Category: Saudi Arabia

Ex Ambassador to Saudi Arabia speaks


On the occasion of Saudi National Day, I am reminded of the great history of Saudi Arabia. Today, the Saudi people can be rightly proud of their nation, of their history and their developments. Saudi Arabia is a strong nation, an important player in the world and a key partner of the UK. The development of this nation began with unification.

Sir John Jenkins, September 2014

Sir John Jenkins was the Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and has been in the news recently following the mass execution of 47 people in that country.  He was interviewed on the Today programme on the BBC and was asked if he wished to condemn the executions.  This question seemed to vex him and prompted him to write a three page piece in the New Statesman (8 – 14 January 2016) in which he attempted to explain the quandary he found himself in.  He wrote:

I understand the point of the question.  But I have been wondering since then what exactly it is that I and others hare being invited to condemn.  The fact of the execution its nature, the Shia identity of the victim [Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr] his status as a cleric, that the Saudis still practise capital punishment, the nature of their judicial system, the timing of the act, the suspicion that it might undermine the peace process in Syria or infuriate Iran – or perhaps all of this and more?

 He then goes into a long explanation of the history of the country and its tortuous relationship with Iran and other neighbours.  At the heart of the article is the assumption is that most of those executed along with al Nimr were terrorists.  He then goes on to say that one might still think it is an act of state brutality and should be condemned as such but that this position is not a policy.  The signal the Saudis sought to send out was that they will enforce the judgement of the courts on those who seek to undermine the stability of the kingdom.

The article begs a number of questions not least of which is the fact that most of those executed were not terrorists but people who are protesting at the iniquities of the state itself.  Nothing like fair trials took place which is not unusual.  Torture is routine and prisoners are denied access to lawyers.

His response and the subsequent article attracted some interest and a biting piece in Private Eye (No 1409).  They pointed out that Sir John was now executive director of the International Institute of Strategic Studies.  A quick look at their web site reveals who it is who funds the charity.  It is an interesting list and includes Lockheed Martin; BAE Systems; HSBC; British American Tobacco; Exxon; Raytheon; Ministry of Defence; Ministry of defense (Saudi Arabia) and so on, all organisations with a vested interest and substantial business interests in Saudi.  It also receives substantial funding from FCO. Once again we see the interests of arms and other companies exercising undue influence over the opinion makers.  Private Eye makes the point that it is a pity the BBC did not mention to its listeners the funding behind the institute when interviewing people like Sir John.  Many might have been misled into thinking that they were hearing the wisdom of a former Ambassador not someone speaking for a range of arms firms and other business interests.  No wonder Sir John was in such a quandary.  He wants us to believe that Saudi is a strong nation.  It is a long way from that.  It is deeply corrupt and far from progressing seems by its recent actions, to be regressing.

0

Arms sales and human rights


Arms sales dictating policy in Saudi Arabia

Readers of this blog will be familiar with our argument that oil and arms sales dictate our policy to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  The execution of 47 people last week has caused an international outrage but not, predictably from our government.  Philip Luther of Amnesty said:

It is a bloody day when the Saudi Arabian authorities execute 47 people, some of whom were clearly sentenced to death after grossly unfair trials. Carrying out a death sentence when there are serious questions about the fairness of the trial is a monstrous and irreversible injustice. The Saudi Arabian authorities must heed the growing chorus of international criticism and put an end to their execution spree

A policy document published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2011 curiously omits mention of Saudi Arabia in its list of countries where diplomats will be seeking to ‘positively drive forward’ the government’s ultimate goal of abolishing the death penalty.  Countries such as China, the US, Iran and Belarus are among those listed, but not Saudi Arabia.

Philip Hammond the Defence Secretary said HMG was ‘disappointed’ in the actions of the Saudi authorities.  Disappointment seems to be a rather limp response to make to such an appalling act.  It was Mr Ellwood who responded to our message to John Glen MP last year in which we asked for a more robust response to the Saudi government.  Both he and Mr Glen assured us that these matters were being pursued but as the revelations keep appearing – altering the Ministerial code; dropping the death penalty abolition as a specific policy, and now the omission of Saudi from the list of countries to be targeted – we see that it is devoid of real intent.

Many human rights organisations have criticised the executions and the craven stance taken by the UK government.  Maya Foa of Reprieve said:

Saudi Arabia has consistently ranked in the world’s top five executioners, and a large proportion of beheadings carried out in the country have been for non-violent offences, including protest.

It is shocking that the Kingdom was absent from the counties targeted by the UK’s death penalty strategy over the past five years, when every other major executioner in the world – China, Iran, Iraq, the US and Pakistan – was included.

Amnesty said the omission was ‘astonishing’.

Does it matter?

Why does this matter?  Firstly, the middle east is fraught with much violence and tension.  Ministers – including the Prime minister – fulminate about the terrible events in the area controlled by IS but are noticeably reticent oven similar violence in Saudi.  Imagine the Prime Minister commenting on the latest gruesome execution IS video and saying it was ‘disappointing’.  By continuing to supply arms we are both helping to support the violence in the area and also aiding the bombing of neighbouring Yemen where women and children are dying.  Our policy should primarily be about seeking peaceful resolutions to problems not trying to sell yet more arms.

Eurofighter of the type sold to Saudi ArabiaSecondly, by being so dependent on arms sales, this becomes the main driver of our policy.  Not what is best for the region, or the people of the Saudi regime, or human rights, but what effect will it have on the bottom line of BAE Systems.  Our actions also lend them credibility.  Instead of applying pressure to encourage a more civilised approach to the Shia minority, to the rights of women and to foreign workers, we arrange for a Saudi to be elected onto the UN’s Human Rights Council and express ‘disappointment’ at mass executions.

We also lay ourselves open to charges of hypocrisy.  In seeking to promote civilised conduct around the world, to end the death penalty and stamp out torture, our approach to Saudi is both inconsistent and craven.  It weakens our international voice.

Malcolm Rifkind was interviewed on the radio and his argument was that the Saudis provide us with valuable intelligence.  Is the argument that we tolerate shocking behaviour so that – it is claimed – we get some intelligence?  This seems rather thin since no doubt the Saudis receive comparable intelligence from us.

The arms sales tail seems to wag the policy dog and by our actions we are not helping the Kingdom to adapt to the modern world.

Continue reading “Arms sales and human rights” →

1

Mass Saudi executions


The news today that Saudi Arabia has carried out a mass execution of 47 people has caused international outrage and speculation about the future of the ‘House of Saud’ itself.  In our review of 2015 we noted the continuing dire human rights situation in Saudi was a backdrop for the year.  In particular, we noted the closeness of our government to the regime, whatever they did on the human rights front, and how we continued to sell them arms which were used to attack Yemen.  This new outrage raises the bar and the scale of international reactions may indeed have a dramatic effect on the future of the country.

 

0

Yemen: UK’s role in this hidden war


British weapons being used to bomb civilians

This week we have been treated to speeches in Parliament and a great deal of press interest on the question of bombing Isis.  The political temperature rose after the terrible events in Paris and the indiscriminate killing of people sitting in cafés and at a pop concert.

The government would now like the UK to join in the bombing campaign against Isis positions and David Cameron gave a lengthy speech in Parliament setting out his justifications for that course of action.

Meanwhile, in Yemen, another terrible conflict is in progress and yet this receives almost no coverage in the press.  Thousands have died (one estimate is 5,700) including an estimated 400 children, and airstrikes by Saudi Arabian forces are bombing the country on a daily basis.  Schools and hospitals are bombed and cluster bombs are being used in contravention of international treaties.

Paveway missile sold to the Saudis
Paveway missile sold to the Saudis

The difference is that Saudi Arabia is a big buyer of our weapons – indeed an estimated half of all weapons sales by the UK go there – so they are an important customer.  Little is said to criticise them and readers of this blog will be aware of our attempts to get our government to take a more robust line in view of their multiple human rights abuses.

Amnesty and HRW have criticised the US government for agreeing to sell an unbelievable $1.3bn (£860m) of further ordinance to replenish stocks used in the campaign.  This is in breach of the Arms Trade Treaty since the weapons are being used against civilians.  Médecins sans Frontières report:

… ordinary people are bearing the brunt of an increasingly brutal conflict.  Severe water shortages combined with airstrikes, sniper attacks and a fuel blockade have rapidly turned this conflict into a humaniitarian crisis, with over one million people displaced from their homes.  The need for food, water, shelter, sanitation and medical care is growing daily.

Many clinics and hospitals have been destroyed, and those that are still functioning are in urgent need of more medical supplies.  Yemen: A country under siege

AI and Human Rights Watch are in no doubt that UK and US supplied munitions are being used to cause this mayhem in Yemen.  Up until now we have received nothing but bland assurances from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and from our MP.  But recent events including changes to the Ministerial code and a downgrading of human rights in policy matters, seems to indicate that it is profit before humanity which is the key factor.

This might change because now that British made weaponry is turning up in Yemen thus causing some concern in the FCO.  They are beginning to question the wisdom of supplying the Saudis who then use the stuff to kill ordinary civilians.  We could just be indicted for war crimes.  They are also worried that we are helping create the conditions for an Isis type organisation to establish themselves in Yemen.

So while speeches are made about bombing Isis, we are busy supplying the weaponry to create another catastrophe on the Saudi peninsular…

Sources:

MSF;  The Independent;  Belfast Telegraph;  Business News;  HRW

 

 

 

6

Urgent Action: Saudi Arabia


Two Saudi Arabian Shi’a activists, arrested when they were under 18 years old, risk being executed as soon as the King ratifies their death sentences.  They were moved to solitary confinement on 5 October and have been held incommunicado since then.  

We attach this month’s urgent action which highlights the case of two men (boys) arrested when they were under the age of 18, tortured into signing a confession and now risk execution.

If you are new to Amnesty urgent actions, they highlight injustices around the world.  You are invited to read the case notes below and write to the addresses provided.  Even if you only write to one, it can help.

Does it work?  Sometimes it does and we have recently celebrated the release of another young man held in Nigeria for the alleged theft of three mobile phones, tortured and was due to be executed.  So it can work …

Urgent action: Saudi Arabia

0

Saudi arms sales and human rights


October 2015

An about turn

Over the last three months we have been in correspondence with our local MP Mr John Glen over the issue of arms sales to Saudi Arabia.  This arose because the French President spoke out publicly against the increased use of the death penalty in Saudi and the barbaric way in which they are carried out.  We also expressed concerns about human rights generally, the use of torture and the dreadful treatment of women.

Mr Glen replied and arranged for a Foreign Office minister to reply as well.  The burden of their replies was that the government took the issue of human rights very seriously and raised the issue of human rights with the Saudis at every available opportunity.  It began to unwind because it was revealed that the Foreign Office had removed the abolition of the death penalty as one of its objectives.  This was only a matter of days following assurances to the contrary from one if its junior ministers in his letter to us.  Earlier this month Sir Simon McDonald, head of the FCO, told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that:

economic prosperity was further up his list of priorities than human rights.

Following the news that a Saudi had been elected to the UN’s human rights council – an astonishing fact in itself – it was discovered shortly afterwards that our own government had facilitated this.  The British government had used its influence to secure the position of someone, patently against human rights, onto the human rights council.  This was a quid pro quo arrangement apparently but since no one was objecting to our application, why it should be necessary was never explained.

We noted that George Osborne had pleased and apparently surprised his Chinese hosts by not mentioning human rights on his recent visit there.  China executes more than any other country in the world and has been arresting and detaining large numbers of people involved in human rights in a major crackdown.  We are shortly to play host to the President of China, Xi-Jinping, who has expressed a wish that human rights are not mentioned during his visit.  Despite their lamentable human rights record he will get the red carpet treatment nevertheless.

Then came the news that a Briton, Karl Andree, was to receive 360 lashes for alcohol offences for which he has already served a prison term.  It might be thought that the Saudi administration would be sensitive to how this might play in the UK.  With the UK government falling over themselves to sell them arms and the Kingdom in an increasingly rocky state financially because of low oil prices, to flog a British national in public is not exactly good PR.

The government responded by cancelling a £9.5m contract to train prison staff.  Again, one might ask what on earth are we doing helping a regime which tortures its prisoners more or less as a matter of routine.  And it has to be noted that this is not an arms contract so its effect is unlikely to be keenly felt.  So it seems that where a Briton is involved the government is willing to react reportedly after a huge ministerial row.  Otherwise, it is business as usual.

On the BBC’s Profile programme (18 October) it was concluded that the deal is that Saudi provides oil and security information in exchange for legitimacy and keeping quiet on human rights abuses.

The statement ‘the government will continue to work towards the complete abolition of the death penalty using all the tools at its disposal’ is unconvincing in the light of these actions.

4

UK support for Saudi on human rights council


October 2015

We have already commented on the revelation that the UK helped secure a seat for a Saudi onto the UN’s human rights council and in a further development, Philip Hammond the Foreign Secretary has declined to deny the story.  Mr Trad, the man who will fill the role, has denounced UN attempts to get the death penalty ended internationally

This is further light on the claim that everything is being done to further human rights internationally.  Mr Glen MP told us a few days ago:

I can assure you that the change of wording is not an indication of a change in policy: the UK government will continue to work towards a complete abolition of the death penalty, using all the tools at its disposal.

7

What is the Foreign Office’s policy on human rights?


Contradiction at the heart of government’s human rights policy

October 2015

There seems to be a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the government’s policy as it relates to matters such as human rights and the death penalty.  Readers of this blog will be aware that we wrote to our local MP, John Glen, on 8 June to point out that France was speaking out publicly concerning the rise in the number of executions taking place in Saudi Arabia and that Sweden had reportedly stopped selling arms there.  We noted that in the first 5 months of this year, the number of executions has equalled that for the whole of 2014.

We received a response from a FCO minister Tobias Ellwood who assured us that Saudi Arabia ‘remains a country of concern on human rights, because of its use of the death penalty as well as restricted access to justice, women’s rights, and restrictions on freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion or belief.’

Within days of receiving this letter from Mr Ellwood with a covering letter from John Glen, it was reported that the Foreign Office had both dropped any explicit reference to death penalty and had also dropped the very phrase used by Mr Ellwood namely: ‘a country of concern’ and replaced it with the more anodyne ‘human rights priority countries’.

We wrote pointing this out to Mr Glen on 5 August and, not receiving a reply, wrote again a month later on 14 September.

Then, on 20 September came the astonishing news that a Saudi representative was to become a member of the UN’s human rights council (The Independent).  Human rights organisations were aghast that a country such as Saudi with its record of torture, floggings, executions and so on and so on, should be elected to such a body.  No sooner had we digested this piece of news when The Australian newspaper revealed on 30 September that this election had not happened by chance but that diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks showed that the UK government had allegedly initiated the secret negotiations to enable the Saudis to get elected.  The cable apparently read:

The delegation is honoured to send to the ministry the enclosed memorandum, which the delegation has received from the permanent mission of the United Kingdom asking it for the support and backing of the candidacy or their country to the membership of the human rights council (HRC) for the period 2014 – 2016, in the elections that will take place in 2013 in the city of New York.

The ministry might find it an opportunity to exchange support with the United Kingdom, where the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would support the candidacy of the United Kingdom to the membership of the council for the period 2014 – 2015 in exchange for the support of the United Kingdom to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

In simple terms: we will support you if you support us.  Why the UK should need the support of such a country is a puzzle in its own right but for the UK to be supporting the Saudi government for a human rights council is beyond belief.

UN Watch commented:

[we] find it troubling that the UK refused to deny the London – Riyadh vote trade as contemplated in the Saudi cable, nor even to reassure the public that their voting complies with the core reform of the UNHRC’s founding resolution, which provides that candidates be chosen based on their human rights record, and that members be those who uphold the highest standards of human rights.

On 18 September, Mr Glen replies to our second letter.  He claims the change in wording came about on the basis of feedback from diplomats who ‘reportedly had difficulty relating our long list of human rights priorities with the issues they faced in real life – from the chaos of failing states to the corridors of Geneva.’  Adopting more thematic categories makes it easier to apply pressure it is argued depending on the circumstances of the country concerned.

Rather than being ‘vague and obfuscating’ (as has been claimed) the ‘categories are sufficiently broad that diplomats can tailor them appropriately to local circumstances.’  He argues that the change of wording is ‘essentially about semantics’.   FCO ministers have been very clear, even since the change of wording, that their stance on the abolition of the death penalty remains the same, he says.   He quotes Rt Hon David Lidington, Minister for Europe:

The Government calls on all states to adopt an immediate moratorium on [the] use of the death penalty in accordance with the relevant UN General Assembly resolution, and views this as part of the process towards complete abolition.  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue to use its diplomatic and programmatic tools to work towards the goal of global abortion.

Finally, he says ‘I can assure you that the change of wording is not an indication of a change in policy: the UK government will continue to work towards a complete abolition of the death penalty, using all the tools at its disposal.’

So where is the truth?

On the one hand, solemn assurances are given that government ministers are committed to the cause of global human rights, whatever the wording of their policies, which are purely a matter or semantics it is claimed.  On the other hand, a ‘trade’ was undertaken between London and Riyadh to get the latter elected onto a UN human rights body.  Assurances that ‘all the tools at its disposal’ are being used in pursuit of global abolition must be set against George Osborne’s visit to China this month where the nationalist State-run Chinese newspaper The Global Times, lauded the 44-year-old Chancellor for his ‘pragmatism’ in concentrating on business matters and not drawing attention to human rights like some other visiting western leaders.  China leads the world in executions the numbers being a state secret.  It is a serial offender on the human rights front.

On the basis of this evidence it would appear that the claimed commitment to human rights is for domestic consumption only and that the reality, when it comes to actual dealings with foreign governments, is that they seldom feature.

Sources:

Human Rights Watch; The Australian; The Global Times (China); The Observer; The Guardian; The Daily Telegraph; International Business News

2

Saudi man given key human rights role


Yes, you read that right.  A Saudi by the name of Faisel Trad, who is the kingdom’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, was elected chair of an independent panel of experts on the UN’s human rights council.

This blog – and many, many others – has highlighted the appallingsaudi flogging human rights situation in Saudi Arabia.  The big increase in the use of the death penalty, often in public, floggings including that of Raif Badawi and most recently, the proposal to crucify a man.  Along with a lack of free speech, and that women are denied basic rights and cannot drive for example, means that the country ranks as among the worst in the world.

UN Watch Director Hillel Neuer said according to the Independent (20 September):

Saudi Arabia has arguably the worst record in the world when it comes to religious rights and women’s rights and continues to imprison the innocent blogger Raif Badawi.

It’s bad enough that Saudi Arabia is a member of the council, but for the UN to go and name the regime as chair of a key panel only pours salt in the wounds for dissidents languishing ins Saudi prisons.

A UN Watch representative also said “This UN appointment is like making a pyromaniac into the town fire chief”.  It gives Mr Trad power over the appointments of key UN human rights representatives.

We have been engaged in correspondence with our local MP to persuade the government to do more and we await a reply to our letter to him.  This was sparked by the FCO’s decision to drop the abolition of the death penalty as a specific policy.

3

Death by crucifixion in Saudi Arabia


A man, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, who was convicted when he was 17 is to face death by crucifixion after his appeal was turned down.  The appeal was heard in secret and he was not present.  He was accused of participating in illegal protests and of firearms offences.  As is usual in Saudi, he was denied access to a lawyer and is likely to have been tortured and forced to sign a confession.  See International Business Times for the full story.

No to the death penaltyAmnesty believes that Saudi has one of the highest rates of executions in the world and is exceeded only by China (details of which are a state secret) and Iran.

We are engaged in correspondence with our local MP John Glen about the government’s policy towards the kingdom and we were initially assured both by Mr Glen and a FCO minister Mr Tobias Ellwood, that the abolition of the death penalty was an important policy for the government.  These matters were raised at the highest level with the Saudis we were told.  Within days of these assurances, it was announced that the abolition of the death penalty was no longer an explicit policy of the government.  We have written to Mr Glen on this and a reminder was sent this week.  A reply is awaited …

See our death penalty report.

1

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑