Mohammed bin Salman: Saudi leader given US immunity over Khashoggi killing
bbc.comI think the headline is a bit misleading. "given" immunity to me implied that there was some deal or something where the US government proactively gave MBS immunity.
What happened was the US State Dept determined he had immunity due to his current role as Saudi Arabia PM. Thus, my understanding is that this would be standard diplomatic immunity, no? And if MBS ever stopped being PM he would lose that immunity, as MBS only became PM after the killing took place (not sure if this part is correct).
> Thus, my understanding is that this would be standard diplomatic immunity, no?
Diplomatic immunity is very nuanced and has multiple levels, but in general being a head of state alone does not qualify you. You need to hold a role within a diplomatic mission to the country in which you committed the crime.
Historically the US justice system has blocked civil suits against foreign states and heads of state out of respect for their sovereignty. The major exemption to this under the FSIA is if the foreign state has a commercial nexus to the United States. The Saudi sovereign wealth fund's multiple investments in the US absolutely pierce the protections they would have had.
This is what I understood as well. Any attempts to prosecute him would be expensive and futile. Even if there were some law that allowed for it, he could remove it overnight or "pass" a new law that gives him immunity.
I find this obsession with 1 or 4 people obscene while millions are ignored. We invaded Libya and left behind a failed state where millions live amid violent gangs, but we spent more ink about 4 Americans in Benghazi than the millions who were affected by our policies. It's almost like we don't care.
Why do people write far more about Khashoggi, rather than the millions in Yemen?
That should be more than enough reason to not deal with Saudi government. We have sanctioned Russia and its government so much, but not a single one on Saudis. We have called Putin a dictator who falsifies elections and kills people. And yet MBS is not even elected. We don't say "unelected dictator" who "oppresses his own people" or "bombs his enemies".
The situation in Saudi-Yemen is similar in many respects to Russia-Ukraine. In response to a foreign government (USA in Ukraine, Iran in Yemen) encouraging a revolution that overthrew friendlier rulers in the country, they carried on a war with them for years, with no end in sight.
The difference is Saudi Arabia has blockaded Yemen for years, leading to the world's largest preventable humanitarian crisis. Russia did nothing of the sort with Ukraine, they didn't blockade it, in fact they let NATO weapons keep pouring over the border from Poland.
This year, the UN warned of an "outright catastrophe" in Yemen, as millions are facing hunger. Ukraine has lots arable land while Yemen did not.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1113852
But far from sanctioning them, or even spending 1% of the outrage that it does on Russia, the USA instead sends them the very weapons they use to bomb civilians!
This year, investigators showed that the USA supported the majority of airstrikes on Yemenite civilians!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/20...
To quote:
While Russia’s bombings of a maternity hospital and other civilian targets in Ukraine have drawn widespread public indignation as war crimes, thousands of similar strikes have taken place against Yemeni civilians. The indiscriminate bombings have become a hallmark of the Yemen war, drawing international scrutiny of the countries participating in the air campaign, and those arming them, including the United States. U.S. support for the Saudi war effort, which has been criticized by human rights groups and some in Congress, began during the Obama administration and has continued in fits and starts for seven years.
Hate to break it to you, but we don't care. We never have. "We" being the "enlightened west" in general. Study enough history and it becomes pretty clear. Governments only take humanitarian action against evil when there's a clear threat to their interests (Ukraine), a perceived strategic opportunity (Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya) or there's little/no risk in the confrontation (Somalia/Libya). We have a hard enough time getting people to care about their immediate neighbors, I'd be surprised if 1/100 Americans could even find Yemen on a map. Throw institutions and economics/ideologies on top and the international good of the common people always takes a back seat.
And lest people think I'm just shitting on America right now, look at the deals Finland/Sweden are making with Turkey for NATO membership. The vaunted, enlightened, socially democratic, supposedly-closest-thing-to-the-Star-Trek-Federation Nordics are screwing the Kurds for their own interests.
No institution outside of charities/NGOs has ever functioned from a standpoint of moral purity. Sure many have claimed to when a convenient narrative was available, but no nation that implemented a "morality first" platform would survive for long. They simply wouldn't be able to strike deals with most other nations on moral grounds, and would turn themselves into a nicer, gentler North Korea. I guess Bhutan comes the closest, but aside from their use as a buffer zone/chess piece between the Indians and Chinese, no one outside of some human-interest bloggers cares about Bhutan (if I have to hear about their happiness index one more time...). Europe's various moral stances are the result of American strategic overwatch and a globalized economic system where they didn't have to secure their own resources. Take those away and the morality will dry up awful fast (where do you think the old European empires came from?)
As for the Saudis and Yemen specifically, I think most Americans in the abstract would agree we should be sanctioning the Saudis... right up until they learn that means gas shortages and insane prices at the pump. For most Americans the cost of gas directly impacts their families' livelihoods, and people will always pick their own family's welfare over the welfare of strangers half a world away. Sure there's a minority that's willing to sacrifice regardless, and sure it would be nice if the whole world was that way. But it isn't, not even close. So we have to deal with what we have, and Yemen, among other places, is screwed.
I disagree. We do care. We just think some things are savable, and some not. That's why there's pressure on Iran now, and Russia now. That's why the west bitches and moans about the US doing immoral shit. Not because it's the worst, but because we think there's a chance they might care. Unlike Saudi Arabia, which we pretty much write off as total monsters.
So we have had sanctions on Iran for decades because ae actually think they’re more moral than Saudis and will eventually come around, rather than having to do with Saudis being our allies and selling oil cor dollars while Iranians overthrew the Shah?
I think during the Shah times, if Iran was bombing people we’d also look the other way. We looked the other way when Afghanistan did genocidal rapes of Bangladesh in their war of independence…
And in your view btw who are moral monsters — Arabs vs Persians or their governments?
I really hope the world can accelerate it's adoption of energy sources that will replace oil. They aren't without their own flaws but besides Norway, I can't think of place where oil hasn't corrupted society in some major way.
I am not optimistic that there will not be some other resource or reason for which governments will eschew principles.
I think the problem here is humans being (more easily) corruptible and capable of evil when lots of power and money are involved. I don't think oil specifically has something to do with it.
Although I agree with hoping we move on from depending on SA resources. (And I say this as a devout Muslim)
Just wait until The Saudis figure out that they're a desert, and maybe instead of stupid line cities they should be building solar farms and long-range international transmission lines.
Doubt they’d replace their current weight with that… If what you say becomes technically feasible, there will be plenty of other countries competing with them, including their neighbors and Africa.
But none with trillions of investment capital sitting around. Building a long-range renewable grid from scratch isn't easy. Morocco has a bit of a head start, but last I read they're still focusing on their domestic grid.
iirc long range transfer of electricity is extremely expensive and difficult. They might be able to supply power locally, but they wouldn’t be able to export to the west. Unless they used it to power manufacture of other fuel sources like green hydrogen.
According to wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Lo...
"As of 1980, the longest cost-effective distance for DC transmission was 7,000 kilometres (4,300 miles). For AC it was 4,000 kilometres (2,500 miles), though US transmission lines are substantially shorter."
The distance from Saudi Arabia to Greece, by road, is roughly 2389 km according to Google Maps (albeit passing through Jordan, Syria and Turkey). As the crow flies or using an undersea cable it would be even shorter, so a monumental project but it could be done. Would require striking a deal with the Jordanians and Israelis, but that's well with Saudi capabilities should they choose to do so.
So he can't be held liable because he is the Prime Minister of SA.
Essentially the same thing here where the sitting President cannot be directly charged with a crime (or sued personally).
Or past presidents, it would seem.
Like Obama droning innocents, hospitals[1] and weddings[2]?
1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-34471182
2. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/yemenis-drone-st...
oh, you're too late to claim the instigatory troll award. That already came and went. better luck next time.
Does that mean that you don't mind that Obama did these things? not really sure....
Where is “here”?
SA is an absolute monarchy, he is the son of the king and hair apparent. Lets not be coy.
So you let some people download books and the long arm of the law comes after you in Argentina, but you murder a reporter and you get immunity?
Maybe they should teach children in school from a young age how completely corrupt all of our institutions (government, private industry, science, religion, etc) are, rather than everyone having to slowly realize it as you get older.
Always wondered why we didn't do nursery rhymes anymore.
Once there was a prince.
Journals made him wince.
So he cut them into bits.
And was happy ever since.
Has the court given him immunity? Or is the President just telling the court he should?
This is disturbing. Outside of this, I actually deleted the Twitter App from my phone a few weeks ago when I found out they still own a huge part of Twitter.
https://twitter.com/alwaleed_talal/status/158597522656711065...
How come Nelson Mandela still was treated like a crook and on the terrorist list up to the point of visit to the US in his last years of life. And this MBS guy gets away with it already?
It's just how it works unfortunately. Imagine if the whole world should justifiably call for arresting three decades of US presidents and generals over all the murders and deaths in the middle east, how would that work? Would you agree to it?
The war in the Middle East is tough because it was congress who gave the power to invade, but the president also had the ability to not invade as the head of the DoD.
I’m fairly certain if GWB didn’t invade Iraq/Afghanistan he would have been impeached due to the fervour in the USA at that time. Looking back many agree that invading the Middle East was a mistake, but at the time there was only one Congress person (Barbara Lee) who voted against giving powers to invade, and that person was deeply ostracized for their choice.
Invading the Middle East was an atrocity, but who is responsible? The American public? The president? Congress?
Well the world did not mind going after Milosevich for example.
And it was good that we did go after him! But the issue is our own western leaders and generals walking free when they have the blood of hundreds of thousands innocent lives on their hands.
exactly the point
He was not given immunity, he has de-facto immunity due to his position.
Imagine if that didn't exist? Biden visits Qatar and gets arrested for dis-respecting their leaders? I can see that all working out.
The truth is, I doubt there would be much decent evidence that would hold up in Court. It's like Russians being murdered outside of Russia, "of course" Putin would have had to order it but "of course" wouldn't cut it in Court.
>Imagine if that didn't exist? Biden visits Qatar and gets arrested for dis-respecting their leaders? I can see that all working out.
I do not have a problem with that. If you want to be part of the civilized world, you have to act civilized. And if Qatar wants to arrest Biden for disrespect, then either Qatar’s leaders will find out what the US spends its military funds on, or US taxpayers will find out how much of a waste all those aircraft carriers were.
This is a bad take, as it would make diplomacy a very precarious proposition (whereas its entire purpose is to be weak & non-committal). Diplomatic immunity is nothing new and in fact MBS doesn't even assert conduct-based immunity (he's using the even broader "head of state immunity").
Even if one side is using it to commit egregious criminal acts in the others’ country?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46676200
I do not see how the people of the USA benefit from this arrangement.
> I do not see how the people of the USA benefit from this arrangement.
Because you're shortsighted in your hatred for MBS. MBS can be deposed and hung in a public square (along with the entire royal family) for all I care, but that doesn't mean immunity isn't an important diplomatic tool.
Iran
Almost as short sighted a take as Musk's views on free speech
Not sure that I prefer war to diplomatic immunity.
This was expected and nothing surprising. The world is deeply corrupt and law is only for the poor. 99.99% of the population is just cattle that is supposed to stay in the fenced area and pay taxes.
Pretty shameful. Up to this article being flagged.
I guess the immunity for 9/11 is just implied because i dont remember a news article about that
"no one is above the law" got to be the biggest joke in human history ... sad but true
Strange, we never gave such immunity to Muhammad Omar when he was running Afghanistan!
We didn't recognize the government of the Taliban. Different situation.
Or Saddam Hussein when he was running Iraq.
What's interesting in this whole Khashoggi case is not the US response or lack of response. Any other crime committed by the US and KSA will make Khashoggi murder a joke in comparison. What irritates me is that KSA committed and still commit genocide in Yemen since at least 2015 (this is only one place), people are being starved, and no one feel the "ethical burden" to take any action or ask their "free world" leader to take any action or stop helping and leading that war. Yet the sensitive liberals are mad because of Mr. Khashoggi murder, they have the nerve the mention the "ethics" even when they're trying to invoke the geo-political argument (Yes MBS is bad but not as Bad as X while X changes every few years, today it's Putin). The hard and brutal truth is that if you ever voted in US for Trump or Obama or Biden or Bush Or almost any President in the past 50 years, you have more ethical burden than simply worrying about the lack of response against MBS.
Head of state or not, the very concept of immunity is a travesty on every juridical principle.
It should have no place in civilized society.
He did it on 5th Ave. :-)
Well, America’s superpower status rests on being the reserve currency for petroleum imports so, in reality, KSA has America in a vise.
The US can’t do anything to antagonise KSA because the direct result will be KSA accepting currencies other than the dollar for petrol, which will lower the global demand for dollars, leading to devaluation of the USD leading to economic calamity.
I’m sure MBS, Biden, Trump, Obama, Putin, Xi, and every world leader knows this.
The green economy is going to upend the world order for reasons other than simply reducing dependency on fossil fuels, imo.
> America’s superpower status rests on being the reserve currency for petroleum imports
No, it doesn’t. America’s economy and thus voters like cheap oil. America’s massive consumer and industrial base underwrites its currency’s power.
Why does international oil trade primarily happen in dollars then even when USA is neither of those countries nor is it the biggest trade partner for either of those countries?
Also, what industrial base?
Also, How does Srilanka holding dollars benefit from a strong US consumer market?
> Why does international oil trade primarily happen in dollars then even when USA is neither of those countries nor is it the biggest trade partner for either of those countries?
Most international trade happens in dollars. This is due in part to competence: the Fed had electronic payments in 1915 [1]. In part to geopolitics: America was the only advanced economy not bombed into oblivion after WWII, an advantage it used to create the Bretton Woods system [2]. And in part to practicality: there aren't many freely-convertible currencies issued by big, stable countries.
> what industrial base?
The U.S. is a massive manufacturer and manufactured-goods exporter [3]. (Number 2 is Europe, another reserve currency issuer. Number 1 is China, which doesn't have an open capital account.)
> How does Srilanka holding dollars benefit from a strong US consumer market?
America is Sri Lanka's top export partner [4].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedwire#History
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_St...
Both Russia and China have been pushing to do their oil settlements in a basket of currencies and not just the dollar. This should tell you all you need to know why KSA has the US right where it wants them.
The British Pound is a powerful currency backed by an industrial base and a consumer led economy everyone wants to sell into. EUR is the same way. But neither of them are superpowers because no other country needs the GBP or EUR like they need the USD.
Countries all around the world keep USD in their current account balance even if they barely import stuff from the US because every country needs oil and oil can only be bought with dollars.
Say your high school bully demanded 10 SchruteBucks every day to leave you alone at lunch. And the only supplier of SchruteBucks in the whole world was this paper salesman called Dwight Schrute.
Quite evidently, your entire life would revolve around making sure Dwight was still willing to give you SchruteBucks just so that your bully would stay off your back for one more day.
That bully is KSA. Dwight is the US. The kid sucking up to Dwight is all the other countries in the world.
When Putin rants about a unipolar world, this is what he is talking about.
It’s an unjust world where we can’t afford to antagonise the US without also running the risk of not being able to buy petrol to run our economy.
I am not sure why you are being downvoted. While I disagree with your assessment, you raise valid points.
Misleading headline by the BBC, as is tradition. He wasn't given anything, it's simply the status quo - whether we like it our not. It's also not a US thing but an international convention: https://www.justsecurity.org/68801/head-of-state-immunity-is...
Yeah as bad as this sounds it's basically just reiterating the existing law.
They are just saying they aren't making a unique exception for this one case that wouldn't normally exist otherwise.
The same happened to Modi, the PM of India, if my memory serves me right. He was banned from entering USA for his deeds, until he turned out to be the head of India.
Apparently your only way out is to be the head of your state, if you have done something evil.
> Your only way out is to be the head of your state.
Or a diplomat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn
> On 20 October 2022 she pleaded guilty to causing the death of Harry Dunn by careless driving. Sentencing will take place at a later date.
Am I missing something?
She hasn't returned to the UK for the trial. It'll be a question of if she gets extradited or not. The US state department has said extraditing her would be highly inappropriate and an abuse.
Realistically, the US aren't sending her back. And considering she works/worked for the CIA, it's not exactly surprising.
If I'm reading the Wikipedia article correctly, she got approval from the judge in the UK to attend the trial virtually. She has been requested to attend the sentencing in person, but that hasn't happened yet.
The UK has requested that she be extradited. They refused. The first time ever the US has refused a UK extradition.
She has stated that she will not return on her own free will to face a prison sentence for this accident.
She had diplomatic immunity so clearly the US aren't going to send her back. And if you were her you wouldn't go back to go to prison. This is basically a show trial.
Yes, the fact that shes being harbored by the US.
Many cases like this with US spies
We award nobel peace prizes to warlords and people who commit genocide along with other acts against humanity. What an age we live in when awards are not given post humorously and cannot be revoked.
I don't believe in post-hoc awards removal. If you awarded something, you do it with no possibility of taking it back even if the recipient turns out to be the worst bastard ever later on.
I do believe big and serious awards should be done posthumously. I don't believe in for example, naming Airports or large buildings after someone who is/was still a live at dedication time.
However, I will acquiesce to asterisks --not removals.
This is the way of the world. At certain point, there are those who are above the law. Even if we argue that international law is basically 'might is right', it is fascinating, because it effectively brings us as back as a species to medieval kingdoms rules with all the issues that those bring.
And yes, I know there are good and valid reason for leaders to be given some level of immunity to allow them to not be, well, targeted and locked up by current regime on trumped charges, but this is not the situation we have in place here ( and those tend to be limited by the time they serve in office - MBS is likely to enjoy this immunity for life ).
I don't know if it is the real threat of impending nuclear war ( and everything that was done so far to prevent it ) that makes me so depressed about the world, but it is harder and harder for me not to feel.. disappointed with the way things are.
edit: FWIW, Biden finally recognized the reality of who is running that particular kingdom. In a way, it is an embarrassing political defeat, which I assume was purchased with something. I suppose we will find out that what that something was in coming months.
More importantly one should either be an ally or be useful to the US too,
This is problematic because one of the underpinnings of western liberalism is the notion of Rule of Law: that, at the end of the day, we are all bound to the same rules.
We're not all bound to the same rules and laws. For example, the president of the US can decide to kill with near immunity.
We're all bound by the rule: "if you are president of the US, you can kill with near immunity."
Right, and one of those rules is "heads of state are exempt from all rules". Otherwise Obama would be getting sued for ordering drone strikes and we can't have that.
Relations between states and heads of states aren’t governed by laws determined by western liberalism, much as some would like that to be the case.
They are governed by the rules determined by whoever decides what the hell exactly "the rules-based international order" is — or rather they're not, much as some like that to be the case.
Their only moral is power.
Let me clarify some points at the risk of sounding like a Modi supporter. Modi had gone though investigations and was acquitted by the Supreme court of India. It was definitely failure of government mechanism and officials but not state sponsored voilence.
" The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed allegations of "larger conspiracy" levelled by Zakia Jafri, widow of Congress leader Ehsan Jafri who was killed in the 2002 Gujarat riots, against former Chief Minister Narendra Modi and over 60 senior state officials.
Inaction or failure of "some officials of one section of the State administration" cannot be the basis to infer a pre-planned criminal conspiracy by the State government, the court held.
The failure of certain officials cannot be inferred as a "State-sponsored crime (violence) against the minority community", the Supreme Court said.
"
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/2002-gujarat-riots-su... (This is a left-leaning newspaper)
The thing with MBS is there was no independent investigation done by any agency in Saudi.
How is investigation of Modi by "Supreme court of India" an independent investigation? It is the classic case of "we looked into our wrong doing and found nothing"
analogously, would you also agree with the following statement?
“How is the investigation of US president trump by the US congress an independent investigation…?”
> “How is the investigation of US president trump by the US congress an independent investigation…?”
I mean - fair point, it's not.
Yes, the investigation is independent. What I believe you mean to suggest is that it is not impartial and lacks the adversarial natural of a US legal tribunal.
You are using a very non-colloquial understanding of "independent" and to what end?
Are they independent if going against him means you most likely will lose your job next election cycle?
During the first impeachment trial they agreed to not hear from any witnesses or allow new documents into evidence since his party controlled the senate.
This is just an argument about definitions. "Independent" means "from a different power center".
Now, it is entirely fair to argue that that the powers in question are colluding in some way. But most states that haven't been subverted into authoritarianism have multiple actors with the power and (sometimes) will to investigate other ones.
I mean, if you take that argument far enough, no human could judge any other human, because none of them are "independent".
While I would never claim the Supreme Court of India is perfect, it is based on the British system and the judiciary is meant to be independent.
> Let me clarify some points...
Here are some more points that I've read about (not sure if true), if can you clarify them:
1. The involvement of cabinet ministers of Modi's government.
2. The non-involvement of the State Police which were under Modi's control.
3. Modi's refusal to deploy the Armed Forces (which fall under the command of the Central Government).
4. Rioters having access to State Government census records and the State Government-controlled supplies like LPG cylinders.
5. Since murdered BJP Leader Haren Pandya's confession of Modi being complicit.
And a laundry list of other things that Supreme Court of India probably looked at and dismissed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_riots#Allegations...
Are there any 'independent' agencies in Saudi? Is such a thing possible in an absolute monarchy?
I don't think it is an absolute monarchy, my understanding is the Saudi state is a web of fiefdoms of individual members of the royal family. The right hand doesn't always know what the left hand is doing, e.g. the 9/11 attacks.
Saudi Arabia also has a legal system in which people were actually punished for the Killing. Plus his family was given lots of money as blood money.
Modi was dismissed. They didn't look into it. He avoided All investigations when it happened and still avoids questioning to this day. No one was punished. No blood money made its way. Nothing.
Many more people died at modi's hands than MBS. There is no comparison.
> It was definitely failure of government mechanism and officials but not state sponsored voilence.
No, it was state sponsored violence, instigated by Narendra Modi alone. Judgements by a compromised court hold no water.
Here are the details of the pogrom of Zakias condo complex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulbarg_Society_massacre
Even worse the testimony of police officers who have now been imprisoned
https://www.hindusforhumanrights.org/en/blog/for-immediate-r...
Even worse there is direct video confession by the rapists and murderers (who were convicted later) of Modi starting the riots and supporting them with state apparatus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babu_Bajrangi
The video where Modis leadership is made explicit at 6:30
To double down, this year Modis central government set several rapists and murderers who had been given life sentences free on Indian Independence Day and issued election tickets to the relatives of the convicted rapists and murderers.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/17/asia/india-bilkis-bano-rape-g...
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/politics-behind...
Your linking to a report on the supreme court judgement in a "left leaning" newspaper as some kind of evidence is absurd. It's a report about the judgment not an editorial.
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/an-exoneration/ar...
It doesn't get more naked and bald faced than this
We all know how british royals are treated even though they commited genocide in India.
Power is what others respect. everything else is just BS
> Let me clarify some points at the risk of sounding like a Modi supporter.
Just to clarify on you not being a Modi supporter: Do you feel that Modi is doing not enough or too much to combat terrorists/internal threats in India?
My suspicion is that you are to the right of Modi but intentionally trying to obscure that by saying that you aren't a Modi supporter, which would typically imply to the left of Modi. A brief perusal of your comments seems to suggest that is the case.
This is called "Realpolitik": international relations are meant to serve your national interests, not ethical principles. By now, the main national interest in the West is to not give oil money to the psychotic butcher in Moscow. The Saudi butcher is a little less psychotic by comparison.
There are dozens of philosophers that advanced this idea: Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes,...
Many of the most famous statesmen in history were followers of this principle: Richelieu, Frederik the Great, Von Clausewitz, Otto Von Bismark, Metternich, Henry Kissinger,... Unsurprisingly, many of them were Germans. And none of them was a nice person.
But this "Realpolitik" was already contested successfully by India ( among others ). Are you saying that this example does not test the rule? Perfect should not be the enemy of the good?
I buy your argument, but your example is not good.
> contested successfully by India ( among others ).
Yes, also by my native country, Brazil. Shame on us for that.
In the end dirty affairs/realpolitik are what things are, not what they should be, right?
Up until WWII, "Realpolitik" is what gave us so many wars, so little commerce, so little international cooperation, so much European imperialism, ...
So I do agree we need to find ethics in international relations. One important reason my country (Brazil) gave up on slavery was British pressure. Global Warming won't be solved without ethics commitment.
<<In the end dirty affairs/realpolitik are what things are, not what they should be, right?
I thought about your argument and I believe you convinced me. I was wrong. I think I had my head stuck in my ideal version of the world.
We want to be green so we're trying to stop drilling for oil. But we also need oil because our society runs on it. This guy has oil. This guy can therefore do whatever he likes.
This is obviously way better than drilling at home.
America runs a close import/export balance now for oil.
Please stop repeating twitter talking points until they become truth.
Oil prices abroad affect oil prices at home.
I wonder how much cheaper Oil would be if we attacked SA after 911 instead of Iraq.
why
This guy has oil. This guy can therefore do whatever he likes.
There's lots of guys who had oil who, when they did things the US didn't like, found themselves without anyone to sell oil to, without a country to run or maybe worse.
I agree KSA has a special relationship with the US (and much of the west), but it's not just about oil.
The most controversial thing in recent times (here in Canada too) isn't even drilling, it's moving oil efficiently over pipelines vs via dirty trucks and busy rail lines.
There's much more opportunity for political activism when pipes go over lots of small pieces of land vs drilling one big piece of land.
Pipelines are notoriously dirty, since the owners can't seem to stop them from leaking, spilling, blowing up, or otherwise malfunctioning. Wikipedia has a handy list of lists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_.... If somebody wanted to put an oil pipeline near my property I'd definitely wouldn't feel safe with it there.
It is not that they can't - they just keep more money if they don't. Which shouldn't be surprising in an industry that is literally destroying the world to make money.
I agree, that's why I said they can't seem to do it.
This is what activists fail to understand for ideological reason. Oil will flow, one way or another: be it truck, rail or pipeline. The only thing that would stop the flow is cessation in demand. Which means their efforts would be better used agitating for wind, solar and other renewables.
Activists understand that. What's unreasonable is not adjusting pipeline routes when they destroy livability of areas
Literally just repeating oil industry talking points.
The US produces a ton of oil, we also have no export restrictions on oil products, so no matter how much we produce domestically, we are still dependent on the swings of the global market.
We get close to no oil from Saudi, yet as the head of the most powerful cartel in the world, they have immense power and influence. No amount of “drill baby drill” is going to change that.
America wants to save its national oil for the really rainy days. Especially when others' oil can be bought by printed money.
That printes money an be exchangwd for real goods though...
Have we no drones to eliminate troublesome Saudis?
Reality is that we have lots of tools to address bad actors. There are always consequences, true enough. But it isn't like we haven't used them.
In this case, we probably won't, but the Saudis are increasingly more trouble than they are worth.
> This guy has oil. This guy can therefore do whatever he likes.
The article explains that as head of state internal law grants him immunity.
The United States is the largest producer of oil in the world. We just don't nationalize it. We give it away to foreign owned oil corporations who then gouge us at the pump.
The US is (and has been for a long time), an exporter of refined petroleum products such as Gasoline.
In 2021, it also happened to be a net exporter or petroleum overall, but usually it bounces around.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
Saudi Arabia is key in keeping global energy prices lower by increasing global supply, and is also a key ally in a historically unstable region which impacts those prices.
>Saudi Arabia is key in keeping global energy prices lower by increasing global supply, and is also a key ally in a historically unstable region which impacts those prices.
The key to keeping energy prices low for the US is to stop giving away our oil and then focus on shifting our economy to an energy source that can't be manipulated by foreign powers trying to influence our elections.
You seem to have strongly worded opinions, but I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly you're asking for.
Petroleum is ~ 8% of the US GDP, and produces about $1.7 trillion dollars a year in direct economic activity, employing about 10 million folks.
Near as I can tell, the US doesn't give away any of our oil at all. It sells it, at market rate, often after doing a lot of value add refining.
Some of it goes to domestic use, some of it gets exported internationally, depending on the specific mix of market demands at the moment.
Are you proposing the US... ban exports of Oil or oil products? Or ban imports or Oil or oil products? Or invest a lot of money in alternative energy/renewable energy? Or take over enough oil producing countries no one can manipulate prices except us?
Or something else?
Well, its a bit tongue in cheek in that I'm not proposing anything really. My overall point is that the US government massively subsidizes foreign-owned oil and gas companies
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subs...
Of course, those are written subsidies. There is the major subsidy of allowing them to drill for oil on the publics land.
Of course, we've massively increased the amount of drilling we've allowed do the drum beat of "energy independence", when the reality is that because the oil is privately owned, no amount of oil drilling will actually make the price of gasoline stable or cheap for consumers.
What we actually need to do is move away from a gasoline based economy, but until then the government should heavily tax exports of oil to discourage foreign-owned companies from exporting it while we have a shortage here. Oil and gas lobbyist have been using their corporate owned politicians in Congress to block moving to sustainable energy since the Carter administration. We need massive investment in sustainable energy and energy efficient transit and manufacturing.
But we wont. The price of gas will go down again. Americans will buy even bigger cars, and then cry when OPEC jacks the price up again.
>and is also a key ally in a historically unstable region which impacts those prices.
they were until democrats spent their last two presidencies trying to fund and justify the nuclear research of SA's biggest regional rival who is already funding catspaw wars against SA - Iran.
Then when you ask them to lower the price of oil they wonder why you've spent multiple years working against them while coming now to beg for their kindness.
Saudi is not a reliable or good ally and there’s no reason why the US should favor them over Iran.
Iran is not an ally, they're a sworn enemy that the democrats have imagined they can bribe into becoming a friend because they don't understand Iran's motivation is not money but religious ideology.
It's the worst kind of political delerium - funding you enemies and your ally's enemies and then wondering why your allies aren't "reliable" - hint its you not being reliable while you're funding their enemies and trying to excuse their nuclear weapon program. Its the US that was a fickle ally.
Never said we needed to have Iran as an ally.
All of the major players in that region are motivated by religious ideology, including US allies.
You also seem to be confused, the JCPOA actively halted their nuclear weapons program, which was all that it intended to do, not “make iran into a friend”. Hawks like yourself are the ones who have set everything back.
The US should be less involved in the region. Seeking to balance power between Iran, Saudi and Israel rather than actively getting in the middle of their conflicts.
You ignore the benefits of taxation.
If you don't think Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Marathon, and ConocoPhillips aren't a de facto arm of the US Government I'm not sure what to tell you.
Legally, I am not qualified to comment.
But as a citizen of the US, this makes me very, very angry.
> "This is a legal determination made by the State Department under longstanding and well-established principles of customary international law," a spokesperson for the White House National Security Council said in a written statement.
...
> "It has nothing to do with the merits of the case."
Pretty strange that this is how the international law works in 2022. We have ways to go, I suppose.
FWIW. This also looks like a pretty convenient loophole for the Biden administration to 'normalize' the relationships with the KSA and MBS, in particular. They'll keep calling him names like murderer and say that our hands are tied because of the international law.
To be clear, the US is the largest oil producer in the world, and is a net exporter of oil.[1][2] (Shale is a large part of that growth in the last decade)
The US benefits when oil prices increase. If you want to speculate on the geopolitical reasons for this action, it could be to help the allies of the US by driving oil prices down through OPEC production plans. If you want to speculate on the domestic reasons for this, it could be to try to keep gas prices lower at the expense of overall US GDP.
In the end, a brutal dictator gets diplomatic immunity and prestige and the rest of the world averts its eyes to keep its economies well-functioning.
1. https://www.worldometers.info/oil/oil-production-by-country/
2. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
> US benefits when oil prices increase
I’m not sure about that. Generally the US economy benefits from lower oil prices and I think that outweighs any losses incurred by the oil industry. That’s especially relevant now with inflation being such a huge concern.
>Generally the US economy benefits from lower oil prices
Before the 2010s, yes. But not now, not in this era of Shale. It has changed everything.
"Oil prices do have an impact on the U.S. economy, but it goes two ways because of the diversity of industries. High oil prices can drive job creation and investment as it becomes economically viable for oil companies to exploit higher-cost shale oil deposits. However, high oil prices also hit businesses and consumers with higher transportation and manufacturing costs. Lower oil prices hurt the unconventional oil activity, but benefits manufacturing and other sectors where fuel costs are a primary concern." [1]
1. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/032515/how-o...
Shameful. There shouldn't be such a thing as immunity over murder.
Just yesterday I saw a clip on CNN of Merrick Garland saying nobody is above the law. At the time he was being asked about the Jan 6 investigation. I guess he should have said "only current heads of state are above the law".
Hardly new. Every US president of the last 20 years has ordered the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians through drone programs and wars. It is worth getting angry over, but the rot starts at the top.
This is not immunity with respect to a criminal case; it's a civil suit.
I don't think that makes it less shameful.
If we object to a foreign country killing their own citizens, we can invade the foreign country and overthrow the ruler to make them stop killing (or threaten to invade unless they stop the killing). If we don't want to do that, we could try to put sanctions on them. If we can't do that either, there's not much we can do.
> If we can't do that either, there's not much we can do
In case this is serious, the Saudis have a lot of stuff in America our courts could seize.
And then they seize american assets in Saudi Arabia. Not a fun path.
In this case it's quite the opposite, though: the Saudis have power over our government. They control the taps that release oil, the release of oil controls gas prices, gas prices have a documented effect on election results.
If the party in power wants to win the midterms they need the Saudis to supply enough oil. It's wild how openly corrupt the whole thing is.
So there is legal immunity for a de facto leader. How about stop selling weapons to murderous de facto leaders? Is there a law to prevent that?
Basically it's up to the people to hold their government accountable and pressurise them to make decent decisions.
The world isn't stupid, every country does some dirty deeds for national interest.
We are deliberately turning a mole hill into a mountain.
How many victims have been created by the war on terror or search for non existant WMD?
Obama would be personally liable for drone strikes that were done under his authority. Would you be OK with that?
In any case, it's unclear if the US even has jurisdiction. The crime happened on Saudi territory in Turkey, and MBS has said he didn't authorize it. Why is this in US courts? Because he was a US citizen?
His fiancee is showboating.
I thought the rule of law was the reason behind the endless quest to disqualify Trump from being the President or running for the Presidency, but actually heads of state can sawzall barely-critical journalists into a pile of body parts as a fee for a marriage license.
To be fair, Salman is also disqualified from being President here.
Fist Bump
And the US complains about Russia in Ukraine
This comedy is fascinating
While I think I get the point you're trying to make, one is a murder of a single individual in their embassy. The other is an all out war across a border. Not sure how they are really comparable.
Who said it was comparable?
I just notice some contradictions in the way they operate, that's it
Up to you to make the comparison and conclusion, i will not tell you what to think
Whataboutism failing spectacularly.
Is "Whataboutism" a word that you learnt at your online CIA training course?
Joke aside, i don't think it's "whataboutism", it's more like identifying inconsistencies and contradictions in the way they operate, nothing more, a mere citizen who try to understand