The writer is the Foreign Editor of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald.
King Salman of Saudi Arabia, who came to the throne almost a year ago, is one of seven brothers by the same mother. As soon as he took power on the death of his half-brother Abdullah, he made sure that the next two men in line to the throne were from his section of the royal House of Saud – second in line was his own young son, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and first in line was his late full brother’s son, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef.
These three men confronted a region rocked by the upheavals of the Arab Spring in Syria, Yemen and Egypt, as well as a world economy that no longer looked to them as the chief source of its fossil fuels.
On top of all this, the Arab Spring had emboldened those in their kingdom who sought a greater voice in political affairs – chief among them the long-suppressed Shiite minority.
The execution of Nimr Baqir al-Nimr, an elderly cleric and one of the leading voices of that minority, is more than simply a criminal punishment. It is a political signal from Saudi Arabia’s royal triumvirate to the kingdom’s internal and external rivals. And that signal can be summed up in the words of King Salman’s late brother, Prince Nayef: “What we won by the sword, we will keep by the sword.”
The first two places where this signal’s reverberations will be felt are Iran and Bahrain. The Iranians are of course one of the dominant powers of the Middle East, wrestling with Saudi Arabia in Yemen and Syria and already with the upper hand in Lebanon and Iraq. They will now understand that where Saudi power prevails, dissident Shiites can expect no quarter.
That means that international talks aimed at ending the conflicts in Syria and Yemen have both become immeasurably more difficult from today.
Bahrain, a tiny island nation linked to Saudi Arabia’s east coast by a causeway, is governed by a Sunni monarchy with close ties to the Saudis. But the majority of its population are Shiites. They too rose up during the Arab Spring of 2011, and Riyadh responded by sending in troops to enforce quiet while the Bahraini regime demolished the Pearl Roundabout which had been the focus of protests for greater political rights.
Bahraini Shiites will know that the sword now hangs over their heads too.
Inside Saudi Arabia, there will be young Shiites who – caught between the predictable oppression of the Saudi regime and the unpredictable threat of jihadist attacks by Islamic State and its ilk – will decide that the death of Nimr signals the end of attempts to change their circumstances by dialogue or protest. They too may look to the sword – and to Iran – to open a way out of their misery.
For Shiites around the world, Nimr is the latest in a long line of martyrs at the hands of tyrannical rulers. They will recall the proverbial utterance of their inspiration, the Prophet Muhammad’s son-in-law Ali bin Abi Talib, that “the day of the oppressed over the oppressor is more severe than the day of the oppressor over the oppressed”.
In Egypt, the Arab Spring brought democratic elections and the downfall of long-serving dictator Hosni Mubarak. The Saudis were amazed and appalled when their allies in Washington proved unwilling to back Mr Mubarak to the hilt. They were even more horrified when the Obama White House pursued dialogue and a deal with Iran over its nuclear program.
The Saudi response has been to freelance a new, far more aggressive policy across the region, leading a coalition to invade and bombard Yemen and bankrolling the return of military rule in Egypt, which is now effectively a wholly-owned subsidiary of Saudi Arabia.
The president who won Egypt’s democratic elections – Mohamed Morsi – also waits in jail under a sentence of death, along with many other leaders of the now-outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. The execution of Nimr surely brings the clock closer to midnight for all of those men, with potentially dire consequences for Egyptian society.
The voices of all those in the Middle East who argue for a civic space that allows opposition voices and demands accountability from rulers have been weakened by this draconian act.
More worryingly, the voices of those who argue that the sword of the state only understands one language – that fire can only be fought with fire – have been strengthened, making bloodshed and violence more likely not only for Saudi Arabia and its interests around the world but for all those who are allies and business partners of the House of Saud. And that could mean many Western countries.
The poet John Donne said it best: “Every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.”
Whether we like it or not, the bell that tolled for Nimr Baqir al-Nimr tolls loudly for all of us. We cannot afford to let it pass unheeded. http://www.smh.com.au/world/saudi-arabias-royal-triumvirate-have-put-their-faith-in-the-sword-20160103-glyc0i.html
The Saudis talk the talk — again: by Irfan Husain in Dawn, January 4th, 2016
It’s not often that I agree with the militant Islamic State group, but when that vicious group labelled the recently announced alliance of Muslim states a collection of ‘buffoons and idiots’, there was a kernel of truth in the statement.
When Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defence Minister Mohammed bin Salman announced the formation of this alliance, he caused bewilderment among many of the members, and derision in much of the world. What he did not cause, however, is fear among either the IS, or in any other terrorist group.
Consider the composition of the alliance: Uganda, Gabon, Benin and Togo do not have Muslim majority populations. States like Comoros, Ivory Coast and Maldives — while no doubt estimable — are not renowned for their military might. Indonesia — with the world’s largest Muslim population — has announced that it has nothing to do with the alliance. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are not included. And Pakistani foreign ministry officials said they only found out about the Saudi pipe dream from the media.
So clearly, there is no reason for jihadists to quake in their boots at the prospect of such a fighting force. Not, of course, that the alliance will be doing any fighting. Its self-proclaimed leader, Saudi Arabia, has not exactly covered itself with glory on any battlefield, preferring to pay the Americans and others for protection. While happy to bomb an impoverished and defenceless country like Yemen to rubble from the safety of the air, it has avoided the dangers of a ground war.
So what prompted the Saudis to announce this hare-brained scheme without serious consultations that such an enterprise clearly needed? As it stands today, the concept is an unclear statement of vague intent rather than a well-considered plan of action. It appears that the Saudis, under American pressure to take more vigorous action against IS following the Paris and California attacks, have resorted to the classic bureaucratic manoeuvre of forming a committee.
This is what governments do when pressed by the public to do something in response to a crisis: an inquiry committee is set up, giving the impression of activity. It meets infrequently, and by the time its report is finished, people have forgotten about its existence. Similarly, an alliance has been announced, but as it is not underpinned by any planning or structure, nothing will come of it, except perhaps a few free umrahs for bureaucrats and generals. Meanwhile, the Americans will have been reassured that things are happening, and the Saudis stand shoulder to shoulder with them in their fight against extremist terrorism.
Meanwhile, the source of much of this jihadi violence is alive and well in the kingdom in the form of the virulent Wahabi/Salafi ideology exported by the Saudis to the rest of the Muslim world. It also resonates over the internet to poison the minds of feeble-minded young Muslims living in the West. Despite mounting evidence of the Saudi role in the increasing violence and chaos being created by extremist groups and individuals, the West remains silent; this silence is tantamount to complicity in an ongoing criminal campaign that has caused havoc in many Muslim countries above all.
So why is Washington keeping quiet when their own diplomats and intelligence agencies regularly report on the obvious Saudi link to terrorism? Firstly, Saudi Arabia remains a crucial ‘hinge producer’ of oil, meaning that its output determines the price and volume of oil on the international market. Should it curtail output significantly — as it did in 1973 — high oil prices would cause an immediate global recession.
Secondly, by buying large numbers of modern Western weapons systems, the Saudis keep the unit price down for the manufacturing countries as a large production run means lower prices. Of course, most of these weapons are only used to control their population, and bomb defenceless states like Yemen. Much of the time, they sit in the sun until they are replaced by the latest shiny toys.
Finally — and most importantly — the West is terrified of what might fill the vacuum caused by the departure of the Saudi royal family. After witnessing the chaos caused by the Arab Spring, there seems renewed Western support for the medieval theocracy that runs the kingdom. “Better the devil we know than the devil we don’t” seems to be the current Western mantra.
And it’s true that a power vacuum in Saudi Arabia would destabilise the entire region, beginning with the Gulf emirates. The oil and financial markets would go into a tailspin, and the control of Saudi oilfields in hostile hands could spell disaster for the global economy.
But there are ways of bringing pressure to bear on the Saudi ruling aristocracy that fall short of getting rid of them. The funding of jihadi groups by Saudi businessmen and charities could be brought under greater scrutiny, for example. Visas for Saudi princelings to the gambling casinos and fleshpots of the Western world could be tightened. And financing of madressahs across the Muslim world could be blocked.
However, all this requires political will, and thus far at least, the West, led by Washington, has shown no inclination to take on the Saudis. Meanwhile, the farce of the 34-nation Islamic alliance to fight terrorism will continue, even though it fools nobody. The Saudis will continue to avoid sending soldiers to fight the IS, thereby continuing their proud tradition of talking the talk, but not walking the walk. http://www.dawn.com/news/1230534/the-saudis-talk-the-talk-again
Comments are closed.