Biden’s trip to Saudi Arabia erodes our moral authority

[homersapien 12,275]

What a Trumpian thing to do.  

Shame on you Joe! 

 

By Fred Ryan

July 11, 2022 at 6:52 p.m. EDT

 

Fred Ryan is publisher of The Post.

Inexperienced politicians often learn the hard way about the difference between campaigning and governing, making bold statements on the trail that later require embarrassing reversals. But when it comes to international realpolitik, no recent candidate could have been better informed than Joe Biden. After decades on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and eight years as vice president, Biden campaigned in 2020 partly on his foreign-policy experience.

When, seeking votes, Biden vowed to make Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman a “pariah” for his role in murdering Washington Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi, the world had every reason to think he meant it.

So why is President Biden now going to Jiddah on bended knee to shake the “pariah’s” bloodstained hand? Once again, he is seeking votes.

The president has justified his trip as a necessary move to promote stability in the Middle East and to deter Russian and Chinese aggression. But the president should know meeting with Mohammed bin Salman, or MBS, as he is known, will give the Saudi leader exactly what three years of Saudi PR campaigns, lobbying expenses, and even a new golf league have not: a return to respectability. This undeserved absolution will, in turn, only undermine the foreign-policy goals Biden hopes to achieve.

First, Biden’s meeting will signal that American values are negotiable. Earlier this year, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan abruptly shut down the trial of 26 Saudis suspected in Jamal’s murder — just before he was scheduled to visit Saudi Arabia to plead for economic investment that would boost his own 2023 reelection bid. Now, it is the U.S. president who is turning a blind eye to Jamal’s murder in an effort to lower gasoline prices in advance of this fall’s midterms.

Biden needs the Saudis to increase their oil production to help keep global energy prices in check. The trip sends the message that the United States is willing to look the other way when its commercial interests are at stake. We have learned, through decades of hard lessons, that terrorists recruit by exploiting hatred of the United States among people brutalized by their own despotic leaders. That narrative succeeds best when Americans talk a good game about human rights until there’s something else we need more — such as cheap oil.

About-faces such as the one Biden is making erode our moral authority and breed anti-American resentment. They communicate to democracy activists and reform-minded governments worldwide that Washington is an unreliable partner. And that sows confusion and sabotages our diplomacy — the opposite of what Biden says his trip is trying to achieve.

No meaningful obstacle prevented the Saudis from boosting oil output as soon as Russian troops rolled into Ukraine. In response to U.S. pleas for increased production, MBS instead snubbed key Biden administration officials and refused to participate in a phone call with the president.

Neither meetings with Biden’s deputies nor a phone call would give MBS what he most wanted: a photo of the president shaking his hand. So, MBS held out until Biden grew desperate enough to give in. We can be sure other “allies,” whose support we need, are taking note.

Biden’s meeting also sends a dangerous message about the value the United States attaches to a free press. A grip-and-grin photograph with MBS signals to autocrats everywhere that you can quite literally get away with murdering a journalist as long as you possess a natural resource the United States wants badly enough.

This danger is hardly hypothetical. When Jamal, who lived in Virginia, was killed, the world was stunned that MBS would butcher a journalist so closely connected to the United States. Today, Vladimir Kara-Murza, another Post contributor and a permanent U.S. resident, languishes in a Russian jail. And Austin Tice, a U.S. citizen who has freelanced for The Post and other outlets, remains in captivity in Syria after nearly a decade. When the image of Biden pressing flesh with Jamal’s murderer flashes around the world, what will it say to Vladimir Putin and to the Syrians, who hold the lives of these journalists in their hands?

Some have tried to argue in advance of Biden’s trip that enough time has passed since Jamal’s murder to allow the U.S.-Saudi relationship to simply move on. But it’s not too late for Biden to wring some good out of this ill-conceived blunder. We cannot forget that, even though Jamal was killed more than three years ago, right now, every day, the Saudi people are subjected to grotesque repression. Political prisoners, dissidents, independent journalists and others are jailed and tortured at MBS’s direction. Women are second-class citizens, and LGBTQ and minority rights do not exist.

Biden’s team has already said that the president will “raise the issue of human rights” with his Saudi counterparts. With that box checked, conversations are sure to turn swiftly to the real agenda items for the meeting — like oil flow — with nothing real to show for it. Biden should insist on more. Before meeting with MBS, Biden should send over a list of political prisoners to be released as a precondition for the encounter. And, as Ronald Reagan did when visiting the Soviet Union, Biden should insist on meeting face-to-face with Saudi dissidents while in the country. If he is going to bring global attention to burnish a murderer’s image, the least he can do is turn a spotlight on men and women risking everything for the freedom and dignity of their people.

In a country where total censorship, public floggings, beheadings, “disappearances” and hundreds of political prisoners are the norm, releasing a few activists will make a small dent in addressing the kingdom’s barbarity. But it’s a start. It is a way to show that Biden’s self-abasement is meant to secure greater human rights, not just cheaper gas at American pumps. And it’s something MBS can do now, immediately upon Biden’s request, as a minimum show of good faith.

If Mohammed bin Salman delivers anything less, Biden should refuse the staged handshake the crown prince so desperately craves. Otherwise, MBS’s cherished photo will belong in an album of American shame.

[aubiefifty 18,398]

i believe closely like you do but did we not get in this jam before and someone in the middle east bail us out? i hope it can help but i honestly doubt it will.

[I_M4_AU 9,022]

“Never underestimate how badly Joe Biden can **** things up”

END OF QUOTE
REPEAT THE LINE

”Never underestimate how badly Joe Biden can **** things up”.

[TexasTiger 14,477]

Didn’t know we had much left after Dubya & Trump.

[CoffeeTiger 5,929]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Didn’t know we had much left after Dubya & Trump.

 

We don't. Most of America's "Moral Authority" exist only in the minds of American citizens themselves.

 

That doesn't make Biden's trip a good thing. Saudi Arabia is not a friend or a partner of the US and Biden is just giving them what they want hoping they'll return a favor and play ball with their oil.

Dirty politics. Is it good politics? I don't know.

[TexasTiger 14,477]

4 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

We don't. Most of America's "Moral Authority" exist only in the minds of American citizens themselves.

 

That doesn't make Biden's trip a good thing. Saudi Arabia is not a friend or a partner of the US and Biden is just giving them what they want hoping they'll return a favor and play ball with their oil.

Dirty politics. Is it good politics? I don't know.

Of course it sucks. Europe freezing from lack of gas and giving into Putin sucks, too. No good choices here. This are the types of decisions leaders often face. Easy to criticize, hard to make a clearly better choice sometimes.

[homersapien 12,275]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Of course it sucks. Europe freezing from lack of gas and giving into Putin sucks, too. No good choices here. This are the types of decisions leaders often face. Easy to criticize, hard to make a clearly better choice sometimes.

A "better choice" would involve longer term thinking. 

This - thanks to our collective denial  - will involve short term sacrifice, which Americans apparently aren't prepared to do.

It will get worse - both economically and morally- the longer we procrastinate.

[TexasTiger 14,477]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

A "better choice" would involve longer term thinking. 

This - thanks to our collective denial  - will involve short term sacrifice, which Americans apparently aren't prepared to do.

It will get worse - both economically and morally- the longer we procrastinate.

Of course, bipartisan, sustained long-term thinking is better. What’s your plan for the immediate issue of Europe looking at freezing this winter? Give into Putin? Just Freeze?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Of course, bipartisan, sustained long-term thinking is better. What’s your plan for the immediate issue of Europe looking at freezing this winter? Give into Putin? Just Freeze?

Are those the only choices?

Do civilians have to make sacrifices in times of war?

Is this a world war? 

[homersapien 12,275]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Of course, bipartisan, sustained long-term thinking is better. What’s your plan for the immediate issue of Europe looking at freezing this winter? Give into Putin? Just Freeze?

First "freezing" is a little hyperbolic. I don't think this is an existential problem for Europe and certainly not for us.  The actual threat is more economic than life threatening. 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jun/22/what-if-russia-cuts-europe-gas-exports-winter

Meanwhile, Europe is trying to develop alternative supplies:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/europe-urged-to-invest-in-lng-infrastructure-as-winter-gas-crisis-looms/

Presumably, Biden is sucking up to Saudi Arabia in an attempt to get them to lower (global) prices instead of simply taking advantage of the current market as determined by Russian embargoes?  If so, good luck with that.

I will admit that I am not expert enough in the global market to judge the short term (this winter) value of Biden's visit to Saudi Arabia but I am skeptical.

Oh well, at least this can only increase the urgency of transitioning to renewables (and maybe reemphasizing nuclear, which Germany is moving away from.)  Hopefully, it will also backfire on Putin's plan to use gas embargoes as war strategy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 14,477]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

Are those the only choices?

Do civilians have to make sacrifices in times of war?

Is this a world war? 

Sacrifices? Sure. Inflation is seeing to that. Old folks & babies freezing? That gets harder for these countries politicians to sell.

[TexasTiger 14,477]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

First "freezing" is a little hyperbolic. I don't think this is an existential problem for Europe and certainly not for us.  The actual threat is more economic than life threatening. 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jun/22/what-if-russia-cuts-europe-gas-exports-winter

Meanwhile, Europe is trying to develop alternative supplies:

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/europe-urged-to-invest-in-lng-infrastructure-as-winter-gas-crisis-looms/

Presumably, Biden is sucking up to Saudi Arabia in an attempt to get them to lower (global) prices instead of simply taking advantage of the current market as determined by Russian embargoes?  If so, good luck with that.

I will admit that I am not expert enough in the global market to judge the short term (this winter) value of Biden's visit to Saudi Arabia but I am skeptical.

Oh well, at least this can only increase the urgency of transitioning to renewables (and maybe reemphasizing nuclear, which Germany is moving away from.)  Hopefully, it will also backfire on Putin's plan to use gas embargoes as war strategy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/number-of-fatalities-due-to

[icanthearyou 4,468]

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Sacrifices? Sure. Inflation is seeing to that. Old folks & babies freezing? That gets harder for these countries politicians to sell.

That is the point.  Perhaps it is time to come to the realization that we are in a world war.  Although the war is primarily economic (at the moment), there will be suffering.  Of course, the poor will suffer disproportionately.

You cannot "sell" something that you are not honest about.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

30 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Presumably, Biden is sucking up to Saudi Arabia in an attempt to get them to lower (global) prices instead of simply taking advantage of the current market as determined by Russian embargoes?  If so, good luck with that.

Not to mention the continued support of the petro dollar.  The House of Saud has tremendous leverage at the moment.  Our only leverage lies in the mutual distrust and distaste for Iran.

IMHO, the world will divide economically.  We will become two global economies.  IMHO, we got ourselves into this mess by doing business with people we had no business doing business with.  We compromised democratic, humanitarian principles for nothing other than short term greed.

Globalization itself was never a bad idea.  Globalization with no other strategy than greed was possibly a fatal idea.

 

[homersapien 12,275]

37 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/number-of-fatalities-due-to

First those deaths are hardly existential and happened over 20 years prior to this fuel crisis.

More to the point, casualties are a part of war, just like the old people and babies being killed currently by Russian shelling of cities.

So what's your point?  Should Europe pay Putin's ransom or fight back? 

Then what?  He'll move on to his next victim and more old people and babies will get shelled.

Europe is on the right course.  We need to support them as much as possible.  I'm just not sure that being friendly with MBS is critical to that strategy.

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 14,477]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Yep, casualties are a part of war.  Just like those old people and babies being killed currently by Russian shelling.

So what's your point?  Should Europe pay Putin's ransom? 

Then what?  He'll move on to his next victim and more old people and babies will get shelled.

Europe is on the right course.  We need to support them as much as possible.  I'm just not sure that being friendly with MBS is critical to that strategy.

 

🙄🤦‍♂️ I never remotely suggested that.

[TexasTiger 14,477]

25 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

That is the point.  Perhaps it is time to come to the realization that we are in a world war.  Although the war is primarily economic (at the moment), there will be suffering.  Of course, the poor will suffer disproportionately.

You cannot "sell" something that you are not honest about.

There’s a lot of countries to bring along. Pontificate all day. This is very difficult stuff in the real world. How much are folks in Europe willing to suffer? Probably less than those of us in this conversation think they should.

[homersapien 12,275]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

🙄🤦‍♂️ I never remotely suggested that.

First, I didn't say you did.  I asked if that was your point.

But we did get a little off track.  Sorry for my part.

I must have misinterpreted your post about politicians "selling" cold weather deaths - presumably as a necessary sacrifice to avoid Russian buying gas.

What is your point again?

Edited July 13, 2022 by homersapien

[icanthearyou 4,468]

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

There’s a lot of countries to bring along. Pontificate all day. This is very difficult stuff in the real world. How much are folks in Europe willing to suffer? Probably less than those of us in this conversation think they should.

Well, certainly not if they do not understand what it is they are suffering for.  I think we are all suffering.  They just happen to be closer to the "front".  

I also have to ask, what is your point?

[TexasTiger 14,477]

28 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Well, certainly not if they do not understand what it is they are suffering for.  I think we are all suffering.  They just happen to be closer to the "front".  

I also have to ask, what is your point?

I doubt I’d be engaging the Saudi regime, although the reality of them moving closer to Russia has some pretty negative impacts on the free world and Biden may have reasons not obvious to the rest of us. I do think some of our European allies are a bit weak kneed and feeling the heat politically. I also know some of them have Putin friendlier parties that will exploit the pain for all it’s worth. If Saudis can make it easier for them to hold the line, the trade off may be worth it. Putin must be weakened. My point is best immediate course of action in a given complex situation isn’t always obvious or attractive. If I had good reason to believe that reengaging the Saudis significantly increased the odds of weakening Putin’s hand, I’d have to consider it, as distasteful as it was.
 

Long-term, the West needs to reconsider nuclear power and supply chains involving less savory and more reliable partners— which may entail a perceived somewhat “lower standard of living.” Politicians need to be honest about that and sell it. It won’t be an easy sell because other politicians will claim otherwise.

[TexasTiger 14,477]

20 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

I doubt I’d be engaging the Saudi regime, although the reality of them moving closer to Russia has some pretty negative impacts on the free world and Biden may have reasons not obvious to the rest of us. I do think some of our European allies are a bit weak kneed and feeling the heat politically. I also know some of them have Putin friendlier parties that will exploit the pain for all it’s worth. If Saudis can make it easier for them to hold the line, the trade off may be worth it. Putin must be weakened. My point is best immediate course of action in a given complex situation isn’t always obvious or attractive. If I had good reason to believe that reengaging the Saudis significantly increased the odds of weakening Putin’s hand, I’d have to consider it, as distasteful as it was.
 

Long-term, the West needs to reconsider nuclear power and supply chains involving less savory and more reliable partners— which may entail a perceived somewhat “lower standard of living.” Politicians need to be honest about that and sell it. It won’t be an easy sell because other politicians will claim otherwise.

This is the greater immediate challenge:

[Cardin Drake 2,085]

[homersapien 12,275]

On 7/12/2022 at 9:27 PM, TexasTiger said:

Didn’t know we had much left after Dubya & Trump.

Good point.

[SLAG-91 1,620]

Anyone else surprised? Didn't think so...

https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/energy/2022/07/16/saudi-arabia-no-additional-capacity-to-increase-oil-production-beyond-13-million-bpd/

[homersapien 12,275]

5 hours ago, SLAG-91 said:

Anyone else surprised? Didn't think so...

https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/energy/2022/07/16/saudi-arabia-no-additional-capacity-to-increase-oil-production-beyond-13-million-bpd/

I read that to mean they don't have the capacity to go beyond 13 million.