This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Just wanted to highlight two links on the topic: an FT article and "Start the Week" on the BBC.
A lot of interesting background stuff: I suppose one of the takeaways is to emphasise how fragmented and fragile Saudi might be: royal family .v. Clerics, factions within royal family, unemployed youth, tradition v modernity, plunging oil revenues, rivalry with Iran, etc etc
The other is how concerned the Saudi were when the US ditched Mubarak in Egypt, and then how concerned the US was when they saw him replaced by Islamists. And now how concerned by the US no longer needing its oil.
Clearly, in the light of ISIS, and Saudi financing (probably not of ISIS but of global wahabiism), the West is beginning to raise the pressure on the Saudis.
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a33c5e6c-9ccc-11e5-8ce1-f6219b685d74.html#ixzz3tf...
"Acknowledging that there are still good reasons for the west to work closely with Saudi Arabia is, however, not the same as saying that nothing should change. Religious tolerance is the right issue on which to press the Saudis.
There has long been something repellently craven about the western approach to the Saudi monarchy. The Europeans and Americans have accepted a blatant double standard, in which the Saudis are allowed to fund their own brand of religious intolerance while banning the organised practice of other religions inside Saudi Arabia.
Perhaps it is time to give the Saudis a choice: agree to allow churches, Hindu temples and synagogues to open in Saudi Arabia, or face the end of Saudi funding for mosques in the west."
http://tinyurl.com/pwxlbdv
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06r49d7
Post edited at 21:56
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
It won't allow me to read the link.
I don't think we have what it takes to stand up to them. We are such hypocrites.
It won't allow me to read the link.
I don't think we have what it takes to stand up to them. We are such hypocrites.
2
2
In reply to marsbar:
Well, as the links both describe, it's not that simple. One of the points being made, as per Egypt, is that the likely replacement for the current regime is not a bunch of moderate reformists, it's much more radical islamists. And that the fragmentation of the regime makes it's sudden collapse not as unlikely as it might appear.Do we want to risk causing that?
For the FT link you should be able to sign in and read it free (limited number of articles per month)
> It won't allow me to read the link.
> I don't think we have what it takes to stand up to them. We are such hypocrites.
Well, as the links both describe, it's not that simple. One of the points being made, as per Egypt, is that the likely replacement for the current regime is not a bunch of moderate reformists, it's much more radical islamists. And that the fragmentation of the regime makes it's sudden collapse not as unlikely as it might appear.Do we want to risk causing that?
For the FT link you should be able to sign in and read it free (limited number of articles per month)
Post edited at 22:36
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
If you know the headline on the FT article just plug it into google with "FT" and you can usually follow the link to read the piece, even if you've gone over your monthly limit for articles in that paper. It's a useful trick if you want to read some high quality journalism.
Haven't read this particular piece yet but will do so, thanks for the heads up.
> For the FT link you should be able to sign in and read it free (limited number of articles per month)
If you know the headline on the FT article just plug it into google with "FT" and you can usually follow the link to read the piece, even if you've gone over your monthly limit for articles in that paper. It's a useful trick if you want to read some high quality journalism.
Haven't read this particular piece yet but will do so, thanks for the heads up.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I dug out my copy of Robert Lacey's Inside the Kingdom over the weekend, still a good starting point. Although not strong enough on the Mecca Siege.
Also last week Thomas Piketty put out an interesting piece on Inequality in the ME.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/inequality-is-behind-th...
A few people have doubted his figures and he ignores a lot of history and culture but QI for all that.
I dug out my copy of Robert Lacey's Inside the Kingdom over the weekend, still a good starting point. Although not strong enough on the Mecca Siege.
Also last week Thomas Piketty put out an interesting piece on Inequality in the ME.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/inequality-is-behind-th...
A few people have doubted his figures and he ignores a lot of history and culture but QI for all that.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I think we all need to realise that Islam is not a just a religion, it is a political ideology. It has religious, political, economic and military components and it can be viewed in action in Saudi Arabia. They will try and exploit muslims in other countries through funding of mosques etc to keep up the islamization of the West. Politically correct and tolerant societies make easy pickings. My question would be have we all been caught asleep at the wheel here because palatable answers are becoming pretty thin on the ground now we have 2.7 million muslims in the UK (2011 figure)
Only today it's hit the news
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/12036287/Britain-is-no-longer-a-Christ...
"It says that the decline of churchgoing and the rise of Islam and other faiths mean a "new settlement" is needed for religion in the UK, giving more official influence to non-religious voices and those of non-Christian faiths."
The creeping death of our Christian/secular society? Changing foreign policy with Saudi Arabia might be more difficult than we think (which, of course was your point)
I think we all need to realise that Islam is not a just a religion, it is a political ideology. It has religious, political, economic and military components and it can be viewed in action in Saudi Arabia. They will try and exploit muslims in other countries through funding of mosques etc to keep up the islamization of the West. Politically correct and tolerant societies make easy pickings. My question would be have we all been caught asleep at the wheel here because palatable answers are becoming pretty thin on the ground now we have 2.7 million muslims in the UK (2011 figure)
Only today it's hit the news
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/12036287/Britain-is-no-longer-a-Christ...
"It says that the decline of churchgoing and the rise of Islam and other faiths mean a "new settlement" is needed for religion in the UK, giving more official influence to non-religious voices and those of non-Christian faiths."
The creeping death of our Christian/secular society? Changing foreign policy with Saudi Arabia might be more difficult than we think (which, of course was your point)
3
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
Isn't it about time we stopped destabilising regimes that are either a) broadly friendly towards us or b) at least keeping the lid on others who are even less well-disposed towards us? The whole Arab Spring debacle has shown that cheering and facilitating the departure of tyrannical rulers in messy parts of the world may give a brief cosy glow but has not been the route to brotherly love and sweet reason.
That old line 'OK, he's a b*stard but at least he's our b*stard' may be distasteful but surviving in an increasingly dangerous world does sometimes mean getting into bed with people with whom you would not willingly share a lift. Dealing only with people we like, respect and admire and who share our views and values is a luxury the real world seldom affords.
Isn't it about time we stopped destabilising regimes that are either a) broadly friendly towards us or b) at least keeping the lid on others who are even less well-disposed towards us? The whole Arab Spring debacle has shown that cheering and facilitating the departure of tyrannical rulers in messy parts of the world may give a brief cosy glow but has not been the route to brotherly love and sweet reason.
That old line 'OK, he's a b*stard but at least he's our b*stard' may be distasteful but surviving in an increasingly dangerous world does sometimes mean getting into bed with people with whom you would not willingly share a lift. Dealing only with people we like, respect and admire and who share our views and values is a luxury the real world seldom affords.
Post edited at 00:02
1
1
1
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Pretty simple: we try and keep the lid on until their oil runs out or is no longer interesting to us following which they will be skint and about as much interest as Yemen or Afghanistan.
Pretty simple: we try and keep the lid on until their oil runs out or is no longer interesting to us following which they will be skint and about as much interest as Yemen or Afghanistan.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
You might have noticed that Afghanistan has been of quite a lot of interest for the past 35 years.
> Pretty simple: we try and keep the lid on until their oil runs out or is no longer interesting to us following which they will be skint and about as much interest as Yemen or Afghanistan.
You might have noticed that Afghanistan has been of quite a lot of interest for the past 35 years.
7
In reply to Postmanpat:
A massive investment in green energy to reduce our reliance on oil and gas would be a starting point so any negotiations we go in to will not be reliant on them and their neighboring allies supplying us with the good stuff. After than its anyone's guess as to what to do with them, if anything at all.
A massive investment in green energy to reduce our reliance on oil and gas would be a starting point so any negotiations we go in to will not be reliant on them and their neighboring allies supplying us with the good stuff. After than its anyone's guess as to what to do with them, if anything at all.
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Yes, but if it wasn't for the Saudi money funding Al Quaida there would have been no 9/11 and the west would have ignored Afghanistan. In fact without the Saudi money the Russians would be running Afghanistan and it would be a lot less religious.
The Saudi problem will get resolved when the oil money is gone, the west has decided to wait it out rather than confront them.
> You might have noticed that Afghanistan has been of quite a lot of interest for the past 35 years.
Yes, but if it wasn't for the Saudi money funding Al Quaida there would have been no 9/11 and the west would have ignored Afghanistan. In fact without the Saudi money the Russians would be running Afghanistan and it would be a lot less religious.
The Saudi problem will get resolved when the oil money is gone, the west has decided to wait it out rather than confront them.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Yes, but that wasn't regarded as a brilliant idea in 1980.
Possibly, or it collapses into civil war and anarchy, or simply poverty, and its refugees spread out into the Middle East and Europe destabilising as they go.
It's a moot point. Is it it better that the ME, including Saudi, is rich and stable, rich but unstable, or poor and unstable?(from the point of view of the West).
> Yes, but if it wasn't for the Saudi money funding Al Quaida there would have been no 9/11 and the west would have ignored Afghanistan. In fact without the Saudi money the Russians would be running Afghanistan and it would be a lot less religious.
Yes, but that wasn't regarded as a brilliant idea in 1980.
> The Saudi problem will get resolved when the oil money is gone, the west has decided to wait it out rather than confront them.
Possibly, or it collapses into civil war and anarchy, or simply poverty, and its refugees spread out into the Middle East and Europe destabilising as they go.
It's a moot point. Is it it better that the ME, including Saudi, is rich and stable, rich but unstable, or poor and unstable?(from the point of view of the West).
In reply to Bjartur in.... - calling Islam a political movement is a bit wrong - the worlds largest muslim country is Indonesia, which has it's own set of problems. Islam is just a part of the problem in the Middle East, along with money, dictatorships, corruption, poor respect ofr life and so on. It does provide a strong focus point tho'
Britain is no longer a christian country because the majority of people don't believe, and the christian church has been declining for the last 120 years. It's just become irrelevant. What % go to church now - that's not because they've been influenced by Islam
To Tom - that's all a bit wrong and missing context. People have been fiddling about in Afghanistan for a long time, including us and the US,
If there's one thing that surprises me it's how much realpolitikk allows governments to look past things like Saudi funding of extremism, Turkey dealing with ISIS and so on. Everybody knows, but nobody does anything till it's all gone horribly wrong
Britain is no longer a christian country because the majority of people don't believe, and the christian church has been declining for the last 120 years. It's just become irrelevant. What % go to church now - that's not because they've been influenced by Islam
To Tom - that's all a bit wrong and missing context. People have been fiddling about in Afghanistan for a long time, including us and the US,
If there's one thing that surprises me it's how much realpolitikk allows governments to look past things like Saudi funding of extremism, Turkey dealing with ISIS and so on. Everybody knows, but nobody does anything till it's all gone horribly wrong
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Presumably in the long term Saudi Arabia will go the way of Nairu, the island that had the highest per-capita income in the world until it had sold all of its guano deposits. The Saudis continue to buy in expertise and education, rather than using their money to develop their own resources.
Precisely how the decline will occur is difficult to predict, and complicated both by the country's enormous wealth and the fact that it contains the holiest sites of a major religion.
Presumably in the long term Saudi Arabia will go the way of Nairu, the island that had the highest per-capita income in the world until it had sold all of its guano deposits. The Saudis continue to buy in expertise and education, rather than using their money to develop their own resources.
Precisely how the decline will occur is difficult to predict, and complicated both by the country's enormous wealth and the fact that it contains the holiest sites of a major religion.
In reply to cap'nChino:
Or Saudi Arabia could slowly change ,and it possibly has enough oil reserves to do this.
So its a guessing game.
Our issue in the West is we like instant solutions, we are not prepareed to play the long game. We fufge things. Maybe only germany takes a long view,And in all this " guessing" there is China lurking in the background. What do they want out of SA?
Or Saudi Arabia could slowly change ,and it possibly has enough oil reserves to do this.
So its a guessing game.
Our issue in the West is we like instant solutions, we are not prepareed to play the long game. We fufge things. Maybe only germany takes a long view,And in all this " guessing" there is China lurking in the background. What do they want out of SA?
In reply to neilh:
Other Arab nations have been deliberately investing elsewhere for many years, knowing the oil won't last forever. Saudi A. isn't one of them. So it's probably too late. Perhaps they hope to be bankrolled in the future by their neighbours, being a home of Islam etc.. I think it's more likely that their rulers are simply too greedy and selfish now, to sacrifice even a little of their riches today, for the tomorrow without oil.
> Or Saudi Arabia could slowly change ,and it possibly has enough oil reserves to do this.
Other Arab nations have been deliberately investing elsewhere for many years, knowing the oil won't last forever. Saudi A. isn't one of them. So it's probably too late. Perhaps they hope to be bankrolled in the future by their neighbours, being a home of Islam etc.. I think it's more likely that their rulers are simply too greedy and selfish now, to sacrifice even a little of their riches today, for the tomorrow without oil.
In reply to neilh:
What does China want out of SA? Oil.
The trouble with playing the long game is that as it spreads wahabiism through the Sunni world it destabilises places like Pakistan and then Indonesia etc, let alone providing a backdrop to terrorism of the West. Can we just stand by and accept that?
> Or Saudi Arabia could slowly change ,and it possibly has enough oil reserves to do this.
> So its a guessing game.
> Our issue in the West is we like instant solutions, we are not prepareed to play the long game. We fufge things. Maybe only germany takes a long view,And in all this " guessing" there is China lurking in the background. What do they want out of SA?
What does China want out of SA? Oil.
The trouble with playing the long game is that as it spreads wahabiism through the Sunni world it destabilises places like Pakistan and then Indonesia etc, let alone providing a backdrop to terrorism of the West. Can we just stand by and accept that?
Post edited at 11:25
In reply to John2:
And with a population of 30 million it's unlikely to go quietly like Naura (population 10,000)
> Presumably in the long term Saudi Arabia will go the way of Nairu, the island that had the highest per-capita income in the world until it had sold all of its guano deposits. The Saudis continue to buy in expertise and education, rather than using their money to develop their own resources.
>
The BBC debates discusses this. The solution is possibly some sort of "Chinese solution" which compromises with capitalism and allows some freedoms whilst keeping the "party", or in Saudi's case the family and the clergy, in charge, thus creating a viable non resource based economy. Not much sign of it happening though.And with a population of 30 million it's unlikely to go quietly like Naura (population 10,000)
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Well, it's part of it, but you're viewing a particularly complex country through one particular prism which tells a nice story but isn't necessarily true. Which is a roundabout way of saying, even without Wahabism, Pakistan would be a mess. In part because Islamic fundamentalism is home grown in South Asia (I'm assuming you've heard of Deoband). And because Pakistan is a rapidly modernising feudal society, and American satrapies tend not to go in for widespread land reform, for example.
Etc etc.
Wahabiism isn't intrinsically destablising - witness Saudi itself. But it's one of many potentially destablising factors.
> The trouble with playing the long game is that as it spreads wahabiism through the Sunni world it destabilises places like Pakistan
Well, it's part of it, but you're viewing a particularly complex country through one particular prism which tells a nice story but isn't necessarily true. Which is a roundabout way of saying, even without Wahabism, Pakistan would be a mess. In part because Islamic fundamentalism is home grown in South Asia (I'm assuming you've heard of Deoband). And because Pakistan is a rapidly modernising feudal society, and American satrapies tend not to go in for widespread land reform, for example.
Etc etc.
Wahabiism isn't intrinsically destablising - witness Saudi itself. But it's one of many potentially destablising factors.
1
1
In reply to seankenny:
Yes, I accept all that, I just I can't but think that a country like Pakistan with enough of its own problems doesn't need wahabiism to stir the pot.
It's surely not destabiising in Saudi because they have the internal security service to keep the lid on it and the money to keep people solvent and therefore docile?
> Well, it's part of it, but you're viewing a particularly complex country through one particular prism which tells a nice story but isn't necessarily true.
> Etc etc.
> Wahabiism isn't intrinsically destablising - witness Saudi itself. But it's one of many potentially destablising factors.
Yes, I accept all that, I just I can't but think that a country like Pakistan with enough of its own problems doesn't need wahabiism to stir the pot.
It's surely not destabiising in Saudi because they have the internal security service to keep the lid on it and the money to keep people solvent and therefore docile?
Post edited at 11:46
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Obviously 'rich and stable' is best but it is also not achievable without oil money because theocracy is not compatible with economic productivity. 'Rich but unstable' isn't really an option either because unstable leads to civil war and civil war makes you poor really fast. So my guess is they are heading for 'poor and unstable' and they will stay there until they free themselves from theocracy.
The other interesting question is whether Islam in general will start shrinking as soon as there is no oil money backing it. You could argue that it is economic and military power that is behind the expansion of major religions -e.g. christianity - and as soon as the money is gone and there are no longer economic and social benefits to being a member pragmatic people will drift away.
> It's a moot point. Is it it better that the ME, including Saudi, is rich and stable, rich but unstable, or poor and unstable?(from the point of view of the West).
Obviously 'rich and stable' is best but it is also not achievable without oil money because theocracy is not compatible with economic productivity. 'Rich but unstable' isn't really an option either because unstable leads to civil war and civil war makes you poor really fast. So my guess is they are heading for 'poor and unstable' and they will stay there until they free themselves from theocracy.
The other interesting question is whether Islam in general will start shrinking as soon as there is no oil money backing it. You could argue that it is economic and military power that is behind the expansion of major religions -e.g. christianity - and as soon as the money is gone and there are no longer economic and social benefits to being a member pragmatic people will drift away.
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Yes, agreed. But my point is that even if Saudi wasn't up to no good, the ideas it's promulgating have a closer to home source, and are intensely attractive because of what the country is going through. India has many similar issues despite Hinduism being a very different sort of cultural-religious thing.
Maybe - but isn't distributing money and keeping much of the popluation on side what keeps all political systems stable? One way to look at ISIS is that it is a stabilising force that's taken over in a chaotic, ungoverned area and is attempting to impose some kind of order (feel free to play the game of looking for similarities between it and the Tudor state).
I'm no fan of Saudi or Wahabiism, incidentally!
> Yes, I accept all that, I just I can't but think that a country like Pakistan with enough of its own problems doesn't need wahabiism to stir the pot.
Yes, agreed. But my point is that even if Saudi wasn't up to no good, the ideas it's promulgating have a closer to home source, and are intensely attractive because of what the country is going through. India has many similar issues despite Hinduism being a very different sort of cultural-religious thing.
> It's surely not destabiising in Saudi because they have the internal security service to keep the lid on it and the money to keep people solvent and therefore docile?
Maybe - but isn't distributing money and keeping much of the popluation on side what keeps all political systems stable? One way to look at ISIS is that it is a stabilising force that's taken over in a chaotic, ungoverned area and is attempting to impose some kind of order (feel free to play the game of looking for similarities between it and the Tudor state).
I'm no fan of Saudi or Wahabiism, incidentally!
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
235 years surely!
> You might have noticed that Afghanistan has been of quite a lot of interest for the past 35 years.
235 years surely!
2
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Maybe better to get into bed with Iran so to speak, but that is just to radical for the West.
Maybe better to get into bed with Iran so to speak, but that is just to radical for the West.
1
In reply to seankenny:
Yup, agreed .
Well, all States don't just give away money to people with no jobs to keep them sweet. They prefer to provide a system to enable them to earn money and encourage them to do so.
> Yes, agreed. But my point is that even if Saudi wasn't up to no good, the ideas it's promulgating have a closer to home source, and are intensely attractive because of what the country is going through. India has many similar issues despite Hinduism being a very different sort of cultural-religious thing.
>Yup, agreed .
> Maybe - but isn't distributing money and keeping much of the popluation on side what keeps all political systems stable? One way to look at ISIS is that it is a stabilising force that's taken over in a chaotic, ungoverned area and is attempting to impose some kind of order (feel free to play the game of looking for similarities between it and the Tudor state).
>Well, all States don't just give away money to people with no jobs to keep them sweet. They prefer to provide a system to enable them to earn money and encourage them to do so.
> I'm no fan of Saudi or Wahabiism, incidentally!
In reply to neilh:
There was interesting R4 programme introduced by Jack Straw on Anglo-Iranian relationships yesterday! On of the problems there is understanding who is calling the shots.
With hindsight (well, it was probably obvious at the time but I was only 19) the loss of Western influence over Iran created a double problem: not only did Iran become an enemy, but the West became more dependent on Saudis/Sunnis for oil and stability etc. So the West found it harder to restrain the Saudis. Having a foot in both camps would presumably have been a much preferred outcome.
Given that Iran , as I understand it (note to Rob Parsons-this is not a statement of fact. It is a statement of my limited understanding) has a much more educated and sophisticated and larger middle class, system of government etc, in many ways Iran might have been a preferred partner.
And yes, I know the Shah was a sh1t.
> Maybe better to get into bed with Iran so to speak, but that is just to radical for the West.
There was interesting R4 programme introduced by Jack Straw on Anglo-Iranian relationships yesterday! On of the problems there is understanding who is calling the shots.
With hindsight (well, it was probably obvious at the time but I was only 19) the loss of Western influence over Iran created a double problem: not only did Iran become an enemy, but the West became more dependent on Saudis/Sunnis for oil and stability etc. So the West found it harder to restrain the Saudis. Having a foot in both camps would presumably have been a much preferred outcome.
Given that Iran , as I understand it (note to Rob Parsons-this is not a statement of fact. It is a statement of my limited understanding) has a much more educated and sophisticated and larger middle class, system of government etc, in many ways Iran might have been a preferred partner.
And yes, I know the Shah was a sh1t.
Post edited at 13:25
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
But "rich and stable"is what they have for 70 years and now people are saying we should undermine that to make them, we hope. "poor and stable". But as you point out, that is an unlikely outcome of making them poor.
I guess the fear would be that is has one last violent spasm as it goes. The trouble is that with modern mobility and technology that spasm could be disasterous.
> Obviously 'rich and stable' is best but it is also not achievable without oil money because theocracy is not compatible with economic productivity. 'Rich but unstable' isn't really an option either because unstable leads to civil war and civil war makes you poor really fast. So my guess is they are heading for 'poor and unstable' and they will stay there until they free themselves from theocracy.
But "rich and stable"is what they have for 70 years and now people are saying we should undermine that to make them, we hope. "poor and stable". But as you point out, that is an unlikely outcome of making them poor.
> The other interesting question is whether Islam in general will start shrinking as soon as there is no oil money backing it. You could argue that it is economic and military power that is behind the expansion of major religions -e.g. christianity - and as soon as the money is gone and there are no longer economic and social benefits to being a member pragmatic people will drift away.
I guess the fear would be that is has one last violent spasm as it goes. The trouble is that with modern mobility and technology that spasm could be disasterous.
Post edited at 13:24
In reply to Postmanpat:
My experience of Iran, based on nothing more than a fortnight's holiday there some years ago, is that it is by far the most educated and sophisticated Muslim country I've been to. The mosques were full, yes, but full of architecture students with tape measures studying some of the world's most beautiful buildings. The Human Development Index puts it about on a par with Mexico or Sri Lanka, which is quite impressive considering the state repression, weirdly truncated democracy and huge numbers of executions.
> Given that Iran , as I understand it (note to Rob Parsons-this is not a statement of fact. It is a statement of my limited understanding) has a much more educated and sophisticated and larger middle class, system of government etc, in many ways Iran might have been a preferred partner.
My experience of Iran, based on nothing more than a fortnight's holiday there some years ago, is that it is by far the most educated and sophisticated Muslim country I've been to. The mosques were full, yes, but full of architecture students with tape measures studying some of the world's most beautiful buildings. The Human Development Index puts it about on a par with Mexico or Sri Lanka, which is quite impressive considering the state repression, weirdly truncated democracy and huge numbers of executions.
In reply to seankenny:
The restoration of the Shah by the US and the UK involved the deposition of a democratically elected leader, which puts both countries' habitual vapourings on democracy in an interesting light.
The restoration of the Shah by the US and the UK involved the deposition of a democratically elected leader, which puts both countries' habitual vapourings on democracy in an interesting light.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I'm not saying we should undermine them, my view is they are going to fall apart all by themselves when the oil money runs out no matter what we do. They are going to make themselves poor by pursuing a whole bunch of religion based policies which are incompatible with a productive economy and by allowing the ruling families to turn too much of the oil into personal wealth and move it abroad.
> But "rich and stable"is what they have for 70 years and now people are saying we should undermine that to make them, we hope. "poor and stable". But as you point out, that is an unlikely outcome of making them poor.
I'm not saying we should undermine them, my view is they are going to fall apart all by themselves when the oil money runs out no matter what we do. They are going to make themselves poor by pursuing a whole bunch of religion based policies which are incompatible with a productive economy and by allowing the ruling families to turn too much of the oil into personal wealth and move it abroad.
Post edited at 14:17
In reply to John2:
It was in 1953, I suspect a few things have changed since then, even in the glacial world of foreign policy.
> The restoration of the Shah by the US and the UK involved the deposition of a democratically elected leader, which puts both countries' habitual vapourings on democracy in an interesting light.
It was in 1953, I suspect a few things have changed since then, even in the glacial world of foreign policy.
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
Yep, all of that, as well as a very high and advanced education system open to and used by both men and women (with some reprehensible societal caveats) and a very young population. I hope The West and Iran chum up, far more good may come of it than the vile company we keep in the Middle East
> Given that Iran , ... has a much more educated and sophisticated and larger middle class, system of government etc, in many ways Iran might have been a preferred partner.
Yep, all of that, as well as a very high and advanced education system open to and used by both men and women (with some reprehensible societal caveats) and a very young population. I hope The West and Iran chum up, far more good may come of it than the vile company we keep in the Middle East
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Could go that way or from encouragement from the West it could reform into a constitutional monarchy which is sort of a slower change, . Uk diplomacy nudges in this direction. Hard to see reform into a constutional monarchy with parliamentary growth when there is such a strong theological powerplay at work in Saudi Arabia. The general populace seemed pro monarchy in the 80s when I visited. What it is like now?
By the way Saudi Arabia has invested a lot of its oil money into solar technology, energy efficent town projects and alternatives, according to a TV programme I saw. It's us that is oil hooked and short sighted.
Could go that way or from encouragement from the West it could reform into a constitutional monarchy which is sort of a slower change, . Uk diplomacy nudges in this direction. Hard to see reform into a constutional monarchy with parliamentary growth when there is such a strong theological powerplay at work in Saudi Arabia. The general populace seemed pro monarchy in the 80s when I visited. What it is like now?
By the way Saudi Arabia has invested a lot of its oil money into solar technology, energy efficent town projects and alternatives, according to a TV programme I saw. It's us that is oil hooked and short sighted.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...