The Saudi-US Axis and its tethering of self-determination
Saudi Arabia today issued a ban against public marches and protests, claiming that such acts are anti-Islamic. It’s obvious that their preemption of anti-government sentiment in response to revolutions taking place across the region remains the central reason behind their ban. They have reason to be afraid, and their fear underscores the contradictions between the majority of the people’s will, the monarchy’s rhetoric of upholding Islamic values, and the monarchy’s foreign policy. Such a contradiction, although profitable for the elite in control of various lobbies – namely the arms and oil lobbies – has bred a viral thread throughout the region (and arguably, throughout the sphere of global security) primarily since the 1970s, when the United States and Saudi Arabia incited a form of Islam which they today accuse of being the target and instigator of the War on Terror. The truth is that the viral thread, simply put, is the encouragement of delusion; as opposed to being honest with the people, the Saudi government, due to its contradicting stances and the lack of alignment between its stated values and policies, actively coerces the masses. This trend has existed throughout the Middle East though in varying forms, and seems to be the foundational reason behind the revolutions taking place.
What happens in Saudi is important. Saudi is the US’s second-largest military client, coming second only to Israel, which on the surface of things seems to be the monarchy’s archenemy. Isn’t it funny how that works? The country defined as the nest from which Islamic extremism has taken flight, is the same country that produces the largest amount of oil in the world, which the United States pays for with military hardware. Just last year, the US and Saudi Arabia signed a 20-year plan worth over 60 billion US dollars, and reports have said that the deal is one of the largest ever made by the United States to one country. Surely it secures Saudi reliance on the United States for protection against the monarchy’s vulnerability to Iran , as well as to upheavals in Yemen which could threaten an influx of migrations at the border, and emphatically, to the US’s reach on Saudi’s control over the current of political Islamic extremism. If we just pause for a second and take a look back into history – the very same Al Qaeda which the US claims to be the target to its War on Terror – was created by US-Saudi policy makers who armed mujahideen in the 1970s against communist forces during the Cold War. Another pause for thought: to control extremism in one country by ensuring its government’s militarization and reliance on the United States, is to strip that government of credibility in the eyes of its people; to strip it of the promises it made to its people – promises of dignity in the form of upholding Islamic principles, and promises of those Islamic principles being the highest priority. Extremism of any kind is often reactive, and is constructed by elements in society who feel degenerated by their governments due to the reality that their leaders care more about their relationship to powerful foreign elements – the United States – than they do about the people’s struggle to understand their own identity. Saudi Arabia is a large country with varying ethnic, sectarian and geographical landscapes, and no elected parliamentary body to represent them.
Such militarization enables US clout in Saudi Arabia, strengthens their relationship financially, and makes it more difficult to give incentive for the monarchy to listen to its people’s needs because at best, the people’s needs would bring the contradictory structure right to its knees, and a weakened Saudi Arabia is truly in no one’s interest. However, a strong Saudi Arabia, one that need not give money to its people to ensure their contentment – as Saudi Arabia has just done to quell the possibility of an uprising – would mean facing the virus, and locating its antidote. Relationships are certainly complex things, and the US-Saudi rendezvous is no exception, however, what message are the masses in the Middle East meant to receive when the beacon of democracy symbolized by the United States, stages “core theatre wars” in some country’s in the name of democracy, and does businesses with others who blatantly have no interest in democracy. Forget democracy and theory for now, for one second, and lets talk simple math: If you want to stop the anger, you’ve gotta find out why it’s there. And you’ve gotta listen.
The people are no longer willing not to be heard. That’s been made very clear.
– Love in a Box