November 2, 2007...11:12 am
Customer is King
Queen Elizabeth II welcomes her guest with a guard of honour and rides with him to the Buckingham Palace in her gilded carriage. He has spent loads of cash on British goods: fighter jets, airliners, Rolls Royce cars etc. The customer is King: literally.
And this is hypocrisy at its best- the treatment is different for those who have oil and for those who don’t. Mr Gordon Brown refuses to attend an EU summit with Africa if Robert Mugabe attends, because of his apparently horrifying disregard of basic human rights but he says nothing to upset the Saudis whose record on human rights is probably just as bad. One law for the despot with oil and another for the one without.
I am not a supporter of Robert Mugabe but refusal to condemn the Saudis for human rights violations is purely for commercial interests- business for British companies and jobs for British employees. The Saudis publicly beheaded 5 people in Medina a few days ago, which is the modus operandi for capital punishment in the country.
Realpolitik- King Abdullah, speaking through a translator, praised Britain’s “sense of tolerance” and appealed for its help in securing peace for the Palestinian. Tolerance indeed when you ignore human right abuses by one govt and create a huge racket over the others.
England has airs about playing cricket against Zimbabwe because apparently they are horrible people with policies that are against human rights. But human rights are not an issue when they’re dealing with a country in which, according to Wikipedia, in 2005 there were 191 executions, 38 in 2006 and as of July 2007 there were already 102.
11 Comments
November 2, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Unfortunately having oil has become a passport to do what you want, and get the honors
This is the irony Rajiv that countries who attack one country in the name of democracy welcome despots from other countries who have oil.
November 2, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Very true, Prerna!
I am in total agreement with you on this.
However, when do countries act on moral grounds, except if it is otherwise beneficial to them?
Thanks Rambodoc.
November 2, 2007 at 9:34 pm
How come your time is showing 9:33 PM, when it actually is 3:10 AM?
Actually by mistake I pressed publish instead of save and the draft was published. When I realised my mistake I posted the final post.
November 3, 2007 at 1:17 am
Amen to rambodoc’s first comment!
And hey - nice new look!
Thanks Arun.
November 3, 2007 at 4:10 am
As often as not, when countries act on moral grounds, the morality is questionable. For instance: Look at the moral (and financial) opposition the US has towards condoms and abortion in Africa due to domestic pressure by the Religious Right in America for a “moral” foreign policy.
Thanks Paul. I knew about the resistance to abortion but Condoms- I didn’t know that.
November 4, 2007 at 4:36 pm
its funny whenever other nations intervene they f*** up big time take for example
1. world wars 2 division of turkish lands by the axis birth of Saudi arabia under the wahabi ib bin shekh
kurdish problems israel problems
2. Division of India - by Britain birth of pakistan
and Burma - later Bangladesh
3. iran - regime change 1953 to the shah via the Operation Ajax
result Mullahs take over Iran
4. Vietnam - puppet rule by the french and us backed govts overturned by russian backed forces
5. North korea - the country that could not exist without the support of the cccp and china
6.Afghanistan - kissinger - cia and isi - birth of the taleban and al quaeda
7. Iraq - regime change
8. south america multiple regime changes
9. attempt at regime change venezuela
what do u find in common ? oil/ gas close by except in case of cold war countries korea vietnam
now look at sudan in africa history is repeating
this is all about world dominence and cornering energy reserves smaller countries are more manageable and oil drives world economies
why do the commis support china so?
yet again it is bcause china doesnt want india to be energy positive and grow n develop
All this interference is done in the name of helping the people of the country.
November 5, 2007 at 5:59 am
Double standards will alway be their in politics…look at our Politicians..they say something and say exact opp the next day…
Well u r true abt the disparity in the treatment metted out by the britishers..
Also,India went fury with Racial remarks against shilpa Shetty but it never figured out the casteism practiced in our soil for past centuries only on basis of birth…not even color…
Thanks Nitin. I agree
November 6, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Great post…. Saudi track record for human rights is too bad for words…. and these things are never publicized by the media as well…. and with the govt. I agree what you said - Customer is the King….. where does everyone’s “ring Demoncracy” sermon vanish when Saudi comes into picture.?
Thanks Oemar.
November 6, 2007 at 10:48 pm
For one thing the Saudis have enough money and oil to make everyone turn a blind eye on their activities, but we could also ask ourselves… if Saudi Arabia was a democracy, who would they elect? Maybe a worse tyrant some would fear. In a country where the most popular man was (or is) O bin L, it’s hard to imagine a democracy that includes the benefits we seek in a democracy (freedom of this or that, respect of minorities, tolerance, etc). In the end, democracy the way we see it could probably never work in saudi arabia anyway, much less then it would in Iraq (for instance…
which is sort of a failiure at this point, because of centuries-old reasons.
November 8, 2007 at 11:05 am
I don’t agree with you Rajiv. If given a chance Suadi’s will elect whoever they think is right for them and not because it agrees with our interests or beliefs. I would trust their intellect and judgement because they know what is best for them. Osama is not the most popular person there. It is just that the it makes news when some people talk in his favour. Infact people from the Sudi royal family were linked to 9/11 incidents.Whtaever form of govt Iraqis have it would be better than a regime controlled by outsiders.
November 8, 2007 at 11:47 am
Maybe, but although I think democracy is the least worst possible system, the outcome of an election can be dissapointing and can bring to power very dangerous people, sometimes worse than the dictators in place. I’m not sayingf it has to be like that, but it’s a risk.
(As for the Saudi royal family, I think you are right though, but they have so much power nothing seems to be possible anyway)
Leave a Reply