What I simply cannot understand is how people can continue to say that the United States has any sort of genuine commitment to ending the rampant problem of impunity for serious human rights violators while it continues to have a close security and military alliance with Saudi Arabia. And its worth reminding everyone that the United States does not simply passively acquiesce to Saudi misbehavior, it routinely sells the Saudis tens of billions of dollars of its most sensitive and advanced weapons systems (weapons systems that it would never even consider selling to the Russians under any imaginable scenario). And the US close embrace of Saudi Arabia is hardly a unique foible. Many other Western countries also enjoy close relations with the Saudis and, in a nice contrast to Magnitsky bill, the United Kingdom apparently exempts Saudi Prices from immigration controls entirely.
The gigantic yawning gulf between the United States treatment of Russia and Saudi Arabia was something that I simply could not ignore yesterday when I stumbled upon a story about how our close allies were preparing to behead and crucify seven people, including several people who were minors when they were first charged with a crime, who were convicted for a string of armed robberies.* Beheading! Crucifixion! I know that the Russian penal system is a cruel and capricious one, but you have to go back to some of the darkest days of the Soviet Union to find examples of such untrammeled barbarism. Can anyone imagine what the reaction from Freedom House would be if Putin were preparing to crucify someone, or to have decapitation (or any form of capital punishment at all) re-inserted into the Russian legal code? I feel like a draft declaration of war would be circulating on the hill before noon.
I simply dont understand how an American foreign policy which says to country X you commit human rights violations, therefore your officials are banned from visiting our country and will have their assets frozen while saying to country Y you commit far more serious human rights violations, here are the worlds most sophisticated combat systems can long endure. Perhaps Im naive, or simply consumed with the virus of whataboutism, but I honestly dont see how such a policy can have a very long shelf-life, or how it can be effective in an increasingly interconnected and well-informed word. Surely, at some point, the sheer overawing hypocrisy of the whole thing means that something will change, right?
If youre going to have a morality-based foreign policy, fine. I dont think thats the best way to go about structuring foreign relations, the world seems too nasty and anarchic a place to have morality structure our relationship with it, but its a perfectly coherent school advocated by intelligent and capable people that should be treated with respect. And a realist policy, a policy that focuses purely on American interests to the exclusion of other factors, is also perfectly logical and intellectually defensible. The first policy would limit American engagement with both Russia and Saudi Arabia, though it would, in practical terms, have a far greater impact on the alliance with Saudi Arabia since the Saudis are so much more repressive than the Russians and since their relationship with the US is already so much closer. The second policy would have an unclear impact, quite a lot would come down to the definition of US interests, but would not rule out cooperation or engagement with either country.
But what we have now is a completely incoherent mishmash of both schools, a selective Wilsonianism in which the United States uses values against its strategic adversaries while studiously ignoring the far more grievous human rights violations of its close allies and partners in the Middle East. Basically, whats good for the goose should be good for the gander. If the United States wants to take upon itself the responsibility of punishing human rights violators in the Russian government, then it should do. But if it keeps the Magnitsky bill on the books it should take similar legislative action against the Saudis, the Bahrainis, the Qataris, the Kuwaitis, and all of the other repressive and dictatorial governments with which it is allied. To do otherwise is to admit that, for the United States, values are relative, and are important only when they are beneficial. That hardly seems like the message we want to be sending with a values-based foreign policy.
Or perhaps the Saudis have a perverse hold on our government. They’ve learned from ABSCAM. Of course, nearly everyone convicted was a Democrat.
Don't forget the People's Republic of California.