For over three decades, Iran and the US have been blood enemies. Their hatred, like the hatred between the Palestinians and the Israelis, has framed the Middle East’s alliances and fuelled terror and war.
The government in Riyadh is quite conservative in its policies and is not known for overreacting to Arab and international matters, preferring to deliberate and exercise self-control before taking a position. We used to have to wait three days for Saudi Arabia to announce its stance on almost any issue so one may be astonished at the decisions to boycott the UN and its institutions. This is the first time in the history of the UN that any country has taken such a harsh stand.
Saudi Arabia’s position against the UN sends a clearly angry message to the US, first and foremost, and to Russia after their agreement to remove chemical weapons from Syria. That stopped or postponed an American-led military strike against the Syrian regime, after it was accused of using the weapons against its own people.
The Saudis have become the main supporters of the armed opposition in Syria and they feel that the Obama administration, normally an ally, has let them down twice; first, when it released President Bashar Al-Assad from his international isolation through the aforementioned agreement, and second when it moved closer to Iran, Assad’s, financially and militarily, main supporter. The lines of communication with Iran were reopened without prior consultation with Saudi Arabia; Riyadh found out about the thawing relationship through the news, like any other government.
Although it is true that the Saudi foreign ministry’s statement justified the rejection of the Security Council seat on the grounds of its double standards and other failures as noted above, it is also true that such double standards have existed since the UN’s establishment, so what is new? Essentially, what’s new is the fact that the US backed down from striking Syria. If the UN Security Council had issued a decision against Syria in accordance with Article 7 of the UN Charter, which allows the use of force, then Saudi Arabia would have accepted the seat and would even have regarded it as a great achievement.
If this bold position was taken by Saudi Arabia 3 years ago before the Syrian war ignited, it would have exposed and shamed the proponents of these double standards more effectively and received more attention within Arab and Islamic circles. However, since it was a reaction to America’s disappointing position on Syria and Iran, its strength and significance has been diminished.
The question now is whether the Saudi leadership will keep up its “hawkish” position in regards to the Palestinian conflict, as negotiations are faltering, Israeli settlements are expanding and the divide between Hamas and the Palestinian Authorities in Ramallah is widening. Will it look at Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons and Iran’s nuclear programme in the same light? Will it insist on removing all weapons of mass destruction from the region, with no exceptions, or is Saudi’s current position a temporary blip due to its anger at America?
The West needs to accept that Iran must be at the table in the peace talks due in Geneva. If anybody can bully Mr Assad to offer concessions, it is Mr Rohani.
Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia’s boycott of the UN and its institutions, despite its legitimacy and justifications, is not the best way forward. Many analysts believe that Saudi Arabia must have a strong presence in the UN and use its institutions and platforms to defend Arab and Islamic issues and confront American and Israeli domination. Keeping away leaves the field free for pro-Israel resolutions which serve the expansion of illegal settlements and policies leading to the demolition of Al-Aqsa Mosque.
Solving the Syrian and Palestinian conflicts and making the Middle East a nuclear-free zone will not only benefit Saudi Arabia but also attract support from many Third – World countries for whom these are important issues. The Saudis should rethink their position.
Courtesy: Middle East Monitor