Saudi Arabia at the Forefront of Middle Eastern Countries to Build Its Security Infrastructure - Essay Example

Saudi Arabia and Core values in International Relations Saudi Arabia is one of the most widely known countries in the world and this is mainly because of its massive oil wealth as well as its prominence in the Middle East. This country has undergone various changes in its strategy of governance since it was founded but while this may be the case, it has essentially remained autocratic. Saudi Arabia, as its name suggests, has since it was founded, been under the rule of the Saud family which controls all aspects of its political life. Furthermore, as a state that adheres completely to Islamic teachings as taught in the Quran, its religious and judicial systems are strictly controlled by allies of the Saud family and this has ensured that the country remains under almost complete dominance of one family (Commins 2009, p.211). Despite its being an autocratic state, Saudi Arabia has as one of its key allies the United States, which is often considered the leader of the free world as well as a firmly democratic country. While in other cases this alliance would have been most unlikely, the ties between these countries, especially economic and political ones, have been forged over many decades and this has ensured that their alliance is essentially secure. However, over the years, there have been doubts concerning whether the core values that are currently espoused in international relations are being fully implemented in Saudi Arabia. These core values are guidelines, which are normally expected to be implemented in a manner that ensures a free, just and secure society; three factors that Saudi Arabia has been found wanting. Saudi Arabia has been at the forefront of Middle Eastern countries in building its security infrastructure to deal with both internal and external threats. As a result, this country spends a considerable chunk of its budget on matters concerning security and it is one of the biggest importers of military hardware from the United States. Despite its strength, the military has essentially been developed, not for the security of the people of this country, but in order to secure the rule of the Saud family as well as its allies. Because Saudi Arabia is often considered the private property of its ruling family, its security forces are designed and deployed in a manner that protects its interests. These forces have been used repeatedly to suppress any form of dissent against Saud rule and it has become so efficient that over the years, dissent within the country has grown lesser (Bradley 2005, p.84). While in previous years the biggest security threat to Saudi Arabia was Israel, the security priorities of this country have seriously changed as there has developed a focus on Iran. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran are Islamic states, with the former being considered a leader of Sunni Islam while the latter being the leader of Shia Islam (Beehner, 2006). These two Islamic sects have rivalled one another since the death of the Prophet Muhammad and these countries have come to symbolize this rivalry as each of them contends with the other to achieve dominance over the Middle East. The contention between these two countries has led to a situation where the Saudi government has gone to great lengths to suppress Shia Muslims in the country. Shia Muslims, who form a majority in the oil rich eastern regions of Saudi Arabia, have essentially been deprived of their rights in their own land because they are often considered sympathizers to Iran (Saeed and Saeed 2004, p.227). This has made it difficult for them to live their lives within the country and to enjoy the same freedoms that Sunni adherents have, creating a severe rift between the members of these two sects. Such a situation might result in the development of an open conflict between them that might end up splitting Saudi society. Sectarian violence is not a new occurrence in the Middle East, as has been evidenced by the Arab Spring where members of different sects, who have lived side by side for generations, have suddenly turned against one another in a wave of terror, revenge and outright hatred (Nasr 2007, p.238). If such a situation were to occur within Saudi society, it would be completely ripped apart because sectarian divisions are often quite difficult to overcome, as evidenced in Syria and Iraq, where such conflicts have been going on for years. When a government favours one community over the other, at a time when it is supposed to be impartial in its provision of services as well as leadership, there is often a potential for conflict and this might result in its loss of moral authority to lead among the deprived people (Miller, 2011). It is therefore essential for the government of Saudi Arabia to ensure that the rights of all its citizens are secured and that it ceases suppressing the Shia population because this is one of the most significant ways through which it can secure the country from dissention. Despite being a member of the United Nations as well as a signatory of its statutes, especially those concerning the right of all individuals to freedoms, Saudi Arabia has failed to fully implement its commitments. This country is one of the most autocratic states in the world with many of its citizens not having a say in their government. A large number of members of the Saud family who have all the political power and influence in society dominate the government. As a result, some members of this family have developed government positions into what can only be termed as fiefdoms so that when the holder of the position passes away or retires, his/her sons inherit it. The governmental system based on nepotism has deprived Saudis the right to participate in their own government despite attempts in recent years to open up municipal positions to the public through elections. When municipal elections were first conducted in Saudi Arabia, it was expected that it would be the first step in ensuring that the democratic space in this country was slowly but surely being opened up (Cordesman 2003, p.297). However, this situation turned out not to be the case because elections remained at the municipal level and the people of the country do still do not have representation at the national level because there has not been a process designed to ensure the creation of a parliament. This is a situation that needs to be addressed urgently because in its bid to hold on to its absolute power over the country, the Saud family is laying down the foundations of its overthrow because in an increasingly democratized world, it is most likely that its people might rise against it in a bid to attain their freedom. Saudi Arabia is considered a major player not only in the Middle East, but also in the entire Arab world and this reputation has ensured that it has a say on diverse issues affecting the region. However, it has been noted that this country has a reputation for the suppression of its minorities while at the same time creating an environment where there are often brutal crackdowns against those who are considered either opposing government policy or the rule of the Saud family (Hopkins, 2012). The crackdown on free speech has essentially left the people of this country, especially the minorities, without a voice and this has led to their being treated more like second-class citizens rather than as individuals who can fight for their rights within their own country. This is something that should not be occurring within a country in the modern world because it makes a mockery of the rights that minorities should have wherever they live. The result of their suppression is that the minorities in this country have no one to defend them since they are not allowed either to speak freely or to participate in politics. A consequence of the policies of the Saudi government is that minorities end up living in lower standards because whenever they attempt to raise their voices concerning their plight, they are perceived as being a direct threat to the established order and might end up being further pushed aside from the rest of society. Another consequence of not having a voice is that because they do not have a voice, minorities end up being viciously exploited by those who dominate the society since they do not have the means of defending themselves either politically or through the judiciary (Chamberlain, 2013). Therefore, the rights of minorities within Saudi Arabia need to be protected because this is the only way through which they can be made to feel as a significant part of the country while at the same time ensuring that the Saud family gains their support in retaining its power. If the suppression of minorities continues in this country, it is possible that younger generations within these communities will find terrorism to be extremely attractive and end up joining as a means of showing their frustrations. Saudi Arabia is one of the few countries in the world that still deny women equal rights to men. This has made it difficult for them to live their lives in a manner that is free and independent of the patriarchal system that has continued to pervade the country. Thus, despite its not being specifically stated in the Quran, women in this society have come to be treated as subsidiary to men and these conditions have made life extremely difficult for them. The justification for women being denied their rights in Saudi Arabia is based on religious grounds but while this may be the case, one will find that there are no direct references in any religious texts espoused by Sunni Islam that makes women subsidiary (Otto 2010, p.166). Most of the countries in the world have taken steps to ensure that they correct their dominant patriarchal systems to such an extent that women are not only treated equally, but are also allowed to become significant contributors in societies that were male dominated. This has not been the case in Saudi Arabia where women have continued to be excluded from public life and have been forced to undertake roles that are essentially considered to be theirs; mostly at the domestic or household level. Women are not only denied the right to participate in public life, but they are also not allowed to go out of their homes without the escort of a male relative and this creates a situation where it is difficult for them to enjoy their privacy (Slackman, 2007). One of the most contentious issues concerning women, which have been encountered in Saudi Arabia in recent times, has been the right of women to drive. This is a right that has been denied them for so long but many women have chosen to ignore the authorities and have learned to drive (Bashraheel, 2009). Learning how to drive as well as doing so in public can be considered to be a form of rebellion against the Saudi government and this should be taken seriously since their being denied their rights could only work towards undermining its authority. In a world where the right to life has become such an important thing that the death sentence is slowly being discarded in many countries, Saudi Arabia has continued to execute all those individuals who are believed to have committed capital crimes. The death sentence is often carried out in such an inhumane manner that Saudi Arabia has come to be highly criticized in international media and organizations (Mackey 2002, p.270). Furthermore, because of the subsidiary position that has been ascribed to women in this country, in cases where they are accused of committing adultery, they end up being stoned to death while the men with whom they committed the crime are let go. Such bias in the justice system has made it difficult for Saudi Arabia to achieve real justice for its people as it has continued to be accused of showing open discrimination in implementing justice sections of its society in favour of others. This discrimination is likely to create resentment in the deprived sections of society and has the potential of generating instability that might end up destroying Saudi society through chaos caused by individuals who have tired of injustice (Giglio, 2011). Furthermore, the Saudi government’s disregard for justice was evidenced through its intervention in Bahrain where its majority Shia population was carrying out peaceful prodemocracy protests against an autocratic Sunni monarchy (Meyer, 2011). The Saudi intervention denied the people of Bahrain an opportunity to achieve democracy and it instead led to their brutal suppression, similar to that conducted against the Shia population in the eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia. In conclusion, Saudi Arabia, despite being an important part of the international community due to its oil wealth as well as having close relations with prominent democracies such as the United States, has failed to create a democratic environment for its people. Furthermore, its government, because of its need to protect itself, has developed a security infrastructure designed to not only protect it, but to also suppress any form of dissent that is seen as a threat to the Saud family. Moreover, women in this country have remained subsidiary to men and this has led many of them not to become active participants in public life since they do not have the same rights as men. Finally, the justice system has failed to cater for the interests of all Saudi people and has instead brought about a situation where certain sections of society are more favoured than others by the Islamic courts have. References 1. Beehner, L., 2006, "Shia Muslims in the Mideast". Council on Foreign relations. [Online] 16 June. Available at: 2. Bradley, J.R., 2005. Saudi Arabia exposed : inside a kingdom in crisis. New York: Palgrave. 3. Chamberlain, G., 2013. "Saudi Arabias treatment of foreign workers under fire after beheading of Sri Lankan maid". The Guardian. [Online] 13 January. Available at: Read More