Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, CDHR, Washington DC

June 1, 2014

Saudi/Persian Rapprochement, Punishments Exceed Crimes, Corruption and Token Royals    

Commentaries and Analysis 

Cost of Saudi/Persian Rapprochement   

CDHR’s Commentary: Despite their belligerent public pronouncements and pomposity, the absolute Saudi and Iranian regimes have more in common than they preach to their oppressed populations and to the international community. Neither of them wants a thriving democracy as a neighbor, as exemplified by their multi-faceted support for their respective Sunni and Shi’a proxies in Iraq. The Iranians and the Saudis are seeking hegemony in the Middle East consistent with their respective repressive systems.    

After failing to draw the international community into the intra Persian/Saudi conflict and failing to defeat each other in their proxy wars in Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon, the Iranian and the Saudi ruling despots have been forced to accept that negotiating their differences and preserving their control over their populations is the best option available to them.  The Saudis are in the weaker position of the two because of the West’s overtures toward Iran, lack of global support for the Saudi campaign to topple the Syrian regime, loss of allied dictatorial Arab friends (like Mubarak of Egypt) and due to the world’s diminishing dependence on Saudi oil. 

In response to these pressures, the Saudi regime issued an invitation to the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, to visit Saudi Arabia in the hope of negotiating an end to their unwinnable proxy wars and of accommodating each other’s religious and strategic roles in the Middle East. Additionally, the Saudi and Iranian autocracies are under unprecedented domestic pressures for reform from their aspiring populations. 

In order to avert mass uprising, the Iranian theocrats have to respond to their population’s discontent with the economic privations imposed on them by the international community in response to the regime’s pursuit of a nuclear program considered threatening to the region and to the international community. Furthermore, the potential for mass revolution in Iran would escalate exponentially if the country were to be attacked because of the government’s refusal to dismantle its nuclear program. While the Iranian people are likely to unite behind their government in the short run if the country is attacked, most of them (if current sentiment against the system is credible) are looking for an opportunity to revolt against their absolute regime. Increased social and economic suffering caused by an attack would enhance the chances for uprising.

While the reasons behind the Saudis’ invitation to the Iranians to discuss their differences and the Iranians’ reconciliatory messages to the Saudis differ, their objectives are identical: to ensure their respective religious and strategic control over their domains and proxies throughout the Middle East. Additionally, each wants to be recognized by the international community, especially the West, as the most reliable ally that is capable of maintaining stability in the oil rich Persian Gulf region.

In the short term, there will be benefits to a Saudi/Iranian reconciliation, chief among which would be an easing of global anxieties over potential interruption of oil production and export from the Gulf countries. This positive outcome cannot be achieved unless some intensely contested conflicts between the Saudi and Iranian regimes are resolved or, more likely, suppressed.

While the Saudi and Iranian regimes have thus far avoided direct collision, they have been engaged in destabilizing bloody conflicts through their respective Sunni and Shi’a proxies in Middle Eastern countries where they have strategic interests. As amply documented, the Saudis and Iranians are primarily responsible for most of the military and financial supplies that perpetuate the three year-old carnage in Syria. They likewise support their proxies in Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain, Yemen and Afghanistan, where bloody civil wars rage. Success of the proposed Saudi/Iranian negotiations will depend largely upon how they resolve their deep and costly involvement in these conflicts. It’s feasible that the Saudis and Iranians will agree to restrain their proxies, but won’t abandon them because of their historical mutual mistrust.

Given the repressive nature of the Saudi and Iranian regimes, any potential alliance between them will not likely benefit their oppressed populations (especially women and minorities), the Middle East or democratic societies. As  documented by major human right groups, including the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, these two governments top the list of the world’s worst violators of basic human rights, religious tolerance, women’s and minority rights and democratic principles.

Based on their abysmal records, it’s more likely that the Saudi and Iranian regimes and their agencies will collaborate on repressive policies domestically and globally. The Saudis and Iranians are known for supporting extremists and terrorist groups worldwide. They will likely  incorporate extremism and terrorism to achieve their joint objectives as they have done to achieve their individual goals. The probable major targets of a joint Saudi/Iranian extremist offensive are the US and Israel.

As they have done for decades to divert their suppressed populations’ attention from their domestic failures, the two regimes will focus on blaming Israel for occupying Palestine, especially al-Quds (Jerusalem), which Muslims consider one of their holy shrines. They will likely continue to blame the US for its “invasions” of Muslim countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. These are two issues around which the Sunni Saudi and Shi’a Iranian rulers can easily rally support in their respective countries and in Muslim communities worldwide.   

While in the short run, conciliation, even if temporary, between the Saudi and Iranian regimes will produce some positive effect, in the long run the consequences could be calamitous for the region and for free societies worldwide. 

Saudi Prince Advocates Prohibiting Freedom of Expression

CDHR’s Commentary: Addressing the 17th Non-Aligned Movement Conference in Algeria, the Saudi Deputy Foreign Minister, Prince Abdul Aziz Bin Abdullah (son of King Abdullah), is quoted to have said that ‘The international law is violated and the principles of human rights and freedom of expression are exploited to insult religions and their symbols for political purposes.’ The Saudi prince must have either been incoherent, detached from reality or unable to distinguish between ruling by the sword (as in Saudi Arabia) or governing according to peoples’ choices in countries where citizens have the power to promote and demote their representatives nonviolently. In reality, the Saudi princes should be the last to criticize others for not respecting ‘international law and principles of human rights.’ The Saudi system criminalizes criticism of the ruling family and its clerics and equates promoters of democracy, social justice, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights with terrorism and atheism.

The Saudi based and led 57 countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been advocating and lobbying for an international ban on all forms of criticism of Islam. This could include a joke by a comedian in free societies where one’s right to joke about religions, clergy and religious traditions is protected and such jokes are common place. In free societies, freedom of all forms of expression is enshrined in non-sectarian constitutions and protected by codified rules of law, while in Saudi Arabia all non-religious laws are considered contrary to Shariah, Islam’s arbitrary religious law.

What can be more offensive to religions than calling for the destruction of their houses of worship as the Saudi Mufti (the highest religious authority) advocated? What the Saudis and other anti-democratic Muslim regimes fail to understand is that freedom of expression (regardless how offensive) generates debate through which people can discuss, vent their anger and frustration then make up their own minds voluntarily and judge for themselves whether someone has a valid point or is a misguided lunatic.   

It’s hard to find a country where religion and power are exploited for ‘political purposes’ more than in Saudi Arabia, where the only segments in society that have the right to speak freely are those who condemn people to imprisonment, flogging and heavy financial penalties for expressing critical personal opinions about religion and about the country’s religious and political ruling dynasties.

Arabs and Muslims can benefit immensely if they are allowed to express their opinions and feelings freely about any subject including religion and clerics. Repression in any country forces people to resort to violence to express their grievances and to obtain their rights as exemplified by the current violent revolts raging in the Arab World.

Bribery is a curable Social Malaise 

CDHR’s Commentary: Bribery is a social, economic, development-impeding and bankrupting practice that can be made too costly for swindlers who exploit people to enrich themselves and to enrich those who do not submit to the same rules they force others to obey.

While corruption and corruptible individuals and institutions cannot totally be eradicated in any society, public officials and merchants can be held accountable and fully responsible for their transgressions. Curtailment of bribery exists and is adhered to in societies where no one is above the rule of law and where public scrutiny is guaranteed by non-sectarian constitutions and transparent independent court systems. Violators of anti-bribery laws in open societies can be charged with crimes against the public interest and stigmatized for the rest of their lives. 

Three related events occurred in the Middle East in March and May 2014 that demonstrate the striking differences between governance under the rule of law and the whims of self-appointed men who punish citizens for advocating accountability, transparency and equality under the law.

In May 2014, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was sentenced to five years imprisonment for a bribery scandal in which he was involved. The Israeli court compared the former Prime Minister’s action with treason because he betrayed public trust by enriching himself illegally.

In the same month, former Omani Commerce Minister Mohammed Al-Khusaibi was sentenced to three years in prison for bribing another Omani official to win a lucrative contract. Mohammed Al-Khusaibi is the first high official to be convicted of public larceny and to be sentenced to imprisonment for bribery in the entire corruption-infested Gulf Arab States.

While convicting and penalizing the highest Israeli officials for their misconduct is common place, it’s a refreshing change to hear of the Omani courts’ decision to convict a minister with close personal and working relationships with the ruler of Oman, Sultan Qaboos. This is an unusual, but encouraging embryonic step one can only hope will spread and become the norm in the Gulf region, especially in Saudi Arabia whose draconian domestic policies many people in the smaller Gulf states blame for lack of political, economic and social progress in the region.

While some steps have been taken to fight corruption in Saudi Arabia, including King Abdullah’s establishment of an anti-corruption Commission in 2011, no Saudi high official, royal or commoner, has been convicted despite the fact that corruption is still rampant within the Saudi government. The Commission has been ineffective because it is restricted by government’s mandate which prevents it from going after the well-known swindlers of public wealth, mostly members of the ruling family, such as defense officials. The mandate limits the Commission’s assignment to go after corrupt petty officials and merchants, but not members of the ruling family and their major business and religious partners who are exempted from the laws applied to other members of society. The non-sectarian rule of law which is applicable to all members of a free society is considered a Western value which is antithetical to God’s will and to Islamic teachings and traditions in Saudi Arabia. Consequently, the result in Saudi Arabia is corruption sustained by arbitrary interpretation and implementation of religious laws (Shariah) by the government and its agencies.  

In contrast to the secular rule of law demonstrated in the Israeli case, and in the unusual Omani case, the Saudi regime continues to rely on arbitrary sectarian laws which not only deny individuals protection from public and private abuses, but perpetuate corruption, social injustice and immunity from punishment for the top larcenists of public property.    Furthermore, the Saudi government is using its sectarian laws to punish and ostracize those who advocate the creation of codified non-sectarian rule of law. For example, Raif Badawi, an aspiring Saudi political reformer, was sentenced in March 2014 to ten years imprisonment, 1,000 lashes and a fine of $267, 000 for advocating the institution of non-sectarian rule of law to replace the current arbitrary religious laws which are based on the interpretation of and are managed by extremist cleric judges. Like many other Saudi reformers and human rights activists, Badawi became a victim of the arbitrary religion based rules because of the absence of rule of law that put the former highest Israeli office in prison.

Implementing a uniform rule of law can drastically minimize corruption in Saudi Arabia as it has in democratically governed societies. The benefits to businesses, public morale, work ethics, efficient public service and the country’s global image can be immense, if uniform and enforceable anti-bribery laws are put into place. 

Statements of Support for Women by Some Royals are Disingenuous at Best  

CDHR’s Commentary: In a recent press conference, the Minister of the powerful Saudi National Guard (founded for the purpose of protecting the ruling family) Prince Miteb, a son of King Abdullah, said that he has been a strong supporter of women’s employment in his organization. He claimed that he has been a supporter of Saudi women’s right to drive for 20 years. Prince Miteb was also quoted as saying that he is not opposed to elections as long as they are civil.

Other members (male and female) of the large ruling oligarchy have said the same things Prince Miteb is quoted to have stated. If well-placed members of the ruling family like Prince Miteb are genuine and believe in the rights of Saudi women to be the authors of their destiny, why not form a group of like-minded royals to promote removal of the ban on women’s right to drive, to eliminate the male guardian system (modern slavery) and to allow for free legislative elections? They can also join and work with non-royal human rights, pro-democracy and social justice activists to publicly demonstrate their commitment to the reformation of the system, without which there will be no justice for the Saudi people, women or men.

Despite their half-hearted supportive pronouncements for women’s rights or other cosmetic reforms, these token royals’ total commitment is to their family’s continued supremacy and stated ownership of the country. Since their first and foremost priority is their family’s survival and hegemony, it’s unlikely that any of these royals will risk undermining their family’s control upon which their privileges, including generous monthly stipends depend. 

Given this background, it’s inconceivable that members of the ruling family, regardless of their supportive public statements for change, could deviate from their family’s established guidelines, let alone work side by side with non-royal advocates for political reforms. From birth to maturity, royal sons and daughters are not only physically separated from the commoners, but are trained in their own royals-only schools to believe that the people are their underlings, according to reliable sources. They are trained to believe that interaction between those of their royal class and that of the commoners, be it social or political, could taint and threaten their supremacy.  

Undoubtedly, some members of the Saudi royal family empathize with the plight of women, minorities and society as a whole, but none of them has shown or is likely to show the commitment and moral courage to risk their extravagant lifestyle provided for by their family’s control of the country and its wealth. The only possibility that they will change is if their lives are threatened or if the risk of maintaining the status quo outweighs the risks of transforming the system. 

Savagery Continues to Rule or Does it? 

CDHR’s Commentary: Sentencing Raef Badawi on May 7, 2014 to 10 years in prison, one thousand lashes (dehumanizing flogging in public squares) and a monetary penalty of $267,000 for expressing a simple opinion is not out of the ordinary under the autocratic and theocratic Saudi retributive system. Arbitrary confinement, flogging and beheadings are business as usual in Saudi Arabia; they are the norms as defined by Shariah (arbitrary Islamic law) and whimsically implemented by a sectarian judicial system. These cruel punishments are engraved on the pillars upon which the Saudi state was founded and continues to operate. The founders of the Saudi kingdom and their ruling descendants have been using religion as a tool of intimidation, exploitation, discrimination and su ppression since the formation of the Saudi/Wahhabi alliance in the middle of the 18 century.

The acrimonious sentencing of Raif Badawi and many other Saudi reformers (many of whom are languishing in Saudi prisons) are not because of crimes they committed against the public or the state, but for promoting political participation, freedom of expression, social justice and governmental accountability. Promoting these humane and empowering values is considered a threat to the Saudi kingdom’s stability, antithetical to God’s will and an insult to Islam, accusations that amount to apostasy, a crime punishable by death in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim lands. Furthermore, advocates of freedom of expression and democratic reform in Saudi Arabia are equated with atheism and terrorism. They are accused of promoting infidels’ social and political values which are not only antithetical to Islamic teachings, but designed to abolish Islam and subjugate its adherents. &nbs p;

By continuing its policy of severe punishment against a generation of educated, worldly and aspiring men and women, the Saudi regime is increasingly revealing its malign side, eroding its legitimacy, credibility and suitability to rule at a time when the Arab East is going through a transformative revolution against oppression, embezzlement of public wealth and tyrannical regimes, some of whose practices are milder than the autocratic Saudi dynasty’s. Due to its possession of substantial oil reserves and large investments in Western businesses and treasuries, the Saudi rulers have thus far escaped Western condemnation for their severe violations of basic human rights as exemplified by Raif Badawi’s and other Saudi reformers’ unwarranted harsh sentencing for crimes they did not commit.

Given the bold and wide-spread domestic demands for reforms, the abrupt regional revolts against tyranny, global reassessments of Saudi ideological threats and dwindling Saudi economic and strategic significance, the Saudi princes have two options, either continue to depend on the sword to maintain absolute control or share legislative powers with their increasingly restless and impatient population. The latter is the safer and more logical option because the old order is unsustainable even by the sword. To go this route will need a modern, pragmatic and visionary leadership which seems to be in short supply at this time.

Men of Darkness and Downright Duplicity

CDHR’s Commentary: On April 17, 2014, a collection of “religious” men opposed to women’s rights, to social justice, to religious freedom and to evolutionary human development and its concomitant aspirations, arrived at the Saudi Royal Court in Riyadh to protest and to warn their followers against “Westernization” of Saudi girls’ schools. These men embody backwardness, injustice and hypocrisy, at best. Based on what they say and do, they can best be defined as misogynistic, idlers, charlatans and lethal ideologues. They consider introduction of sports classes in wo men’s schools antithetical to the teachings of their dogmatic brand of Islam, Wahhabism, which they and their staunch supporter Crown Prince Salman consider superior to other Muslim schools of thought.

It’s domestically and globally well-documented that the Saudi religious establishment is adamantly opposed to Saudi women’s rights to work, to drive and to participate in sports because they have convinced themselves that women’s participation in any of these activities will likely cause them to lose their virtue.  They argue that if women are allowed to drive, they will get behind the wheel without supervision of their relative male guardians, expose their faces and tempt male drivers to indulge in ungodly activities which could turn the country into a brothel. They illogically argue that women who drive over a period of time give birth to deformed children.  

Like their ruling partners, the Saudi ruling princes, the dogmatic clerics issue dire warnings against Western  values and activities, including the individual right to choose, especially to convert to another religion, which is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia. Through their religious TV channels and social media, the only uncensored news outlets in the country, the clerics consider freedom of choice, freedom of expression, self-reliance, questioning of authority and religious freedom as infidel (Christian and Jewish) inventions designed to destroy Islam, Muslims and their heritage. They equate political, social and religious reformers with atheism. 

Despite their hypocritical warnings and protestations against Western values and inventions, these duplicitous clerics purchase and use the best products the West invents and produces. They drive SUVs made in Detroit. They go for treatment by Western doctors. They wear Western-made-garments and watches. They use cell phones and GPS devices and are addicted to social media. All of these inventions are made by the same Westerners whose values Saudi clerics condemn and warn their followers against. To the clerics’ and to their handlers’ (the ruling family) detriment, most Saudi people know that the objective of these machinations is not to glorify God, but rather to poison their captive population’s minds against empowering values.

The Center for Democracy & Human Rights in Saudi Arabia is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization registered in Washington, DC. Your donation is tax deductible and will help CDHR continue its democratic, nonviolent activities. Donate easily using PayPal at our website or send a donation by mail to:

The Center for Democracy & Human Rights in Saudi Arabia

1050 17th Street NW Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036 USA