Reading Them the Riyadh Act: Condoleezza Rice prods our dictatorial allies

The Weekly Standard ^ | July 4 / July 11, 2005 | Jonathan Karl

[quidnunc]

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia – On June 20 in Cairo, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did something no U.S. secretary of state has ever done in the Middle East. She forcefully and publicly told America's most important allies in the region to stop oppressing their citizens. She called on Egypt to lift the emergency decree that has given Hosni Mubarak near absolute power since the assassination of Anwar Sadat 24 years ago. She called on Saudi Arabia to give women voting rights and to free three individuals imprisoned earlier this year for criticizing the government. In Riyadh the following day, reporters asked Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal about the speech. With Secretary Rice by his side, he said, "I have not read it, to my eternal shame."

In another first, Rice devoted a considerable amount of her public and private comments to political reform and, specifically, women's rights. The Saudis, however, aren't exactly shaking in their sandals. They figure U.S. concerns about the flow of oil and the fight against terrorism will continue to trump all this talk about freedom and democracy. When asked by a reporter about the three political prisoners Rice wants released, Prince Saud said curtly, "I told the secretary of state that they have broken a law."

But both the Saudis and the Egyptians feel a need to at least appear like they are reforming, and that is a start. At Rice's joint press conference with Prince Saud, the Saudis put three women journalists in the front row. They were dressed in the traditional abaya, covering them from head to toe in black — or almost head to toe. One of the women wore open-toed shoes revealing nail polish so bright it was impossible not to notice. Prince Saud called on the women for the first and last questions. "We like to open with the ladies and close with the ladies," he said. Rice seemed impressed by the presence of the women, telling reporters later "that was both interesting and important." The gesture, however, may have been more patronizing than meaningful. Saudi Arabia has neither freedom of the press nor basic rights for women.

By virtually any measure of political rights and civil liberties, Saudi Arabia deserves a spot on Rice's "outposts of tyranny" list. Three separate State Department reports over the past year — on human rights, on religious freedom, on human trafficking — portray Saudi Arabia as one of the most repressive places on earth. Freedom House gives Saudi Arabia its lowest rating for political freedom, a distinction shared by North Korea. Three of the six countries Rice called "outposts of tyranny" (Iran, Belarus, and Zimbabwe) are actually rated higher by Freedom House, that is, they are more free than Saudi Arabia. The Freedom House ratings don't paint a pretty picture of Egypt either — giving it just slightly better marks than Iran and Belarus.

-snip-

[Malesherbes]

About a decade ago Algeria had free elections and the Islamists won. The army promptly cancelled the result and took over. Free elections in Turkey have put an Islamist government in power. Iran has just elected a hard-line Islamist President. Given the hold that Wahabiism has on Saudi Arabia, what kind of government would free elections produce in that country?

[dervish]

That's because it is a mistake to talk about democracy. The standard is freedom. So an Islamist regime that represses rights is no improvement and leads to what occurred in Iraq when they got democracy. They voted in the leaders who then were supressed by the Mullahs and Sharia.