Ship of Fools: Why do we like Saudi Arabia and not Venezuela?

Thread: Why do we like Saudi Arabia and not Venezuela? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028850

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

This article from CBC points out the hypocrisy of supporting the Saudis despite their despicable human rights while mercilessly attacking countries like Venezuela for their's.

quote:
Just before the holidays, Barack Obama signed a new law punishing Venezuela's leaders for human rights violations .... The Saudis chopped off an accused sorcerer's head (along with dozens of other heads)...Washington, though, isn't quite so keen on standing with the people of Saudi Arabia in their efforts to advance rule of law... lawmakers here are far too busy attacking and sanctioning countries that commit violence America disapproves of.

It goes on to discuss that there is probably suppressed info about Saudi funding for terrorists.

What do you think? Should we just go along with this because it is real politik and necessary to be hypocritical in a dangerous world. Methinks the torture from another thread is justifiable the same way.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Of course it's hypocritical. I'm not sure how anyone can deny that, though obviously plenty do, but that's real politik for you. No doubt Saudi Arabian oil has much to do with it.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Saudi Arabian oil has a lot less to do with it than say, 5 years ago.

Most of it is simply this: the opposition to the House of Saud is Al Qaeda. The opposition to the socialist Venezuelan government is US friendly business interests.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Agreed that the Al Qaeda alternative keeps the opposition to Saudi nastiness muted.

But opposition was muted long before - I think because people fell for the romantic tosh peddled by TE Lawrence (and others) about the 'noble arab' went a lot deeper than we realise and, of course, Mr Lean made that splendid film...

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Saudi Arabian oil has a lot less to do with it than say, 5 years ago.

Most of it is simply this: the opposition to the House of Saud is Al Qaeda. The opposition to the socialist Venezuelan government is US friendly business interests.

Ah! The enemy of our enemy is our friend. No doubt true but equally bollocks too.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Saudi Arabian oil has a lot less to do with it than say, 5 years ago.

Most of it is simply this: the opposition to the House of Saud is Al Qaeda. The opposition to the socialist Venezuelan government is US friendly business interests.

While the latter is certainly true, the House of Saud is responsible for the radical Wahhabists behind Al Qaeda and has been funding them for decades. Most of the hijackers on September 11th were Saudi nationals.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

I would love for the US to cut ties with the Saudis and let them, Al-Quida, and ISIS fight each other over that barren patch of desert. As far as I am concerned, the Saudis and Al-Quida are equally bad, though ISIS is worse than either of them. The Kurds and the Isrealis seem to be the only middle eastern nations that even give lip service to human rights and democracy.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
The...Isrealis seem to be the only middle eastern nations that even give lip service to human rights and democracy.

Tell that to the Palestinians.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

Surely one difference between Venezuela and Saudi Arabia is that the former claims to be a democracy and a free society, a worker's paradise even, whereas the Saudis do not pretend to be anything other than a despotic theocracy.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
The...Isrealis seem to be the only middle eastern nations that even give lip service to human rights and democracy.
Tell that to the Palestinians.

1. I said "give lip service". There's no country in the Middle East that actually lives up to western norms.

2. Israel's Arab citizens have equal rights with Jewish Israelis, though they suffer a good deal of economic and social discrimination. The Palestinians in the occupied territories would never have come under Israeli rule if Israel's neighbors hadn't started wars of annihilation.

That said, the attitude of the Likud government to the Palestinians is utterly reprehensible, and has likely prevented a viable two-state solution.

The Kurds aren't angels either- they produce and run drugs in order to finance their insurgency, and they have engaged in terrorism and assassination in Turkey and in Iraq.

But in Israel, freedom of the press and freedom of worship are respected. And LGBT people serve in the IDF without any discrimination. Same-sex marriages are recognized on the same terms as all other nonreligious marriages.

The Kurds welcomed Christian and Yzadi refugees fleeing ISIS. They did not have to do that, and it made the areas under their control less Kurdish. That won them a lot of points in my book.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Same reasons the US gov't has cozied up to China, and pushed Cuba away. (Until recently.) We can cope with a billion Commies far away, as long as they have something we want; but we can't possibly deal with a little island of Commies/Socialists, next door.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
The Palestinians in the occupied territories would never have come under Israeli rule if Israel's neighbors hadn't started wars of annihilation.

I don't want to turn this into a thread about Israel's crimes; suffice to say that this is an incredibly one-sided way of describing what happened.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Try:

2. Israel's Arab citizens have equal rights with Jewish Israelis, though they suffer a good deal of economic and social discrimination.

Quotes file.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Surely one difference between Venezuela and Saudi Arabia is that the former claims to be a democracy and a free society, a worker's paradise even, whereas the Saudis do not pretend to be anything other than a despotic theocracy.

That is a difference, but I'm not sure it is one that matters in terms of how we treat each country.

A wife-beater who reads lots of feminist books and claims to be Sensitive Guy Of The Year is a hypocrite. A wife-beater who openly brags about how much he hates women is NOT a hypocrite. However, they both pose an equal threat to their spouses, and the police and community should deal with them in the same manner.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Going back to the original question, what is the issue? Is it,

1. The US is inconsistent and should pass laws penalising Saudi Arabia.

2. The US is inconsistent and shouldn't pass laws penalising Venezuela.

3. Thinking over to the Cuba thread, is the way the US does foreign policy valid, that one's favour is so valuable that it is a blessing that one should confer or withhold according to whether you approve or disapprove of a foreign country? After all, most other countries don't take this line.

4. Is this a noble and high principled way to do foreign policy, and other countries are base not to do it that way? - in which case the US should not have dealings with Saudi Arabia.

5. Or is it self-righteous and hypocritical? - in which case the US should not pass laws against Venezuela or, for that matter, Cuba?

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Surely one difference between Venezuela and Saudi Arabia is that the former claims to be a democracy and a free society

To an extent - but Venezuela has been rather less free in the past when ruled by various right wing governments, at that point though such hypocrisy didn't seem to excise the minds of the US government so much.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
3. Thinking over to the Cuba thread, is the way the US does foreign policy valid, that one's favour is so valuable that it is a blessing that one should confer or withhold according to whether you approve or disapprove of a foreign country? After all, most other countries don't take this line.

How did you determine that the US practice with respect to diplomatic relations is unusual?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
How did you determine that the US practice with respect to diplomatic relations is unusual?

I think you'll find that most other countries have diplomatic relations with other countries even if they don't like or approve of them, unless they are actually at war with them. I can't speak for Canada or Mexico, but I suspect they maintain relations with countries they don't necessarily like but have some sort of reason to have relations with. Obviously, not every country is going to go to the expense of maintaining embassies in far away countries of which they know nothing, but for most, it's whether there's a relevance, not whether they approve. On that basis, not much is lost by having no relations with North Korea, but quite a lot is lost by having no relations with an island 100+ miles off one's south east corner.

Yes, all countries from time to time have diplomatic spats, but most of the rest of them try to prevent actual breakdowns and to repair them when they do happen.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Venezuela and Cuba are both countries that the USA had grown to think of as to some extent client states, and when they rejected that status the US government reacted petulantly.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
How did you determine that the US practice with respect to diplomatic relations is unusual?
I think you'll find that most other countries have diplomatic relations with other countries even if they don't like or approve of them, unless they are actually at war with them.

That's the whole point of diplomacy. If you are on good terms then a consulate and trade missions will suffice. It's only when nations are at odds that diplomats are necessary.

Rather in the way that human rights are there for those we don't approve of.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

My thought is merely to see some consistency. I find it execrable that like is not treated alike. With my focus usually considering the individuals who suffer because of the differential treatment. We expect the rule of law to be consistent within our countries - and they don't but we aspire in this direction.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

Venezuela turns out some very good baseball players. Can't think of anything of value that has come from above the ground in Saudi Arabia.

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Venezuela and Cuba are both countries that the USA had grown to think of as to some extent client states, and when they rejected that status the US government reacted petulantly.

This. For more than a century we Latin Americans have been used to the fact that the US acts as an imperialist power towards us. Its not about "evil communists" It predates the cold war by decades.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Try:

2. Israel's Arab citizens have equal rights with Jewish Israelis, though they suffer a good deal of economic and social discrimination.
Quotes file.

Worthy of the quotes file for its result rather than intent?
I think Try and I might have a slightly different definition of "equal".

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Venezuela and Cuba are both countries that the USA had grown to think of as to some extent client states, and when they rejected that status the US government reacted petulantly.
This. For more than a century we Latin Americans have been used to the fact that the US acts as an imperialist power towards us. Its not about "evil communists" It predates the cold war by decades.

The US government has always liked right-wing tyrants a lot more than left-wing tyrants. As FDR said of the Nicaraguan dictator Somoza, "He may be a son of a bitch but he's our son of a bitch."

[ 07. January 2015, 17:32: Message edited by: Al Eluia ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Try:

2. Israel's Arab citizens have equal rights with Jewish Israelis, though they suffer a good deal of economic and social discrimination.
Quotes file.
Worthy of the quotes file for its result rather than intent?
I think Try and I might have a slightly different definition of "equal".

Maybe I should have qualified it as inadvertently worthy of the Quotes File. Nevertheless, it remains worthy, though YMMV.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
My thought is merely to see some consistency. I find it execrable that like is not treated alike. With my focus usually considering the individuals who suffer because of the differential treatment. We expect the rule of law to be consistent within our countries - and they don't but we aspire in this direction.

I know this thread has gone to sleep, but these two questions have been nagging at me.

1. How important actually is consistency? Is it really sufficiently important to be so for its own sake? If so, why? And

2. If it really is that important, then this question still stands open. Is it that the US is inconsistent and should pass laws penalising Saudi Arabia, or that the US is inconsistent and shouldn't pass laws penalising Venezuela. Which is it? Why?

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
My thought is merely to see some consistency.
I know this thread has gone to sleep, but these two questions have been nagging at me.

1. How important actually is consistency? Is it really sufficiently important to be so for its own sake? If so, why? And

2. If it really is that important, then this question still stands open. Is it that the US is inconsistent and should pass laws penalising Saudi Arabia, or that the US is inconsistent and shouldn't pass laws penalising Venezuela. Which is it? Why?

1)
Not as such for it's own sake. But it's a big red flag that something might be very wrong somewhere. That there is a real probability that someone is lying (possibly to themselves) about the motivation.
2)
Is a lot easier to work with once we start being honest.
Personally I'd go for a mix of the two.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

It might be to do with how much of western economies is owned by Saudi Arabia. Selling oil for 50 years - where did the revenue get invested?

Of course, we could just fluff the debt, but we also want to keep the banking system propped up. So the easiest response is not to go for Saudi Arabia, but to have a few proxy wars. It's a bit like the cold war, displaced.

[ 11. January 2015, 15:13: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
My thought is merely to see some consistency.
I know this thread has gone to sleep, but these two questions have been nagging at me.

1. How important actually is consistency? Is it really sufficiently important to be so for its own sake? If so, why? And

2. If it really is that important, then this question still stands open. Is it that the US is inconsistent and should pass laws penalising Saudi Arabia, or that the US is inconsistent and shouldn't pass laws penalising Venezuela. Which is it? Why?
1)
Not as such for it's own sake. But it's a big red flag that something might be very wrong somewhere. That there is a real probability that someone is lying (possibly to themselves) about the motivation.
2)
Is a lot easier to work with once we start being honest.
Personally I'd go for a mix of the two.

There's no problem being inconsistent provided that one does not pretend that one is being consistent when it simply isn't so.

Where there's a good reason to act favourably to A and unfavourably to B, it helps to say why and do so honestly and clearly. The art of government being what it is however, that won't happen: governments, even more than individuals and other institutions, obfuscate as a matter of course.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

I guess so but then:
either you're actions are officially 'random', in which case it's going to be hard to work with you (to the extent that you are). A bit of it probably is good, but at some point it does more damage to you.

or you are being consistent but on a deeper level (e.g. that Venezuala is nearer, more Spanish or something) that over-rules the little pattern.

Which in either case is consistent with what you said (I think), but with my view that your proviso is often ignored.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Ok, it is more complex, but say governments were completely honest about their motivations?
What, then are the reprocussions?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ok, it is more complex, but say governments were completely honest about their motivations?
What, then are the reprocussions?

None that are remotely democratic would get re-elected. Ever. Not a one of them.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
.... 2) ... Personally I'd go for a mix of the two.

Passing laws penalising foreign countries or their governments is sufficiently odd and difficult to justify that choosing a mix that is anything other than not penalising either is a different version of penalising both.

So that still raises two other questions

1. How does one justify attempting to manipulate a foreign country in this way? What grounds are so bad that one might feel one could do this? I know the EU has laws at the moment intended to penalise Russia, but when is that legitimate and when isn't it?

2. Is there any evidence that it has ever worked? There seems to have been a general acceptance on the Cuba thread that 55 years of this policy model had not achieved anything. When we did something similar to the illegal regime in what was then Rhodesia, its being forced to be more self- sufficient stimulated its economy.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
The US government has always liked right-wing tyrants a lot more than left-wing tyrants. As FDR said of the Nicaraguan dictator Somoza, "He may be a son of a bitch but he's our son of a bitch."

Well, yes, right-wing tyrants are less likely to nationalize the assets of American-based corporations.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
1. How important actually is consistency? Is it really sufficiently important to be so for its own sake? If so, why? And

It's a sign that perhaps we have a coherent and understandable foreign policy, and not one based on whim, or unstated premises.

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Where there's a good reason to act favourably to A and unfavourably to B, it helps to say why and do so honestly and clearly.

This.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
.... 2) ... Personally I'd go for a mix of the two.
Passing laws penalising foreign countries or their governments is sufficiently odd and difficult to justify that choosing a mix that is anything other than not penalising either is a different version of penalising both.

Took me a while to see what you mean.
So yes (if I were POTUS+) it would likely be technically 'penalising' both or neither.

As for part 2, this is the current state of affairs with respect to the two countries. That ship has sailed, and as my proposal is doing it less for at least one country (and as it's my understanding Saudi gets active support, probably both). If it isn't legitimate I'm moving in the right direction, and if it is then .

I'm not sure it would actually work. But you're the one proposing it to do it stronger so if I don't provide a good case I don't really care.
I do think it's easy to justify with government (and virtual government) selling tools of repression but Rwanda shows it doesn't stop it (and it could conceivably make it worse, Syria?).
I think it's much harder with things of constructive good (e.g. medicines but even tourists). Which is why I'm in favour of minimising that.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Ok, it is more complex, but say governments were completely honest about their motivations?
What, then are the reprocussions?
None that are remotely democratic would get re-elected. Ever. Not a one of them.

And what does this say about us?

Nothing good.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Try:

2. Israel's Arab citizens have equal rights with Jewish Israelis, though they suffer a good deal of economic and social discrimination.
Quotes file.
Worthy of the quotes file for its result rather than intent?
I think Try and I might have a slightly different definition of "equal".

When I say equal rights I mean equal rights under the law. Isreali arabs have the right to vote, to free speech, and their parties are represented in the Kniesset. Social and economic discrimination are another matter entirely, and have nothing to do with equality under the law.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
The US government has always liked right-wing tyrants a lot more than left-wing tyrants. As FDR said of the Nicaraguan dictator Somoza, "He may be a son of a bitch but he's our son of a bitch."
Well, yes, right-wing tyrants are less likely to nationalize the assets of American-based corporations.

Which speaks to why nationalizing corporations is necessary in some instances. A foreign country owning the assets, whether mines, oil and gas, agricultural land, if they have enough of the market, has the ability to control the economy, and thus the government. Which is why it has been felt that democratic and economic progress is specifically inhibited by American (and European) multinationals in some countries. The American concern about Chinese ownership of their economy, which is actually in proportion small, gives a small taste of the concern.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Too many Americans don't realize that the cold war is over.

Americans believe Saudi Arabia is a capitalist economy, though 80% of KSA's economy is in the hands of the government and government-run corporations. In practice, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is more of a socialist country than China is.

Americans believe Venezuela is socialist which is one step away from communist, though 32% of Venezuela's economy is in the hands of the government or government-managed corporations. This makes Venezuela much more capitalist than the UK, France or Sweden.

But the perception matters more than the reality.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
In practice, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is more of a socialist country than China is.

I'm sure ken of blessed memory would have been all over this like a rash, but I suppose I'll have to attempt to step up to the plate.

In brief: No. What are you thinking?

In longer terms: Saudi Arabia is about as far from a socialist model as is possible. To say that many of the corporations and the sovereign wealth fund are 'state owned' is to wilfully deny the nature of the state - which is an autocratic theo-monarchical dynasty dedicated to concentrating both wealth and power in the hands of a tiny minority of closely related individuals.

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Americans believe Venezuela is socialist which is one step away from communist, though 32% of Venezuela's economy is in the hands of the government or government-managed corporations. This makes Venezuela much more capitalist than the UK, France or Sweden.

In brief: No. What are you thinking?

In longer terms: State-owned corporations are not owned by Chavez, his heir or successors. They are owned by the democratically elected government of Venezuela, and are run (at least in theory) for the benefit of the people of Venezuela, rather than private individuals or corporate shareholders.

Beyond that, there are problems with the governments of both countries, but I know damn well which one I'd live in if pushed.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

Socialists believe that as far as possible everything that the state does should be accountable to and controlled by the people. They also believe that as far as possible everything that private enterprise does that affects the people should be accountable to the people as well, in particular the people who do the work.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Well at least Saudi listens to medical advice.

quote:
Saudi Arabia has postponed the public lashing of a liberal blogger on medical grounds....a doctor at a prison clinic treating the activist said his wounds had yet to heal from his first round of flogging and he would not be able to withstand another round of lashes at this time.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Or they know how to backpedal rapidly, without losing too much face, when they realise that their 'justice' system has made them look bad in the eyes of people in countries whose support they need.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

He will get the full sentence. They back-pedal on nothing.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

They've just beheaded a woman (married to a saudi, she was a Burmese national) who supposedly raped and beat her stepdaughter to death.

The beheading took place in a public car park in Mecca.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Socialists believe that as far as possible everything that the state does should be accountable to and controlled by the people. ....

Do they? I've been under the impression for the last 50+ years that socialists believe that 'the right people' the socialistically enlightened, know what's best for us and should use power to deliver what they know is good for everyone.

Or to put it a different way, what they mean by 'the people' is not what most of us think that means, but they'd rather we didn't spot the discrepancy.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

There's socialism and there's socialism (just as there's capitalism and there's capitalism). The rather Fabian kind that you describe isn't the only one available.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Venezuela turns out some very good baseball players. Can't think of anything of value that has come from above the ground in Saudi Arabia.

Several good poets, calligraphers, and architects, have come to my attention, but perhaps this doesn't have the same crowd- or media-drawing pull as do baseball players (I have noted that my daily paper has a sports section, but no poetry selection, and almost never any mention of calligraphy).

Posted by Green Mario (# 18090) on :

Saudi Arabia is more of a Kleptocracy than a socialist state surely.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've been under the impression for the last 50+ years that socialists believe that 'the right people' the socialistically enlightened, know what's best for us and should use power to deliver what they know is good for everyone.

Or to put it a different way, what they mean by 'the people' is not what most of us think that means, but they'd rather we didn't spot the discrepancy.

That's not socialism. That's social control. It is done effectively by hard core capitalists and hard core communists equally well.

Socialism in practice is cooperative where consensus more often than simple majority rules, levelling in that it wants to regulate unrestrained profitteering, and tends to raise the ideas of community and community responsibility to be considered along with individualism.

Example:
it means buying groceries at a Co-op store*, banking at a Credit Union**, and having publicly owned utilities*** (electric, natural gas, water, telephone, cellular telephone, cable TV, internet) that turn profits back to the shareholders, which is either citizens or coop members.

*Federated Coop is the buying group for 365 co-ops on the Canadian prairies[url]. It means profits go back to co-op members who are shareholders. I'm member of 3 co-ops.

** we have all sort of these. They are regulated like banks but all depositors are shareholders and profits again are turned back to members.

*** these are gov't chartered "crown corporations". The goal is to provide basic and affordable utilities to all, and to prevent cherry-picking of the profitable urban markets by large companies that have no connection to the province.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0