Saudi Arabia says "NO" to free speech

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110305/ts_nm/us_saudi_protests

and Americans will continue to say "YES" to Saudi oil.

soo much for our commitment to democracy, freedom, and liberty.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Saudi Arabia says "NO" to free speech

In other news, summers in Death Valley are terribly hot.

 

[LashL]

And Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

 

[Thunder]

well, maybe we need to stop supporting dictatorships.

 

[MG1962]

Got them in the office pool for next bunch of crooks to get run out of town

 

[theprestige]

well, maybe we need to stop supporting dictatorships.

Maybe dictatorships need to stop having positions of power and influence in the world, such that it is impossible to pursue one's own national interests without making some kind of deal with some kinds of dictatorships.

Personally, I'm all for giving the dictatorships of the world their walking papers, by force if necessary, whatever the cost, annexing their territories, and giving their oppressed peoples the same deal the US gives Puerto Rico.

But nobody ever seems to want to talk about real opposition to dictatorships in positions of power and influence.

 

[angrysoba]

well, maybe we need to stop supporting dictatorships.

I know. I would happily see the end of the Saudi regime but I know what will happen if the US/The West puts them on some kind of pariah list. They'll be accused of fostering the very oppressive nature of the regime by being hostile to it.

If you look at relations between the US and, say, Cuba or North Korea, the criticism tends to be "The US is so mean to those countries and because it doesn't trade with them or even talk to them and refuses to support their economy is it any surprise at all that they oppress their peoples blah, blah, blah..."

If you look at places like Saudi Arabia (probably one of the most oppressive regimes in the world) or Uzbekistan the US is criticized for its tolerance or very mumbled protests of those countries' oppressive nature.

Or with Libya or Iraq they are wrong for at some point persuing both policies.

I'd happily see a more consistent line and be hostile to all oppressive regimes and seek out other ways of achieving national interests. (For example, lots more nuclear power stations and closing down and not building any more oil-fired power stations - a grotesque waste of a scarce resource).

But the point is that there is nothing that the US can actually do without attracting the ire of a certain political class. IF US does X it is wrong because the US does it. If the US does -X it is wrong because the US does it.

I'd prefer to see a less simplistic analysis if possible.

What say you Thunder?

 

[PogoPedant]

If you look at relations between the US and, say, Cuba or North Korea, the criticism tends to be "The US is so mean to those countries and because it doesn't trade with them or even talk to them and refuses to support their economy is it any surprise at all that they oppress their peoples blah, blah, blah..."

This is anecdotal at best, but my impression is that the critisism you're mentioning never applies to US-NK relations, although it is often appiled to US-Cuban relations.

 

[Corsair 115]

...and Americans will continue to say "YES" to Saudi oil.

U.S. crude oil imports from Saudi Arabia in thousands of barrels, 1993-2009. The figure in parentheses is the percentage of total crude oil imports. Data comes from the EIA:

1993: 467,753 (18.9%)
1994: 473,356 (18.4%)
1995: 459,826 (17.4%)
1996: 456,896 (16.6%)
1997: 472,093 (15.7%)
1998: 512,452 (16.1%)
1999: 506,272 (15.9%)
2000: 557,569 (16.8%)
2001: 588,075 (17.3%)
2002: 554,500 (16.6%)
2003: 629,820 (17.9%)
2004: 547,125 (14.8%)
2005: 527,287 (14.3%)
2006: 519,236 (14.1%)
2007: 528,189 (14.4%)
2008: 550,276 (15.4%)
2009: 357,874 (10.9%)

In numeric terms, the amount of crude oil imported from Saudi Arabia peaked in 2003; in 2009 the number had dropped by 43%. That's a sizable reduction. In terms of the percentage of total U.S. crude oil imports, it has fallen from 18.9% to 10.9%. Also a sizable reduction.

(Preliminary figures for 2010 are 394,280 imported from Saudi Arabia, 11.8% of the total.)

For comparison's sake, in 2009 the U.S. imported 709,106 thousands of barrels of crude oil from Canada, 21.6% of all imports. (Preliminary figures for 2010 are 719,698 imported, 21.5% of all imports.)



The U.S. also imports crude oil from other nations which are 'not free' (according to Freedom House's rankings) such as Angola, Algeria, Cameroon, and United Arab Emirates.

 

[Bill Thompson]

well, maybe we need to stop supporting dictatorships.

Where do you draw the line between a dictatorship and whatever else you have in mind? What if most of the people in the dictatorship love the dictator?

 

[angrysoba]

This is anecdotal at best, but my impression is that the critisism you're mentioning never applies to US-NK relations, although it is often appiled to US-Cuban relations.

Well, anecdotally I have also heard people who consider themselves informed on politics saying, "North Korea might be bad, I suppose, but that's because of America's presence in South Korea. They used to have lots of food and a thriving economy but the US has turned them into a garrison state." etc...

And these opinions do have some "academic" support from people like Bruce Cumings who argues that the US have been footdragging on normalization talks. He seems to favour the "Sunshine Policy" which was Kim Dae Jung's attempts to find peace on the peninsula through dialogue and concessions. Clinton also forged the Framework Agreement with the Kims which was to provide lightwater nuclear reactors in exchange for more openness about NK's nuclear programme. In contrast the Bush administration cancelled the Framework Agreement suspecting that the North Koreans were in violation of it by processing uranium (a suspicion that seems to have been vindicated now by the North Koreans themselves).

Another expert on North Korea, Selig Harrison, believes that the US should offer more concessions to the North Korean regime because he fears that the hardliners are more likely to take power. (I've not really understood this one but it seems Harrison considers Kim Jong-il to be somewhat dovish and Harrison blames all provocations or acts of aggression by North Korea on these phantom hardliners even when North Korean state media brags about these acts). His advice is to give Kim Jong-il what he wants to keep the hardliners in the regime from ascending to power. Where does he hear of these tussles for power? Why, he is told about them on his many trips to the country and it is whispered in his ears that if the US doesn't start giving North Korea stuff then the hardliners will surely win and then there'll be trouble!

This kind of thing is also parrotted by Christine Ahn as well. Again, the whole, Sure North Korea does bad things. But that's because of the US' hostility to it routine.

http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/?q=node/view/519

There's one bit in Bruce Cumings' book "North Korea: Another Country" where Cumings' questions how bad the gulags really are and concludes that they're probably not as bad as US media portrays them (seriously!) before pointing out that the US has a mighty large prison population that they could sort out before criticizing North Korea.

 

[Thunder]

But the point is that there is nothing that the US can actually do without attracting the ire of a certain political class. IF US does X it is wrong because the US does it. If the US does -X it is wrong because the US does it.

not my problem. I want my country to stand for freedom, justice, liberty, and tolerance. supporting Saudi Arabia & China does no such thing.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The U.S. also imports crude oil from other nations which are 'not free' (according to Freedom House's rankings) such as Angola, Algeria, Cameroon, and United Arab Emirates.

And Nigeria.

not my problem. I want my country to stand for freedom, justice, liberty, and tolerance. supporting Saudi Arabia & China does no such thing.

How's the rent in that ivory tower working out, Parky?

Argument by platitude, is one thing, but your "all or nothing" attitude is amusing.

Twenty years ago, I was one of those people utterly against increased trade with China, and particularly tech transfer. Nobody listened to the voices singing that song, as there were too many bucks to be made. GWH Bush and Bill Clinton administrations went with the money, and that momentum has been building ever since.

It was pretty easy to see who our next rivals would be when the Sovs broke up. As it works out, the reality is that the world is messy. We can, and do, stand for freedom and open society, and tolerance. That doesn't mean we are always going to get what we want. There is a political theory running about that suggests that engagement, rather than isolation, can have long term benefits of open society attitudes infecting, or spreading to, less open societies.

I'll leave the argument on whether or not that's happening with China to others, since Wolfman isn't here anymore to tell us how things are progressing along those lines.

DR

 

[NWO Sentryman]

not my problem. I want my country to stand for freedom, justice, liberty, and tolerance. supporting Saudi Arabia & China does no such thing.

Policymakers are aware that roleplaying the Paladin is not the best way to exercise diplomacy.

And you are aware that China has America by the throat, right? They could just call in the US debts and create another depression.

 

[Thunder]

And you are aware that China has America by the throat, right? They could just call in the US debts and create another depression.

I wonder what losing the USA as a major purchaser of Chinese exports, would do to the Chinese economy?

They need us as much as we need them, and I think we can definitely afford to ramp up our criticism of their pathetic human rights record, without putting their trade or our debt, in jeopardy.

 

[WildCat]

And Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

 

[NWO Sentryman]

I wonder what losing the USA as a major purchaser of Chinese exports, would do to the Chinese economy?

They need us as much as we need them, and I think we can definitely afford to ramp up our criticism of their pathetic human rights record, without putting their trade or our debt, in jeopardy.

Actually, from what i hear, china is raking in the largest trade and budget surpluses of all time while the US is in deep doo-doo wrt their deficit problems. As well as that, China has a much larger workforce and has larger growth rates.

Besdies, Obama is aware that China's gonna call in their debts if they do so much as criticise them in the UN.

 

[WildCat]

They could just call in the US debts and create another depression.

No, they can't.

 

[Corsair 115]

I wonder what losing the USA as a major purchaser of Chinese exports, would do to the Chinese economy?

Exports of goods and services to the U.S. comprised just under 58% of all its exports in 2008, according to this Wikipedia article, which cites the National Bureau of Statistics of China as the source for the data. So, clearly, the U.S. is an important trading partner.

Of course, Chinese imports comprised 16.1% of the total dollar value of all imported goods by the U.S. (Note the U.S. figure is goods only while the Chinese data says goods and services.)

They need us as much as we need them, and I think we can definitely afford to ramp up our criticism of their pathetic human rights record, without putting their trade or our debt, in jeopardy.

If the need is relatively mutual, then status quo seems a more likely outcome since neither side has any special advantage or leverage to use against the other.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

well, maybe we need to stop supporting dictatorships.

If we had a policy of not supporting any country that failed to live up to our standards of freedom and human rights—of not doing any business with any such country—then there would not be any other country in the world with which we could do business.