: 588,075 (17.3%)
2002: 554,500 (16.6%)
2003: 629,820 (17.9%)
2004: 547,125 (14.8%)
2005: 527,287 (14.3%)
2006: 519,236 (14.1%)
2007: 528,189 (14.4%)
2008: 550,276 (15.4%)
2009: 357,874 (10.9%)

In numeric terms, the amount of crude oil imported from Saudi Arabia peaked in 2003; in 2009 the number had dropped by 43%. That's a sizable reduction. In terms of the percentage of total U.S. crude oil imports, it has fallen from 18.9% to 10.9%. Also a sizable reduction.

(Preliminary figures for 2010 are 394,280 imported from Saudi Arabia, 11.8% of the total.)

For comparison's sake, in 2009 the U.S. imported 709,106 thousands of barrels of crude oil from Canada, 21.6% of all imports. (Preliminary figures for 2010 are 719,698 imported, 21.5% of all imports.)



The U.S. also imports crude oil from other nations which are 'not free' (according to Freedom House's rankings) such as Angola, Algeria, Cameroon, and United Arab Emirates.

[Bill Thompson]

well, maybe we need to stop supporting dictatorships.

Where do you draw the line between a dictatorship and whatever else you have in mind? What if most of the people in the dictatorship love the dictator?

[angrysoba]

This is anecdotal at best, but my impression is that the critisism you're mentioning never applies to US-NK relations, although it is often appiled to US-Cuban relations.

Well, anecdotally I have also heard people who consider themselves informed on politics saying, "North Korea might be bad, I suppose, but that's because of America's presence in South Korea. They used to have lots of food and a thriving economy but the US has turned them into a garrison state." etc...

And these opinions do have some "academic" support from people like Bruce Cumings who argues that the US have been footdragging on normalization talks. He seems to favour the "Sunshine Policy" which was Kim Dae Jung's attempts to find peace on the peninsula through dialogue and concessions. Clinton also forged the Framework Agreement with the Kims which was to provide lightwater nuclear reactors in exchange for more openness about NK's nuclear programme. In contrast the Bush administration cancelled the Framework Agreement suspecting that the North Koreans were in violation of it by processing uranium (a suspicion that seems to have been vindicated now by the North Koreans themselves).

Another expert on North Korea, Selig Harrison, believes that the US should offer more concessions to the North Korean regime because he fears that the hardliners are more likely to take power. (I've not really understood this one but it seems Harrison considers Kim Jong-il to be somewhat dovish and Harrison blames all provocations or acts of aggression by North Korea on these phantom hardliners even when North Korean state media brags about these acts). His advice is to give Kim Jong-il what he wants to keep the hardliners in the regime from ascending to power. Where does he hear of these tussles for power? Why, he is told about them on his many trips to the country and it is whispered in his ears that if the US doesn't start giving North Korea stuff then the hardliners will surely win and then there'll be trouble!

This kind of thing is also parrotted by Christine Ahn as well. Again, the whole, Sure North Korea does bad things. But that's because of the US' hostility to it routine.

http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/?q=node/view/519

There's one bit in Bruce Cumings' book "North Korea: Another Country" where Cumings' questions how bad the gulags really are and concludes that they're probably not as bad as US media portrays them (seriously!) before pointing out that the US has a mighty large prison population that they could sort out before criticizing North Korea.

[Thunder]

But the point is that there is nothing that the US can actually do without attracting the ire of a certain political class. IF US does X it is wrong because the US does it. If the US does -X it is wrong because the US does it.

not my problem. I want my country to stand for freedom, justice, liberty, and tolerance. supporting Saudi Arabia & China does no such thing.

[Darth Rotor]

The U.S. also imports crude oil from other nations which are 'not free' (according to Freedom House's rankings) such as Angola, Algeria, Cameroon, and United Arab Emirates.

And Nigeria. ;)
not my problem. I want my country to stand for freedom, justice, liberty, and tolerance. supporting Saudi Arabia & China does no such thing.

How's the rent in that ivory tower working out, Parky?

Argument by platitude, is one thing, but your "all or nothing" attitude is amusing.

Twenty years ago, I was one of those people utterly against increased trade with China, and particularly tech transfer. Nobody listened to the voices singing that song, as there were too many bucks to be made. GWH Bush and Bill Clinton administrations went with the money, and that momentum has been building ever since.

It was pretty easy to see who our next rivals would be when the Sovs broke up. As it works out, the reality is that the world is messy. We can, and do, stand for freedom and open society, and tolerance. That doesn't mean we are always going to get what we want. There is a political theory running about that suggests that engagement, rather than isolation, can have long term benefits of open society attitudes infecting, or spreading to, less open societies.

I'll leave the argument on whether or not that's happening with China to others, since Wolfman isn't here anymore to tell us how things are progressing along those lines.

DR

[NWO Sentryman]

not my problem. I want my country to stand for freedom, justice, liberty, and tolerance. supporting Saudi Arabia & China does no such thing.

Policymakers are aware that roleplaying the Paladin is not the best way to exercise diplomacy.

And you are aware that China has America by the throat, right? They could just call in the US debts and create another depression.

[Thunder]

And you are aware that China has America by the throat, right? They could just call in the US debts and create another depression.

I wonder what losing the USA as a major purchaser of Chinese exports, would do to the Chinese economy?

They need us as much as we need them, and I think we can definitely afford to ramp up our criticism of their pathetic human rights record, without putting their trade or our debt, in jeopardy.

[WildCat]

And Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

[NWO Sentryman]

I wonder what losing the USA as a major purchaser of Chinese exports, would do to the Chinese economy?

They need us as much as we need them, and I think we can definitely afford to ramp up our criticism of their pathetic human rights record, without putting their trade or our debt, in jeopardy.

Actually, from what i hear, china is raking in the largest trade and budget surpluses of all time while the US is in deep doo-doo wrt their deficit problems. As well as that, China has a much larger workforce and has larger growth rates.

Besdies, Obama is aware that China's gonna call in their debts if they do so much as criticise them in the UN.

[WildCat]

They could just call in the US debts and create another depression.
No, they can't.

[Corsair 115]

I wonder what losing the USA as a major purchaser of Chinese exports, would do to the Chinese economy?


Exports of goods and services to the U.S. comprised just under 58% of all its exports in 2008, according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_People 's_Republic_of_China) Wikipedia article, which cites the National Bureau of Statistics of China as the source for the data. So, clearly, the U.S. is an important trading partner.

Of course, Chinese imports comprised 16.1% of the total dollar value of all imported goods by the U.S. (Note the U.S. figure is goods only while the Chinese data says goods and services.)


They need us as much as we need them, and I think we can definitely afford to ramp up our criticism of their pathetic human rights record, without putting their trade or our debt, in jeopardy.


If the need is relatively mutual, then status quo seems a more likely outcome since neither side has any special advantage or leverage to use against the other.

[Bob Blaylock]

well, maybe we need to stop supporting dictatorships.


If we had a policy of not supporting any country that failed to live up to our standards of freedom and human rights—of not doing any business with any such country—then there would not be any other country in the world with which we could do business.

[Thunder]

If we had a policy of not supporting any country that failed to live up to our standards of freedom and human rights

strawman.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Saudi Arabia has never had anything resembling free speech. There's nothing for them to say "no" to.

[Thunder]

Saudi Arabia has never had anything resembling free speech. There's nothing for them to say "no" to.

true. i just think its worth pointing out, from time to time, that Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship and the USA supports them by buying their oil and with official support.

[Johny2x4]

And Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

I hope so. He didn´t like my country. :p

[Sword_Of_Truth]

true. i just think its worth pointing out, from time to time, that Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship and the USA supports them by buying their oil and with official support.

Second time I've agreed with you today.

I feel the sudden need to take a shower.

[Thunder]

Second time I've agreed with you today.

I feel the sudden need to take a shower.

I think you owe yourself an apology. ;)

[Virus]

not my problem. I want my country to stand for freedom, justice, liberty, and tolerance. supporting Saudi Arabia & China does no such thing.

Put that into practical terms. What do you want America to do about China and Saudi Arabia?

[Thunder]

Put that into practical terms. What do you want America to do about China and Saudi Arabia?

#1. badger them on a much more frequent basis, on their human rights record.

#2. invite the Dalai Lama for a lovely lunch & chat at the White House.

#3. reconsider China's most-favored nation trade status.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Put that into practical terms. What do you want America to do about China and Saudi Arabia?

Buy more oil from us Albertans (I'm planning an addition to my house).

[Virus]

#1. badger them on a much more frequent basis, on their human rights record.

#2. invite the Dalai Lama for a lovely lunch & chat at the White House.

#3. reconsider China's most-favored nation trade status.


Did you vote for Obama Parky? He's a foreign policy realist. He's only doing what he said he'd do.

King Abdullah is reform minded and liberal by Saudi standards. Parky of course, is outraged. Soooo outraged by America being on good terms with the King.

[angrysoba]

not my problem. I want my country to stand for freedom, justice, liberty, and tolerance. supporting Saudi Arabia & China does no such thing.

This is fine and I don't disagree with it.

But would you be in favour of the US tying human rights concerns to trade?

For example, we'll deal with you and buy your products on the condition that you do XYZ?

[Thunder]

This is fine and I don't disagree with it.

But would you be in favour of the US tying human rights concerns to trade?

For example, we'll deal with you and buy your products on the condition that you do XYZ?

the USA should not be giving most-favored nation trade status to big-time human rights abusers.

[Thunder]

Did you vote for Obama Parky? He's a foreign policy realist. He's only doing what he said he'd do.

King Abdullah is reform minded and liberal by Saudi standards. Parky of course, is outraged. Soooo outraged by America being on good terms with the King.

we invade Iraq to liberate their people from tyranny and oppression, while we play footsie with brutal dictators in Saudi Arabia and authoritarian scum in China.

and now we have the GOP leader in the Senate stating he doesn't think getting rid of Khaddafi is such a good idea, even after seeing his brutality just this week.

God shed his Grace on thee...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

the USA should not be giving most-favored nation trade status to big-time human rights abusers.

So you support the US trade embargoing the Gaza Strip and West Bank then?

[Thunder]

So you support the US trade embargoing the Gaza Strip and West Bank then?

General Israel/Palestine discussion thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=200506)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'll take that as a "yes". :D

[Virus]

we invade Iraq to liberate their people from tyranny and oppression, while we play footsie with brutal dictators in Saudi Arabia and authoritarian scum in China.


Equivalence denied.

As usual. The thread is really just a thin veneer for hatred of the US.

[MG1962]

the USA should not be giving most-favored nation trade status to big-time human rights abusers.

But you are arguing this from a lack of context. The United States has tied China's trading status to its human right since 1951. Do good the US rewards you as a trading partner. Slip ups such as Tiananmen where heavily punished. In fact China's MDN status is reviewed annualy, and it does change.

China is showing a willingness to reform and improve. Many would argue the pace of change should be faster, and I would not disagree with them. However things are getting better year by year, and thats the important element

[Thunder]

Equivalence denied.

As usual. The thread is really just a thin veneer for hatred of the US.

no Virus, demanding consistency from the United States does NOT equal "hatred fo the USA".

such an "America, right or wrong" and "America, love it or leave it", is very unsophosticated.

I love America, and I love our values. I want us to represent our values and demand our partners around the world abide by them.

Call me a fan of JFK and George W. Bush. ;)

[angrysoba]

But you are arguing this from a lack of context. The United States has tied China's trading status to its human right since 1951. Do good the US rewards you as a trading partner. Slip ups such as Tiananmen where heavily punished. In fact China's MDN status is reviewed annualy, and it does change.

China is showing a willingness to reform and improve. Many would argue the pace of change should be faster, and I would not disagree with them. However things are getting better year by year, and thats the important element

I think this is true. As much as things are still too oppressive in China, things are gradually improving. We know that things are not as bad as they were under Mao and in fact, not as bad as under Deng Xiaoping. That isn't nothing. Contrast that to say, North Korea, where things have been going backwards since the seventies.

Saudi Arabia is still very much in the dark ages and I don't know if genuine reform will come there for some time. There has been a lot of talk from people like King Abdullah and a few of the princes about reform - and a lot of talk from Washington about how the US is urging it - but with the Saudis I'll believe it when I see it and not before.

[MG1962]

Saudi Arabia is still very much in the dark ages and I don't know if genuine reform will come there for some time. There has been a lot of talk from people like King Abdullah and a few of the princes about reform - and a lot of talk from Washington about how the US is urging it - but with the Saudis I'll believe it when I see it and not before.

Yeah I agree. Personally the sooner the house of Saud falls, the better the whole world will be. A lot of professional terrorists either seem to be Saudi, or somehow are linked to money coming from there

[Johny2x4]

Equivalence denied.

As usual. The thread is really just a thin veneer for hatred of the US.

Why is it denied? It´s realpolitik sure, but it doens´t change the fact that the US (and others, FYI, Portugal sold weapons to Iraq during their war with Iran) are in bed with brutal regimes for their own benefit.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

no Virus, demanding consistency from the United States does NOT equal "hatred fo the USA".

He's not asking for consistency from the US, he is asking you.

And thus far, your only consistency appears to be "Whatever I can use as a club to bash the US and Israel".

[Virus]

Why is it denied? It´s realpolitik sure, but it doens´t change the fact that the US (and others, FYI, Portugal sold weapons to Iraq during their war with Iran) are in bed with brutal regimes for their own benefit.

If you think Saudi Arabia is as bad as Iraq under the genocidal Saddam Hussein you don't know anything.

[Johny2x4]

I didn´t say that, but whatever.

[KingMerv00]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110305/ts_nm/us_saudi_protests

and Americans will continue to say "YES" to Saudi oil.

America doesn't say "Yes." it says "Thank you sir, may I have another."

[Virus]

America gets a very small portion of its oil from Saudi Arabia. Most of it comes from Canada and Venezuela. That's logical given their proximity.

[Cleon]

America gets a very small portion of its oil from Saudi Arabia. Most of it comes from Canada and Venezuela. That's logical given their proximity.

Er, not quite (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html). Saudi is the #3 exporter of oil to the US, behind Canada and Mexico. Venezuela is #5.

[Corsair 115]

Er, not quite (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html). Saudi is the #3 exporter of oil to the US, behind Canada and Mexico. Venezuela is #5.


By ranking, yes. But to elaborate, in percentage terms, about 21% from Canada, 12% from Mexico, and 11% from Saudi Arabia. Canada and Mexico combined account for one-third of all imports.

[PhantomWolf]

well, maybe we need to stop supporting dictatorships.

Saudi Arabia is not a dictatorship.

[Thunder]

Saudi Arabia is not a dictatorship.


quoted for all-time. :p

what do you call it.....a representative democracy?

lolololol

[MarkCorrigan]

the USA should not be giving most-favored nation trade status to big-time human rights abusers.

So which countries would you eliminate?

Seriously, who would you trade with, because after a while, your list of possible trade partners is going to grow pretty damn thin.

[MarkCorrigan]

quoted for all-time. :p

what do you call it.....a representative democracy?

lolololol

It isn't a dictatorship. It's an absolute monarchy.

You do realise that there are more than two possible options right? If something isn't a representative democracy that doesn't automatically make it a dictatorship.


ETA and while we're at it, you're laughing out loud out loud out loud out loud?

[PhantomWolf]

quoted for all-time. :p

what do you call it.....a representative democracy?

lolololol

Thunder your ignorance is showing, seriously. I suggest you go and read up on Saudi Arabia. At that point you might come to a realisation about them and figure out exactly why they are better off with a monarchy than without one. I can tell you right now, if the Monachy left SA tomorrow it wouldn't be the people in charge. The Monarchy is actually a moderating force in SA. If they weren't there it's be a full blow Islamic Theocracy which would make Iran look moderate.

[Thunder]

It isn't a dictatorship. It's an absolute monarchy.

the two are not mutually exclusive.

Although, in theory, the country is an absolute monarchy (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy), in practice major policy decisions are made outside these formal governmental structures and not solely by the king. Decisions are made by establishing a consensus within the royal family (comprising the numerous descendants of the kingdom’s founder, Abdul Aziz (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud_of_Saudi_Arabia)). In addition, the views of important members of the Ulema (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Ulema) (religious scholars), leading tribal sheikhs, and heads of prominent commercial families are considered. Participation in the political process is, therefore, restricted to a relatively small number of individuals and the Saudi public as a whole is not permitted to participate, nor is it reported by the Saudi media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Politics

yep, looks kinda like a combo between Monarchy and Islamic state/dictatorship to me.

[PhantomWolf]

the two are not mutually exclusive.

Although, in theory, the country is an absolute monarchy (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Absolute_monarchy), in practice major policy decisions are made outside these formal governmental structures and not solely by the king. Decisions are made by establishing a consensus within the royal family (comprising the numerous descendants of the kingdom’s founder, Abdul Aziz (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud_of_Saudi_Arabia)). In addition, the views of important members of the Ulema (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Ulema) (religious scholars), leading tribal sheikhs, and heads of prominent commercial families are considered. Participation in the political process is, therefore, restricted to a relatively small number of individuals and the Saudi public as a whole is not permitted to participate, nor is it reported by the Saudi media

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Politics

yep, looks kinda like a combo between Monarchy and Islamic state/dictatorship to me.

So it's something that might or might not be a dictatorship which might or might not have a dictator. Is that it?

[Thunder]

So it's something that might or might not be a dictatorship which might or might not have a dictator. Is that it?

is that what you get from the article I posted?

interesting...

[KoihimeNakamura]

It's what I got. :|

(Incidently, Thunder, there are other reasons why people do not want to remove Kadaffi that may be more pragmatic than otherwise.)

[PhantomWolf]

is that what you get from the article I posted?

interesting...

So can you point out who the dictator is?

[Thunder]

So can you point out who the dictator is?

are you aware of the fact that this was originally NOT my claim?

[PhantomWolf]

are you aware of the fact that this was originally NOT my claim?

It wasn't?

well, maybe we need to stop supporting dictatorships.

I guess you really meant "well, maybe we need to stop supporting Theocratically controlled Absolute Monarchies" then, right?

[NWO Sentryman]

Thunder, you are aware that the US deciding to base their foreign policy on a 2nd ed Paladin's character sheet would absolutely ruin them, especially as China could just either call in, or sell US bonds and debts, and Saudi Arabia could just stop the oil flow?

[PhantomWolf]

Thunder, you are aware that the US deciding to base their foreign policy on a 2nd ed Paladin's character sheet would absolutely ruin them, especially as China could just either call in, or sell US bonds and debts, and Saudi Arabia could just stop the oil flow?

Which would like harm those of us down here in Down Under, and up in Asia than it would the US.

[Nosi]

Did you vote for Obama Parky? He's a foreign policy realist. He's only doing what he said he'd do.

King Abdullah is reform minded and liberal by Saudi standards. Parky of course, is outraged. Soooo outraged by America being on good terms with the King.

King Abdulla's health is in the crapper, so we have to consider what the next guy is gonna do.

[Nosi]

quoted for all-time. :p

what do you call it.....a representative democracy?

lolololol

It's a Monarchy of the very old fashioned kind. Rule is passed down by blood kinship.

[Bill Thompson]

Is free speech allowed in Islam? I am just asking.

[angrysoba]

Is free speech allowed in Islam? I am just asking.

Death to the Blasphemer!!!!1!!!1!

I'm just joking.

[Nosi]

Is free speech allowed in Islam? I am just asking.

Those Muslim countries with Secular governments are more tolerant of free speech. Muslim governments with religious governments you can pretty much forget it if your speech doesn't tow the religious/political line. If you are female, you better dress to code too.

[tyr_13]

It isn't a dictatorship. It's an absolute monarchy.

You do realise that there are more than two possible options right? If something isn't a representative democracy that doesn't automatically make it a dictatorship.


ETA and while we're at it, you're laughing out loud out loud out loud out loud?

No, he's laughing out loud or laughing off Lou of London.

I mean, keep up with the internet slang man. IDVSBW