Churchill Sets an Example for Today’s Western Leaders
Theresa May’s fig leaf approach to standing by basic democratic principles is the latest incident in a long-standing Western willingness to pay a heavy price for sleeping with the devil.
To understand that the Western emphasis on human rights is at best a fig leaf to do business with autocrats, contrast Winston Churchill’s encounter with Mohammed bin Salman’s grandfather, King Abdulaziz, with British Prime Minister Theresa May’s recent talks with the crown prince.
Meeting the king for lunch in Cairo in 1945, Churchill suggested that it was the “religion of his majesty to deprive himself of smoking and alcohol,” a reference to the king’s adherence to a puritanical strand of Islam that has dominated the kingdom since its founding in 1932. Churchill, however, made clear that the king’s beliefs would not deter him from enjoying his smokes and drinks in the monarch’s presence. The prime minister’s rule of life “prescribes as an absolutely sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after, and if need be during all meals and in the intervals between them,” Churchill said.
Enjoying tobacco and alcohol is certain not to have featured in Prime Minister May’s talks with Crown Prince Mohammed. Human rights and the humanitarian cost of Saudi Arabia’s ill-fated military intervention in Yemen did. In contrast to Churchill, who, perhaps insensitively and arrogantly, refused to compromise on his principles and pleasures, May’s statements were no more than words in what has become a ritual in interactions between democratic and autocratic leaders. The autocrats understand the need for democrats to maintain a fig leaf. The public admonishment of their tarnished human rights records is a small price to pay for the ability to conduct political and economic business.
The contrast between the two encounters is particularly significant in an environment in which abuse of human rights is on the rise and authoritarian and autocratic rule is spreading its wings across the globe — from China to once liberal democracies. Democracy is on the defense.
It raises the question of whether the refusal of democracies to stand up for their principles and pay a price will contribute to their demise and brutalization in a world in which the lessons of World War II genocide and principles of good governance in warfare can be ignored with impunity. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s gassing and starvation of Syrian civilians is a case in point.
Heavy Price to Pay
May’s fig leaf approach to standing by basic democratic principles is but the latest incident in a long-standing Western willingness to pay a heavy price for sleeping with the devil in a bid to gain short-term geopolitical and economic advantage.
Guilt is widespread. It is not just governments. The same is true for nongovernmental organizations such as international sport associations, who for decades tolerated pre-modernity curtailing of women’s sporting rights in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran by restricting their criticism to words rather than deeds.
Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi and author and long-time Saudi-watcher Robert Lacey noted in The Guardian that “the crown prince doesn’t listen to Saudis — why would he listen to Theresa May?” Khashoggi, long associated with Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former head of Saudi intelligence and ambassador to Britain and the US, who often voices opinions that Prince Mohammed does not want aired publicly, went into voluntary exile in 2017 on the eve of the crown prince’s power and asset grab under the mum of an anti-corruption campaign.
One irony of May’s approach in her talks with Prince Mohammed is the fact that the kingdom is an exemplary case study of the price that democracies have paid for their toothless objections to a long-standing Saudi worldview that was intolerant, supremacist and anti-pluralistic. To be sure, Prince Mohammed has begun to shave off the rough edges of that worldview with his social and economic reforms, but he has yet to convey his willingness to achieve a clean break.
Holders of tickets for a concert in Jeddah by Egyptian pop star Tamer Hosny were recently surprised to receive vouchers which warned that “no dancing or swaying” would be allowed at the event. “No dancing or swaying in a concert! It’s like putting ice under the sun and asking it not to melt,” quipped a critic on Twitter.
If anything, Prince Mohammed’s reforms have been underwritten by repression of any form of dissent. Anti-death penalty group Reprieve reported that Saudi Arabia’s execution rate had doubled since Prince Mohammed was appointed crown prince eight months ago. It said 133 people had been executed since June 2017 compared to 67 in the preceding eight months.
Turned a Blind Eye
Equally fundamentally, the world is still reeling from at times short-sighted, opportunistic Western support for the export of Saudi-inspired Sunni Muslim ultra-conservatism and a willingness to ignore its impact on Muslim communities across the globe. The same can be said for support of secular autocracies like the regime of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, whose repression, brutality and failure to deliver public goods and services offer extremism a fertile breeding ground. It is also true for states like Baathist Syria and Iraq that fell into the Soviet orbit during the Cold War, with Iraq — after the demise of the Soviet Union — enjoying US support during its war against Iran in the 1980s.
Geo-strategist Robert D. Kaplan, writing in Foreign Policy, argued that Syria and Iraq had descended into the Middle East and North Africa’s worst mayhems that have caused enormous human suffering and cost the international community significantly in political, diplomatic and security terms because they were artificial, colonial-era geographic constructs. They lacked the civilizational history, centuries of some kind of statehood, and deep-seated identities that have helped keep Egypt or Tunisia territorially intact.
In South Asia, during the era of conservative Pakistani President Muhammad Zia ul-Haq and the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s, the US went as far as to distribute school books that propagated Saudi-inspired jihad and precepts of ultra-conservatism. In doing so, it played havoc with Pakistan, a country that since its birth has struggled with its identity.
Western democracies ignored the fact that Saudi Arabia invested heavily over decades to push its austere worldview as an antidote to post-1979 Iranian revolutionary zeal. While not the only factor, the Saudi campaign created an environment in Pakistan and elsewhere in which militant Islam flourished, societies became ever more conservative and intolerant, and political violence increased. Western democracies as well as others, including the kingdom, are paying a high price in terms of people’s lives and vastly expanded security to counter extremism and political violence.
It is an open debate over whether policies that had been built on democratic values rather than support for autocracy and intolerant worldviews could have achieved similar geopolitical victories — such as the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan — at a lower cost and a reduced threat to those values. What is certain, however, is the fact that the fallout of the failure to stand up for democratic values comes at an ever-steeper cost and uncertainty of how the pendulum will swing.
The unanswered question is whether — in terms of cost-benefit analysis — short-term hits resulting from adopting a principled stand may ultimately be a more reasonable cost and produce greater long-term benefit than the price of dealing with the fallout of policies that ignore democratic principles and are likely to produce ever greater threats.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
Photo Credit: Number 10