Written by Pax Hyde
If there is any fault to be found in the presidency of Barack Obama, it is his failure to define a coherent foreign policy that delivers on the aspirations of his 2008 campaign. Almost without exception, he has consistently advanced a progressive agenda. But to be human is to be forced to make decisions on issues that have no perfect solution, decisions of which we cannot be explicitly proud. For Obama, these situations have frequently presented themselves in foreign policy issues. Boots on the ground results in the most bloodshed, drone strikes have collateral damage, and inaction is apathetic or unjust. He was handed issues that have no appealing solution, but nonetheless demand his action as president.
The status quo of U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia is one of several foreign-policy issues that fall into this category. Historically, the U.S. has been motivated to ally with the Islamist absolute monarchy as mutual opponents of communism and in order to maintain a stable oil supply. We continue to act as an accomplice in Saudi military operations: providing intelligence and selling obscene quantities of weaponry in exchange for a military foothold in the region. Yet, the tune of this relationship has changed in recent years as Americans have become more familiar with ultraconservative Saudi culture. The Obama Administration has hedged its alliance with Saudi Arabia through energy independence and attempts at diplomacy with mutual rivals.
The bulk of the objection to U.S. cooperation with the Saudi government is what we perceive to be the questionable morality of its legal system and our conflicts of interest in foreign affairs. Saudi law and culture are permeated with Salafi doctrine—a fundamental branch of Sunni Islam—that includes religious discrimination, an antiquated criminal justice system, and the legalized subordination of women. Abroad, the Saudi government supports opposition groups in the Syrian civil conflict, which include Jabhat Al-Nusra, a Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda. The U.S. has lent support to opposing, pro-democracy rebel groups. They have also taken illicit military action in support of the Yemeni government in its civil war by carrying out airstrikes on civilian infrastructure and blockading aid supplies from entering the country: all this with resources and support provided by the U.S. military. The administration has found itself implicitly condoning these violations of international law just for the convenience of launching a few more drone strikes on suspected terrorist targets.
The seemingly obvious solutions to these issues are much easier said than done. Obama has been urged to raise the issue of domestic human rights violations with the King, yet has not followed through, because what would speaking up do? Members of the Saudi royalty are set in their own ideas of how to pursue the interests of their country. What is the logic in patronizing them? It is hardly different from a state-building policy where our military marches in and attempts to install a more sympathetic government. The same goes for their covert support of terrorist groups, for it is beyond anyone’s power to so drastically alter their outlook on the world. As a Muslim living in the Middle East, I might feel belligerent towards Western powers as well. It is impossible for any of us to tell them how to act, simply because we are not them.
Another simple solution would be to stop carrying out counterterrorism strikes that require cooperation with the Saudi Arabian regime. But this is not really a suitable alternative. Would it really be more just to withdraw when we have caused much of the conflict? As one of the more powerful and influential states on the planet, the U.S. should set an example by taking responsibility rather than submitting to cynical apathy. This does not mean increased military intervention, but rather actually respecting and aiding regional authorities that likely have a better solution. In this light, the criticism that Obama receives for being too soft on terrorism and Islamist states can be seen positively because it indicates that he is listening rather than imposing.
He has also done his best to reduce our country’s direct support of Islamist regimes by increasing our energy independence. Perhaps next, he could dial back the amount of weapons that the U.S. sells to these governments. Yet, reading between the lines of his policy, he is suggesting an objection to Saudi morals without imposing American power in a way that disrespects their right to autonomy.
The path that Obama has chosen to tread on relations with Saudi Arabia and the Mideast in general is perhaps the least palatable part of his legacy, although he has avoided inflicting the greatest harm in delicate situations. He was elected as president into a history of foreign policy that could not be ignored: previous interventions that resulted in the formation of terrorist groups and a longstanding alliance with Saudi Arabia. Despite pressures to act decisively, abundant criticism, and a lack of support from Congress, he refused to act without thorough knowledge and empathy. As a result, he has shifted the momentum of American foreign policy towards greater respect for others and a more measured use of force and influence. It is a difficult task, but who could have done it better?