9/4/2018, “Britain’s relationship with Saudi Arabia does far more damage than it’s worth,” The Conversation,
“In a recent speech the UK foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, stressed that Britain needs to strengthen its support for a rules-based international order, saying there will be a price to pay for countries that do not share the UK’s values and frequently cross geopolitical red lines. Hunt was of course referring to Russia, but he may as well have been taking about Saudi Arabia–a country with a similar recent history.
Saudi Arabia has been leading a coalition of states fighting Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen since 2015. There are credible allegations that it has launched air strikes on civilian targets in the conflict, which a recent UN investigation found to amount to potential human right abuses and war crimes.
Humanitarian relief organisations have called the situation in Yemen the world’s worst man-made disaster; the coalition has exacerbated the situation by imposing an aid blockade that affects 20.7m of Yemeni citizens (75% of the country’s population) in need of assistance. And domestically, Saudi Arabia remains an autocratic country, one where activists are executed and human rights defenders detained.
Saudi Arabia is also perhaps the most important UK ally in the Middle East. Longstanding military and trade relations have meant that the two countries have been [allegedly] co-operating on matters of security and counter-terrorism for decades.
A frequently heard argument for engaging with oppressive countries like Saudi Arabia is that direct diplomatic and military engagement enables the UK to export its values, such as, respect for basic human rights and a belief in liberal democracy, to such places.
At the start of a visit to Jordan and Saudi Arabia in 2017, the UK prime minister, Theresa May, said that “an even deeper partnership with these countries, and greater knowledge and understanding of one another, will increase our ability to address the issues that concern us”.
But in Saudi Arabia’s case at least, little to no progress appears to have been made on this front. In a new study of Britain’s ties to the kingdom, my co-researcher and I found that the supposed benefits to the UK are limited at best and non-existent at worst.
Quid pro quo?
First, it appears that it is in fact Saudi Arabia which influences the UK’s actions, rather than the other way around. The UK government has a history of covering up allegations of corruption related to arms deals with the country. One of the arguments given for engaging with Saudi Arabia is that the kingdom’s intelligence is crucial for UK counter-terrorism efforts. Yet, details of this are hardly publicly available, and in 2017 the Home Office decided to withhold publication of a report into terrorist financing that would have reflected poorly on Saudi Arabia. We were hard pressed to find similar cases of Saudi Arabia placating the UK in a similar fashion.
Second, the economic value of the relationship for the UK is negligible. Goods and services sold to Saudi Arabia represented just 1% of the UK’s total exports in 2016, while it is estimated that arms sales bring in just £30m for the Treasury. In our research, we found that that came to just 0.004% of its total revenue in 2016.
Then there’s the reputational damage that comes with providing diplomatic cover to the Gulf state over the war in Yemen. The UK government’s post-Brexit “Global Britain” agenda has seen it emphasise the need to defend and uphold the international rules-based order, but the tacit support for Saudi Arabia’s actions is entirely antithetical to this stated aim. The UK helped to design many international laws and conventions that seek to guarantee a peaceful, stable world. But its stance on Saudi Arabia means its deeds currently don’t match its words, and that puts its credibility at risk.
This is a case study in what happens when a country’s supposed economic interests come into conflict with its stated norms and values and its international obligations. The situation cannot carry on indefinitely. As the UK government makes plans to tread the international stage as a solo player outside the EU, it’s already being confronted with a series of difficult choices and trade-offs. It needs to critically assess its own foreign policy and uphold its own values before it can ask others to do the same.”
……..
Researcher in Security and Defence Policy at the Policy Institute at King’s, King’s College London.” “Armida L. M. van Rij received funding from the Oxford Research Group’s Remote Warfare Programme for this study. She is a member of the Women in International Security (WIIS) UK Leadership Team.
Partners
King’s College London provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.”
…………………Added: Two 2017 UK Guardian articles about UK government protecting Saudi financing of radical Islam:
May 31, 2017, “‘Sensitive’ UK terror funding inquiry may never be published,“ UK Guardian, Jessica Elgot
“Investigation into foreign funding and support of jihadi groups operating in UK understood to focus on Saudi Arabia”
“An investigation into the foreign funding and support of jihadi groups that was authorised by David Cameron may never be published, the Home Office has admitted.
The inquiry into revenue streams for extremist groups operating in the UK was commissioned by the former prime minister and is thought to focus on Saudi Arabia, which has repeatedly been highlighted by European leaders as a funding source for Islamist jihadis.
The investigation was launched as part of a deal with the Liberal Democrats in exchange for the party supporting the extension of British airstrikes against Islamic State into Syria in December 2015.
Tom Brake, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, has written to the prime minister asking her to confirm that the investigation will not be shelved.
The Observer reported in January last year [2016] that the Home Office’s extremism analysis unit had been directed by Downing Street to investigate overseas funding of extremist groups in the UK, with findings to be shown to Theresa May, then home secretary, and Cameron.
However, 18 months later, the Home Office confirmed the report had not yet been completed and said it would not necessarily be published, calling the contents “very sensitive”.
A decision would be taken “after the election by the next government” about the future of the investigation, a Home Office spokesman said.
In his letter to May, Brake wrote: “As home secretary at the time, your department was one of those leading on the report. Eighteen months later, and following two horrific terrorist attacks by British-born citizens, that report still remains incomplete and unpublished.
“It is no secret that Saudi Arabia in particular provides funding to hundreds of mosques in the UK, espousing a very hardline Wahhabist interpretation of Islam. It is often in these institutions that British extremism takes root.”
The contents of the report may prove politically as well as legally sensitive. Saudi Arabia, which has been a funding source for fundamentalist Islamist preachers and mosques, was visited by May earlier this year.
Last December, a leaked report from Germany’s federal intelligence service accused several Gulf groups of funding religious schools and radical Salafist preachers in mosques, calling it “a long-term strategy of influence”.
The Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron, said he felt the government had not held up its side of the bargain made ahead of the vote on airstrikes. The report must be published when it was completed, he insisted, despite the Home Office caution that information in the document would be sensitive.
“That short-sighted approach needs to change. It is critical that these extreme, hardline views are confronted head on, and that those who fund them are called out publicly,” he said.
“If the Conservatives are serious about stopping terrorism on our shores, they must stop stalling and reopen investigation into foreign funding of violent extremism in the UK.”
“An investigation into the foreign funding and support of jihadi groups that was authorised by David Cameron may never be published, the Home Office has admitted.
The inquiry into revenue streams for extremist groups operating in the UK was commissioned by the former prime minister and is thought to focus on Saudi Arabia, which has repeatedly been highlighted by European leaders as a funding source for Islamist jihadis.
The investigation was launched as part of a deal with the Liberal Democrats in exchange for the party supporting the extension of British airstrikes against Islamic State into Syria in December 2015.
Tom Brake, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, has written to the prime minister asking her to confirm that the investigation will not be shelved.
The Observer reported in January last year [2016] that the Home Office’s extremism analysis unit had been directed by Downing Street to investigate overseas funding of extremist groups in the UK, with findings to be shown to Theresa May, then home secretary, and Cameron.
However, 18 months later, the Home Office confirmed the report had not yet been completed and said it would not necessarily be published, calling the contents “very sensitive”.
A decision would be taken “after the election by the next government” about the future of the investigation, a Home Office spokesman said.
In his letter to May, Brake wrote: “As home secretary at the time, your department was one of those leading on the report. Eighteen months later, and following two horrific terrorist attacks by British-born citizens, that report still remains incomplete and unpublished.
“It is no secret that Saudi Arabia in particular provides funding to hundreds of mosques in the UK, espousing a very hardline Wahhabist interpretation of Islam. It is often in these institutions that British extremism takes root.”
The contents of the report may prove politically as well as legally sensitive. Saudi Arabia, which has been a funding source for fundamentalist Islamist preachers and mosques, was visited by May earlier this year.
Last December, a leaked report from Germany’s federal intelligence service accused several Gulf groups of funding religious schools and radical Salafist preachers in mosques, calling it “a long-term strategy of influence”.
The Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron, said he felt the government had not held up its side of the bargain made ahead of the vote on airstrikes. The report must be published when it was completed, he insisted, despite the Home Office caution that information in the document would be sensitive.
“That short-sighted approach needs to change. It is critical that these extreme, hardline views are confronted head on, and that those who fund them are called out publicly,” he said.
“If the Conservatives are serious about stopping terrorism on our shores, they must stop stalling and reopen investigation into foreign funding of violent extremism in the UK.”
Added: UK withholds details of Saudi financing of Islamic extremist groups, also withholds names of UK residents who fund Islamic terror, saying “tackling the problem of extremist funding would need a range of measures, notably connected to domestic sources of support.” The UK financial services industry even merits mention in the report and will be “alerted” about “extremism concerns.”
July 12, 2017, “Rudd’s refusal to publish full report into [Islamic] extremist funding ‘unacceptable’," UK Guardian, Peter Walker
“Opposition parties criticise ‘security-led’ decision to release only summary, saying mention of Saudi Arabia is being buried.”
“Opposition parties have condemned the government for opting not to publish a much-delayed report into the funding and support of extremist groups, saying the decision appeared intended to bury any criticism of Saudi Arabia.
But the home secretary, Amber Rudd, said the move was based on national security and claimed that the full report contained sensitive and detailed personal information.
Announcing the decision in a written parliamentary statement, Rudd instead published a 430-word summary of the report, including that some extreme Islamist groups receive hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in funding,
mainly from UK-based individual donors.
The summary said the most common source of support for extremist organisations was from small, anonymous public donations, mainly from individuals in the UK. It also said overseas backing helped some individuals study at institutions “that teach deeply conservative [ie, “deeply radical”] forms of Islam and provide highly socially conservative literature and preachers to the UK’s Islamic institutions”, adding: “Some of these individuals have since become of extremist concern.”
However, the summary did not name the countries of origin for such funding or mention Saudi Arabia or any other nations.
Rudd said the full report, commissioned by David Cameron, was being withheld “because of the volume of personal information it contains and for national security reasons”.
Opposition MPs who were members of the privy council would be able to view the full report at the Home Office if they did not divulge the contents publicly, she added.
But Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, said this did not go far enough, and the public “has a right to know if any governments, foreign or domestic organisations or individuals are funding extremism in this country”.
“Of course, security intelligence should not be compromised but this is easily achieved by redaction and other means. The government would never have commissioned this report if it considered this problem insurmountable.
“Instead, there is a strong suspicion this report is being suppressed to protect this government’s trade and diplomatic priorities, including in relation to Saudi Arabia. The only way to allay those suspicions is to publish the report in full.”
Caroline Lucas, the Green co-leader, who has campaigned for the report to be published, said the refusal to do so and the “utterly vague statement” in its place was unacceptable.
She added: “The statement gives absolutely no clue as to which countries foreign funding for extremism originates from – leaving the government open to further allegations of refusing to expose the role of Saudi Arabian money in terrorism in the UK.”
The Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, said the decision to not publish the report was “utterly shameful”.
He said: “Instead of supporting the perpetrators of these vile ideologies, the government should be naming and shaming them – including so-called allies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar if need be.”…
The summary found that while small individual donations were the most common funding source, and in some cases extremist organisations received hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. It added:
“This is the main source of their income. Those giving may not know or support the organisations’ full agenda.”
Some [Islamic] extremist Islamist organisations “portray themselves as charities to increase their credibility and to take advantage of Islam’s emphasis on charity”, and are vague about both their activities and their charitable status, it said….
The inquiry was begun as part of a deal with the Liberal Democrats during the coalition government, in exchange for the party supporting the extension of British airstrikes against Islamic State into Syria in December 2015.
The summary said that tackling the problem of extremist funding would need a range of measures, notably connected to domestic sources of support.
In response, Rudd’s statement said the government would seek to raise awareness “to encourage people to understand the full aims of the organisations that they give to,” and alert the financial services industry about extremism concerns.
It added: “These organisations have an interest in ensuring they are not inadvertently supporting extremist individuals or organisations.” Also, the statement said, the Charity Commission would introduce a requirement on charities to declare overseas funding sources.”…
..................
No comments:
Post a Comment