The key to the
United Kingdom’s economy (like the rest of the world) is energy, and in
particular oil or as it has been termed ‘Black Gold’. Oil is the most prominent
natural resource used in modern society from energy generation, to vehicles,
and tooth paste - oil rules. If this is true then those producing ‘Black Gold’
have a unique position within the global community, with Saudi Arabia one of
these unique countries. We all know this but yet we are reluctant to confront
the reality of using oil and its implications in the countries where it is
produced. Just like the raw materials, gold, diamonds, private and public
capital, within apartheid South Africa in the 1960s, the British government knowingly
and willingly supports an authoritarian regime (Saudi Arabia) for the
procurement of oil and the profits generated from this.
When we
consider Britain’s relationship with the Middle East we assume that it is one
of spreading democracy or combating radicalization and terrorism. However this
may not be the entire case. Consider the vast amount of oil purchased from
Saudi Arabia (and other Gulf States) in exchange for lucrative arms deals for
the Wests military-industrial complex? With Saudi Arabia supporting Wahhabism
(also known as Salafi Islam) and with many of these terrorist groups either
fully endorsing this ideology or affiliating with a similar conservative strain
of Islam, would it not be appropriate for the British government to take a step
back and stop supporting Saudi Arabia? The possible connections of the Saudi
Kingdom to terrorist or affiliated groups, makes one think whether the British government
is supporting democracy and combating the spread of terrorism throughout the
Middle East.
The Telegraph
stated in an article in May 2017 that “the US State Department has estimated
that over the past four decades Riyadh has invested more the $10bn (£6bn) into
charitable foundations in an attempt to replace mainstream Sunni Islam with the
harsh intolerance of Wahhabism. EU intelligence experts estimated that 15 to 20
per cent of this has been diverted to al-Qaida and other violent jihadists”. Thus Saudi Arabia is at least suspect
when supporting radical Islam. Therefore, how can the British government be sure
that the Saudis are not supporting terrorism (given the fact that they both
follow strict forms or interpretations of Islam) or as The Telegraph article
state “members of the Saudi ruling class have applauses Wahhabism for
its Salafi piety and the movement’s vehement opposition to the Shia branch of
Islam”.
Britain
supports Saudi Arabia to the tune of £3.3billion since 2015. At the same time
the Saudi lead coalition has been engaged in a bombing campaign in Yemen. With
one of the worst preventable humanitarian disasters on the rise in Yemen, is it
morally right that a democracy should be supporting both a suspect supporter of
terrorism and a country engaged in conflict? For clearance on this question I
believe it is not acceptable that the UK government should be actively seeking
financial gain (or financial gain for those in the arms industry) at the
expense of democracy and human lives. For example BAE Systems website states
that they work “in partnership with its
customers and Saudi industry, it delivers cost-effective solutions supported by
in-country management and technical capabilities”, with no mention or reference
as to how these weapons are being used. This is simply a diversion from the
truth that BAE Systems, through the sale of arms is directly helping Saudi
Arabia persecute a war in Yemen for financial gain. With the latest batch of Typhoon
Jets being delivered, to Saudi Arabia, on the 6th June 2017 after
one of the largest arms deal worth £20 billion.
Is the British
government and the politicians in Westminster aware of their actions and the
implications this has for innocent people in the Arabian Peninsula and the
Middle East? Of course this question is rhetorical, it is clear that they are
fully aware of the implications but choice to look the other way. Is the
British government thus supporting democracy in the Middle East or continuing
to contribute to conflict in the region that appears to have no end in sight,
unfortunately it appears to be the latter.
Notes;
The British
government supported the apartheid regime in South Africa throughout the 1960s,
1970s, and to a lesser extend the 1980s. Although vocal in their criticism of
human rights abuses, the British government was reluctant to interfere in the
trade and investment flowing into South Africa in this period, and thus preventing
the profits generated from this trade flowing to the shareholders and board
members facilitating this trade. This policy of British ‘non-intervention’
contributed to the continuation of apartheid. For more information on Britain’s
relationship with South Africa (during the apartheid regime) contact the author
of this post.
Recommended reading;
Read Parliament Ltd by Martin Williams for a
more in-depth study of politicians’ financial dealings especially, but not
exclusively, with the arms trade.
For a discussion
of South Africa’s relationship with Britain during the apartheid era, I recommend
Uneasy Relationship: Britain and South
Africa by James Barber.
