How the US Election will Affect Saudi Arabia
By <
http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/tanya-cariina-hsu> Tanya Cariina
Hsu
Global Research, November 06, 2012
arabia
AS the world waits, it is interesting to analyse how the results of the US
presidential election will affect Saudi Arabia.
Two primary issues concern the Kingdom most: Foreign policy toward the Arab
and Muslim world, and matters of economics and oil production. Given the
significance of the American presidency this year, a mock-debate took place
in Riyadh on Oct. 13 to learn more about the effects of the election on the
Middle East and Saudi Arabia. Organized by lawyer Amgad Husein, and
moderated by Omar Bahlaiwa, secretary-general of the Committee of
International Trade, a town-hall style meeting was held at the Four Seasons
to discuss the issues. Over one hundred enthusiastic men and women attended,
mostly Saudi, expressing their interest in the “candidates’” cases.
The Republicans (represented by Fred McClure) and Democrats (represented by
Mike McNamara) discussed foreign policy issues, the audience ready with
questions. They felt that President Obama had done little to help Syria, and
that Mitt Romney — despite the Mormon emphasis on peace and kindness — would
be more aggressive in supporting an Israeli strike on Iran, surrounded as he
was with Zionist advisers with a pro-Israeli agenda.
Concerned as to increased rhetoric from both parties against Iran, no one
wanted an attack on their neighbor, and many wondered whether a war stance
would be stepped up in lieu of sanctions. The most pressing concern was
Syria. What, the audience asked repeatedly, would each candidate do to stop
the atrocities? America should demonstrate leadership toward Damascus and
initiate a no-fly zone, not lead from behind.
As to energy production, “We’ve been more than co-operative with the global
community,” said Mr. Husein. “The audience felt that Saudi Arabia wasn’t
getting the credit it deserved.” In closing, neither candidate wowed the
audience with any demonstrable solution to events in the region or tangible
differences in position.
Generally, Republicans have favored longstanding trade commitments with
Saudi Arabia, initiated decades ago in an oil-for-security arrangement.
Regardless of the party in the White House, agreements changed little over
time barring the oil embargo of the seventies. In the past decade however,
the Republicans have become so overtly Islamophobic that the cost to trade
might be at risk if President Romney continues a path of
alienation-by-religion.
Democrats have pushed the energy issue to the fore and proclamations on game
changing recent American energy exports are used to illustrate progress.
Both sides argue for a stronger renewable energy program, and – as claimed
in every campaign of the past forty years — a need to wean away from
dependence upon Middle Eastern sources of oil. In reality, neither party
makes markedly tangible steps to change the status quo, the US is nowhere
near oil independence, and easily accessible minimally refined crude oil
will keep Americans relying on Arabian imports for decades.
For the Kingdom this matters little in the long run. If the United States
demands less oil from Saudi Arabia, there are plenty of other countries
needing Arab sweet crude. More importantly, it is in Saudi Arabia’s interest
to see a gradual decline in oil demand, viewed as a gift from God that ought
to remain in place as an insurance policy for future generations. After the
Six Day War, relations between the Kingdom and the United States temporarily
deteriorated, and weapons contracts merely went to France, Italy, Pakistan
and Great Britain instead. Likewise, there is no shortage of global oil
customers.
The Obama administration has increased threats against China, moved a
military presence closer in the Pacific, and is likely to demand more from
Sino-American negotiations that would push China closer to Saudi Arabia. And
China makes no bones about a willingness to pay premium oil prices, is not
interested in the internal policies of the Kingdom, has no argument on human
rights records, and has no care as to how Saudis pray, dress or drive.
Should Barack Obama win re-election, his policies toward the Middle East
will change little. Despite pledges of friendship during his speech in Cairo
in 2009, US strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan extended to Yemen, Somalia,
Libya and Pakistan. The latter has experienced thousands of innocent deaths
from drone strikes, throwing the most anti-American country in the world
into positions more extreme than during the Bush years. In a new BBC poll,
Pakistan was the only nation to favor a Romney victory.
If Mitt Romney wins, he will continue the drone strikes and expand target
areas. Admitting he knows little about foreign policy and that the security
of Israel is his number one goal, Romney has surrounded himself with
advisers straight from the neoconservative Bush-Cheney playbook — the same
group that insisted Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ready to
launch within minutes, had imported uranium from Niger, had been in cahoots
with Al-Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks — and who were convinced that the Iraqi
and Afghan people would welcome America with open arms and flowers.
President Obama and Mitt Romney have been in competition to outdo each other
on how each loves Israel more. US aid has remained constant, but with
unsecured loans and military contracts that are never repaid the US provides
Israel with an average of $13 billion per year.
If Romney wins, assistance will increase while aid to Egypt and other Arab
states will decline, in line with his goal to guarantee Israel’s status as
the only powerhouse in the region. According to Robert Fisk, Obama “behaved
like a dog” after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted no discussion
on Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders would take place. This is unlikely to
change during a second-term; the relationship is radioactive and both Obama
and Romney (who admitted he would ‘kick the ball down the road’ on the
issue) will do nothing to upset the Israeli leader.
Although Romney is heavily laden with neoconservatives, he has ensured that
a few realists are still within his circle. Similarly, President Obama has a
few pro-Zionists. Ex-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel worked with the
Israeli Defense Forces in 1991 during the Gulf War; Vice President Joe Biden
argues that Israel is “the single greatest strength America has in the
Middle East,” and if Iraq had been magically transported to Mars “does
anyone think there would not be terrorism visited upon the Israelis every
day?…If I were a Jew I’d be a Zionist. I am a Zionist!”
Saudi Arabia has a keen interest in the US position toward Iran. President
Romney would almost certainly increase hostilities and commit to supporting
— if not outright enabling — an Israeli strike on the country. As he
admitted, Romney would listen and take his cues from Netanyahu. If Israel
attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities, a second-term President Obama will also
commit to supporting Netanyahu. Such a catastrophe would destabilize the
entire region, so the Kingdom would clearly prefer a diplomatic resolution
to tensions.
A second-term President Obama will continue an à la carte foreign policy as
he navigates the turbulent waters of the Middle East. On Syria, the
cessation of formal ties with the Syrian National Council this week —
potentially millions poured into backing them against President Assad —
confirms a confused understanding of Arab world complexities. (A new term
coined recently in England describes such a political mess; an
‘omnishambles’.) Romney as president would do no better on Syria, so
uninformed on foreign policy as he and his vice presidential pick are.
President Obama would likely accommodate the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and
elsewhere, and remain aloof on negotiations for peace between Israel and
Palestine. Drone strikes will increase, and the US military will continue to
leave a heavy footprint around the world.
If Mitt Romney wins, a cabal of neoconservatives and Christian Zionists will
be a part of his administration in key security positions, thereby
formulating foreign policy according to “what’s best for Israel.”
Anti-Muslim rhetoric will increase. Threat from Islamists will be a pretext
for an increased military presence to prevent a “threat of attack” against
democracy.
Nevertheless, “big oil” will play an important role in a Romney Cabinet,
ensuring Saudi Arabia remains a continued regional ally.
President Obama initially praised the Arab world and promised much, but his
disappointing performance and increased attacks on the Muslim world left a
feeling of a personal betrayal of trust. In contrast, the region is acutely
aware of Mitt Romney’s hawkish stance, and in this sense forewarned is
forearmed.
In short, a second Obama term might guarantee stagnation and reticence with
a more aggressive position toward Asia; a Romney presidency might guarantee
favorable energy policies but tied to neoconservative diktats on a severe
foreign policy.
In the end, it is not necessarily how the next president reacts to Middle
Eastern issues. Rather, it is the Middle East that has gained the power to
react to — or with — the United States. By taking charge, the region poses a
threat to American hegemony, and whoever is in the White House next, this is
the new reality he faces.
As the Arab world struggles for dignity and freedom, it favors Arab terms
now – not American.
Tanya Cariina Hsu is a British political analyst specializing in US-Saudi
foreign policy.
------------[ Sent via the dehai-wn mailing list by dehai.org]--------------
Received on Tue Nov 06 2012 - 18:18:22 EST
