Tag: Saudi Arabia
Divided
The midterms confirmed what we all knew: the United States remains sharply divided. Democrats won the House, though without the landslide Blue Wave they had hoped for. Republicans held the Senate, with a few gains for which President Trump will take credit (and may even declare a Red Wave). Democrats would have won many more seats in the House were representation proportional to their votes. But gerrymandered districts give the Republicans a boost in seats that is greater than their votes.
Winning the House is a big deal. Democrats will now have the power in the House to convene hearings and subpeona witnesses in order to investigate Administration malfeasance, which has been endemic. But Republicans will continue to approve Trump-appointed judges and other officials in the Senate. Legislation will be difficult for both parties. The next two years may amount to little more than a prolonged and painful campaign for the presidential election in 2020.
The House Democrats are expected to lean against continuing support for the Saudi/Emirati war in Yemen, against Vladimir Putin’s various efforts to project power, and against war with Iran and other American adventures abroad. Those positions may get some headlines, but the Administration can still do pretty much as it wants, unless Republicans join with Democrats in passing legislation to back up their preferences. The President retains control over foreign policy.
House investigations of the Administration may produce the most important results from these midterms. If, as many of us suspect, Trump real estate ventures have relied heavily on Russian money-laundering, that will come out. So too will any “dirt” the Russians may have on Trump. The Special Counsel investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, which would have been in peril had the Republicans retained control of the House, is likely now the least of Trump’s worries.
The Democrats are still fighting an uphill battle. There are some important races undecided, including Stacey Abrams’ bid in Georgia to become the first black woman to be elected governor. But both Beto O’Rourke, the Democrats high hope for Senate in Texas, and Andrew Gillum, their strong candidate for governor in Florida, lost. They can be comforted by a string of victories in the Midwest and Pennsylvania, where court-ordered redistricting undid Republican gerrymanders.
The election confirmed that Trump now owns the Republicans. Those who wholeheartedly backed Trump on the whole won. Those who tried to distance themselves from the President generally lost. With the retirement of several Republicans who were occasionally critical of the White House, Trump is set to command his party with little to no opposition. He will be emboldened, not chastened.
So divided we are, a bit more than the day before yesterday. I doubt we will fall, but we won’t exactly stand either. America divided is America unmoored. The consequences aren’t likely to be good.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Your Saturday video, delayed
I spent a few minutes Saturday with CGTN answering questions about statements at the Manama Dialogue as well as the French/German/Russian/Turkish meeting on Syria in Istanbul:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Cancer of the status quo
The Carnegie Endowment for Middle East Peace hosted two panels on Tuesday for the release of their new study Arab Horizons: Pitfalls and Pathways to Renewal. The report was the second major installment within the Arab Horizons project launched by Carnegie 3 years ago. William Burns, president of Carnegie, introduced the report and discussed the history of the Arab Horizons project, saying, “the object was straightforward, if ambitious: to look beyond the tumult around us, to the long-term trajectory of the region, its people and its place in the world. What we wanted to offer was an updated picture of the human and political landscapes of the region, building less on pronouncements and prescriptions from Washington, and more on the perspectives from Carnegie’s network across the Arab world.”
“The Arab regional order is collapsing: politically, economically, socially even. We don’t have answers to any of these questions, but… lets go back to first principles and try to provide a road map for leaders, policy makers, activists and citizens.”
– Perry Cammack
The first report, Arab Fractures, Burns described as an updated assessment of the Middle East, “by the region, for the region, for all those with a stake in its future.” The latest installment, Pitfalls and Pathways to Renewal, offered a set of principles and recommendations, “to address the stark diagnosis” in the first report.
Burns acknowledged Jamal Kashoggi as one of the project’s partners and addressed his abduction and murder as indicative of the lack of tolerance for “stubborn, independent journalists, unafraid to speak truth to power” within the current social contract of the Arab world. “It’s a region where authoritarians feel the wind in their sails, and it is a time where democracies around the world, including my own, are adrift and losing their way.” Burns lamented ailing institutions and the increasing politics of fear, but, “all of this reminds us of the urgent task of rewriting the social contract in the Arab world.” Social contract was the buzzword of the day throughout a discussion which was at turns hopeful for the talents of the Arab people and scathingly critical of the leadership from their governments.
The first discussion featured Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights 2014-2018 and former Jordanian Ambassador to the US, and moderator Marwan Muasher, vice president for studies at Carnegie and former Jordanian foreign minister. Reminiscing with each another, Zeid laughed over past tensions between two career civil servants who shared a vision for the future of their country, but at times disagreed on how to get there. He shared with the crowd how after his retirement from the civil service he and Marwan sat down over ceviche in New York to chat, and Marwan took the opportunity to ask him, “How many of my instructions as foreign minister do you think you actually implemented as the ambassador?” “For you, my friend” Hussein replied, “maybe 70%.”
Hussein communicated through anecdotes, walking through pivotal moments and realizations in his career which shaped his outlook on the region and the world. Again and again his stories homed in on key policy grievances in the Middle East: lack of commitment to individual rights and free thought. This problem is symptomatic of an incomplete transition from tribal to modern states and a stubborn unwillingness by Arab politicians to call a spade a spade or confront their failures.
The second panel featured Marwan Muasher again, along with Perry Cammack, a fellow in the Middle East program at Carnegie, both contributors to the report, along with Rabah Azreki, chief economist for the Middle East and North African Region at the World Bank and Hala Aldosari, a researcher and scholar on human rights and women’s health at the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice. Elise Labott, CNN’s global affairs correspondent, moderated.
“The Arab world has two choices and two choices only: either the headache of change or the cancer of the status quo”
– Marwan Muasher
Discussion reverted repeatedly to stagnation and change, locked in conflict. The oil economy has long sustained rentier states, headed by leaders who resisted change as a matter of principal. As oil prices drop, the social bargains they supported are buckling, explaining the events Muasher described as the last kick of authoritarianism in the region. It all led neatly to one pressing need: to renew the social contract in the Arab world in a way that puts citizens first.
The West errs in seeing each new generation of the old guard as reformers. Symbolic gestures along the lines of Saudi Arabia allowing women the right to drive, even while imprisoning Saudi activists who advocated those reforms, are evidence of an empty promise designed to stall the will of the people, not further it. The idea that change in the Middle East needs to be led by authoritarian reformers is false. In fact the people have been leading.
As the discussion swayed between hope and fear for the near future of the Arab world, a central narrative emerged: the Arab world desperately needs change, the people know this, and yet as change hurtles towards them at frightening speed, the current political leaders cling desperately and futilely to the status quo. A diverse wealth of human capital promises to hold the keys to that change if their leaders will only invest in them and hand them the reins. What remains to be seen is if change will be given or taken.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Murder and politics
Everyone now agrees that Jamal Khashoggi was murdered after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul early this month. It was a planned operation involving more than a dozen people that concluded with the disposal of his body, which has not yet been found.
The main remaining question is who ordered the murder. It is hard to imagine that such an operation could be conducted without authorization from the Crown Prince. It is almost as hard to imagine that he would risk authorizing it. Turkey, the US, and Saudi Arabia appear to be converging on the former explanation: this was, they seem to be saying, a rogue operation. That would let the Crown Prince off the hook for murder, but still raise serious questions about his control over the security forces.
That said, Mohammed bin Salman is amazingly popular among youth in Saudi Arabia and in the Arab world more generally. You can attribute part of this popularity to autocracy: who in Saudi Arabia wants to risk giving the wrong answer to an interviewer after what happened to Jamal? But it also reflects the thirst of Saudis and young Arabs elsewhere for strong leadership and change. The Crown Prince is really unique in the Arab world: a young leader with power committed to pursuing economic and social (definitely not political) reform.
Political murder is also an issue today in the US. Twelve pipe bombs were sent this week to Democrats who have born the brunt of President Trump’s attacks. Whether they were designed to detonate is not the issue. They clearly were designed to intimidate. After an initial scripted reaction, President Trump has reverted to blaming the news media for the pipe bombs, thus trying to divert criticism from his own advocacy of violence against adversaries. He says he likes politicians who can body slam their opponents.
Some Americans are also looking for strong leadership and change. President Trump’s approval ratings are nowhere near Mohammed bin Salman’s, but they are sticking around 40% or a bit higher. Trump’s predominantly white and male base likes his opposition to immigration, his tariffs, his Supreme Court nominees, his misogyny, his white nationalism, his lies about providing health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, and his tax cuts for the wealthy, all of which they believe will make America great again.
I would like to think that those who tolerate, approve, or inspire violence against their political enemies will not be rewarded. In Saudi Arabia, that will be up to the King, who is unlikely to unseat his favorite son. In the US, it will be decided on November 6, at the polls. It is time for Americans to stand up and be counted against violence in politics.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Thinking things through
The evidence is building that the murder of Jamal Khashoggi was not an accident or the result of a fight but rather a planned operation. The Turks have made available video of a “body double” dressed in Jamal’s clothes (unsullied by a fight) leaving the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. This comes on top of other hints: the presence of up to 15 Saudis sent to the consulate for the occasion, the identity of at least one of these as close to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS), allegations about the professions of some of the others, and suggestions that the Saudis scouted locations where a body might be hidden near Istanbul.
All of this needs to be received with some skepticism. It is coming from the Turkish government, which is gunning for MbS and has its own malfeasances to account for, including the jailing hundreds of journalists and the beating demonstrators in Washington by President Erdogan’s security agents. Those who come to equity should do so with clean hands, but those are hard to come by in the Middle East.
Still, the question of why the Trump Administration is doing its best to stay close to the Saudi royal family is a valid one. Let me count the reasons:
- The White House needs the Saudi Arabia for its campaign against Iran.
- Especially important is the Kingdom’s ability to blunt a further rise in oil prices as sanctions are reimposed on Iran two days before the November 6 mid-term election.
- Without the pressure the Kingdom can bring to bear on the Palestinians, there is no hope at all for Jared Kushner to produce the “deal of the century” with Israel that President Trump has promised.
- The Americans also need Saudi Arabia for the fight against jihadi terrorism, including the financial constraints that Treasury Secretary Mnuchin discussed with MbS this week even after cancelling his appearance for an investment conference.
There are two other factors personal to Trump:
- Purchases of and investment in Trump real estate, about which the President has bragged in public.
- Weapons deals, which Trump claims total an entirely mythical $110 billion (there is no evidence they have amounted so far to more than $5 billion, much of it agreed under President Obama).
What it all adds up to is a powerful incentive to maintain relations with Saudi Arabia as best can be done under the circumstances.
Congressional reaction to Jamal’s death has focused on the war against Iranian-supported Houthis in Yemen, about which there are doubts on both sides of the aisle. The Washington Post wants to end American support for the Saudi/Emirati campaign, which depends heavily on US intelligence, equipment, maintenance, and supplies.
But no one seems to have thought this idea through to its manifold consequences. What would ending US support mean for the Houthi threat to shipping in the Red Sea and to its southern choke point, the Bab al Mandeb? What would it mean for the American drone and special operations attacks on Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula? What would it mean for southern secessionist sentiment, which has been growing even as southerners carry a big part of the burden of fighting against the Houthis? What would it mean for humanitarian relief, stabilization, and reconstruction in Yemen, the poorest and now one of the most devastated countries in the Middle East?
If Jamal’s death teaches nothing else it should at least be a lesson in making sure we think things through before taking action.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trapped
Secretary of State Pompeo spent Tuesday in Riyadh, where he helped the King and Crown Prince shore up their claim that they knew nothing of the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi from the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. The King’s ignorance may be believable. Mohammed bin Salman’s is not, if the Turkish claim is true that members of his security entourage were among the Saudis who assembled at the consulate the day Khashoggi was killed and left quickly thereafter. We’ll need to await the official results of the Turkish investigation to be sure of that.
But what we know already is that the US administration has chosen to back the Saudi monarchy to the hilt. It needs the Kingdom for its efforts to counter Iran, fight Sunni extremists, keep oil prices down in the runup to next month’s election, and deliver the Palestinians to a less than satisfactory peace agreement with Israel. Even an American administration less concerned about arms sales and Saudi investments in Trump real estate might hesitate to lower the boom on the Saudis.
President Trump is all in with the Kingdom. He insists on the presumption of innocence and echoes the possibility it was a “rogue operation,” underlining as well that Jamal was a Saudi subject, not a US citizen. Trump says he wants to know what happened, but he hasn’t backed the Khashoggi family call for an international investigation. His interest in protecting journalists from the wave of violence engulfing much of the world is minimal. They are, after all, just “enemies of the people.” He wants this whole thing to blow over as quickly as possible.
Many in Congress on both sides of the aisle are saying they won’t let it happen. Some are calling for the Crown Prince’s head to roll (figuratively, not literally). Others want sanctions, freezing or ditching of arms deals, an end to US support for the war in Yemen, or withdrawal of the US ambassador. Conveniently, there is none–the Deputy Chief of Mission is Charge’ d’affaires. It would not be wise to leave the embassy in the hands of anyone below that level, not least because good communication with the Saudis is vital no matter what Washington decides to do.
None of this is likely to happen anyway. Foreign policy is largely a presidential prerogative. Trump likes the Saudis, who gave him a rousing welcome on his first trip overseas (remember the sword dance?). He also needs them. Son-in-law Jared Kushner’s peace plan isn’t likely to float no matter what, but without the Saudi backing it is nothing. Pushback against Iran using what has come to be termed an “Arab NATO” is meaningless without the Kingdom out front. Ditto the fight against Sunni extremism. The Saudis delivered $100 million for reconstruction in the US-occupied area of eastern Syria the day Pompeo arrived in Riyadh. Oil prices could go to $100 and more just before the November 6 election if the Saudis let it happen. They threatened as much the day after the word “sanctions” was uttered in Washington.
The American administration is trapped by its own objectives into supporting the King and Crown Prince, trying to minimize the fallout from Jamal’s disappearance, and forging ahead to ensure that the Kingdom remains the linchpin of Gulf security. We could still see some movement in Congress, perhaps in favor of an independent international investigation. But neither the monarchy nor the president would want that to happen.
I knew and liked Jamal Khashoggi, who struck me as someone genuinely supportive of the governing system in Saudi Arabia while advocating more space for freedom of expression. Even if he were a complete stranger, I would find it hard to imagine how anyone would want to do him harm for what he wrote in the Washington Post and elsewhere. If the current Turkish-leaked reports are true, or anything like them, what happened is simply unacceptable and those responsible should be held accountable.
The Americans aren’t the only ones who have trapped themselves: the Saudis have too, in a system that is unable to tolerate even moderate criticism. I hesitate to say dissent because Jamal was far from qualifying as a dissident, even if he expressed doubts about the wisdom of some royal decisions. At least in public and in private conversation, he accepted the Saudi governing system but wanted it to open up. The women who have been imprisoned for organizing the protests against the ban on driving are of the same ilk. For all our sakes, I hope the Kingdom will use this tragedy, whatever its reality turns out to be, to reflect on what is truly needed for state security, and what measures taken in the name of security are not only wrong but may cause serious harm. The Americans should join them in that reflection.
PS: Here is the The Heat episode I participated in on this subject yesterday:
RSS - Posts
