Diplomatic and economic relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States pose an interesting juxtaposition between the realist and idealist schools of international relations. Their 75-year history and the complexity and instability of the Middle East further complicate the relationship. While their cooperation has always been subject to hiccups, it is presently under significant strain that may push it to the breaking point and result in a fundamental change. Realism is focused on self-preservation and security. It furthers America’s interests to have Saudi Arabia cooperate on security in the Middle East and to continue the beneficial economic relation of pricing their oil in dollars, therefore America should continue to ally itself with Saudi Arabia. Idealism, and its successor liberalism, on the other hand, support the promotion of America’s domestic political philosophy on the international stage. When America supports the right to vote and freedom of speech within its borders, idealism and liberalism argue that it should seek to spread these values around the world. Because Saudi Arabia lacks these, idealism and liberalism recognize a disharmony between America and Saudi Arabia that needs to be addressed. This dichotomy has wide-ranging implications for the upcoming 2020 presidential election and the future stability of the Middle East.

The reasons to continue the economic and military cooperation with Saudi Arabia are easily apparent for the United States. With Saudi Arabia providing around 1 million barrels of oil per day to the US, which makes up over 5% of the total US consumption, there is significant advantages in terms of resource trading. Additionally Saudi Arabia provides oil to many American allies, with the EU importing about 7% of their crude oil from the Kingdom. While the dependence on Saudi oil is relatively small, Saudi  de facto control of OPEC means that any diplomatic severing may result in a price spike and inflationary recession akin to the 1973 oil embargo. Potentially more important than the oil itself is the agreement from Saudi Arabia to only sell its oil in US dollars. This creates demand for the US dollar and in turn decreases the interest rate that the American government pays on its debts, which is massively beneficial to the American government. Were Saudi Arabia to accept other currencies, like the Euro or Yuan for its oil, there would be a decrease in the demand for dollars, which threatens to raise interest rates on debt costing America billions of dollars in added interest payments and reducing its ability to engage in deficit spending. Thus, there are economic incentives for America to continue its relationship with Saudi Arabia in its current state as it receives oil both for itself and for its allies as well as the beneficial petrodollar, which enables low interest rates and deficit financing.

There are also security reasons for America to continue its relationship with Saudi Arabia under a realist perspective on international relations. The Middle East is a notoriously unstable region where America has vested interests as the global hegemon. In the aftermath of the Arab Spring, the stability shown in Saudi Arabia was reassuring to the United States as new concerns from the rise of ISIS to the growing power of Iran. Saudi Arabia helped train anti-ISIS Syrian rebels and also provided support to the UN humanitarian aid agencies in Iraq. The US also maintains five bases in Saudi Arabia and continues to increase troop presence in the wake of the attacks on Aramco which both Washington and Riyadh have blamed on Iran. Countering the rising presence of Iran within the region is one of the main goals of America policy in the region where Saudi Arabia is a useful ally. Since the collapse of its two-pillar policy with the Iranian Revolution in 1979, America has focused on its special relationship with the Kingdom. In the wake of the Trump administration withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018, tensions have risen with Iran as both sides have lost drones and oil tankers have been held up. Counterbalancing increased Iranian aggression is a shared US and Saudi goal, which has led to productive cooperation. On both counter-terrorism and balancing against Iran, the US and Saudi Arabia have a useful relationship in realist terms.

Yet there are still significant concerns over the relationship coming from Idealist, Liberal, and Dovish factions over Saudi conduct in the Yemen Civil War and human rights infractions including the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Idealists and Liberals point to the incongruence of American values and Saudi practice. With America advocating for civil liberties and human rights, Saudi treatment of minority Shiite communities, lack of any democratic or transparent governance, limited civil liberties, lack of due process, and crackdown on activists place it squarely against American values. The 2018 Freedom  in the World report places Saudi Arabia among the Worst of the Worst due to its near-total lack of political rights and civil liberties1. This damning report highlights Saudi Arabia’s continuing lack of commitment to improving the rights of its citizens in choosing how to live their own lives. While improvements like granting the women the right to drive have been made, it comes with the imprisonment of female activists who agitated for this very change on trumped up charges. The assassination of Khashoggi, which the CIA  concluded was ordered by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, additionally demonstrates the total lack of commitment by the government to either a free press or the rights of dissidents. These are both honored and encouraged by US domestic foreign policy. Vision 2030 promises to improve this dismal situation by increasing transparency and reducing corruption, yet there is minimal progress to note as of now.

The lack of human rights and civil liberties within the Kingdom is compounded by an aggressive foreign policy in Yemen, which has led to an estimated 17,729 civilian casualties as of March 2019 as a direct result of the bombing campaign. In addition, concerns abound over the war exacerbating famine, where potentially up to 85,000 children have starved to death during the Saudi-led intervention and millions are at risk of starvation. America supports this intervention with military supplies, logistic support, and intelligence gathering. Many American congressmen on the dovish left and the isolationist right are against the war, with a majority in both houses supporting a bill to end US support for the war after the extent of the humanitarian catastrophe became clear. President Donald Trump vetoed this and continues to make realist arguments in support of the maintenance of US-Saudi Relations despite the concern that millions are suffering from food and medical shortages as the country is pushed to the brink of famine. While both the Houthis and the Saudi-led coalition deserve blame for the international law violations committed in the war, it is nevertheless worrying that there is a general lack of restraint within the Saudi military over the mounting humanitarian crisis. America has long pledged to support humanitarian work

1 The Freedom House report provides a comprehensive undertaking of the state of human rights in the world. Of course it has been argued by many that America should not speak about freedom, due to the many actions in the past and present that run counter to this, such as dysfunction in the criminal justice system and support of coups against elected democracy abroad. While true that these are instances the deserve to be treated with scorn, this argument is an example of the tu quoque logical fallacy. The moral character of the United States is generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument and to the gross human rights failures of Saudi Arabia. It does not matter that the US sometimes fails to live up to its own goals when talking about the encouragement of human rights in Saudi Arabia.

around the world in accordance with its support for human rights and this discord is especially striking2. This split combined with the previously mentioned total disregard for human rights and civil liberties causes Idealists and Liberals to question the long-standing relationship with Saudi Arabia.

While neither the realist or the idealist and liberal viewpoints on Saudi Arabia is fully complete to be a guide of American policy, America, if it is to remain a country committed to the ideals of human rights and individual liberty, must strive for the latter. America needs to re-evaluate its relationship with the Saudi Arabia government unless the Kingdom makes a firm demonstration of its commitment to cleaning up its ghastly human rights record. The US should start with the passage of resolution invoking the War Powers Act in order to distance America from its involvement in the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. Putting millions of people in the poorest country in the Middle East at the risk of starvation does not make America more secure. This was already passed through the House and Senate with some bipartisan support, but President Trump vetoed it. America should also look to how it can use its relationship with Saudi Arabia in order to press concessions on the treatment of Saudi citizens. The US has the power to positively influence the government to boost its human rights record. Using targeted sanctions, threatening to cancel arms deals, and publicly denouncing infringements has the power to bring focus to the dismal domestic protection of human rights and civil liberties. The ultimate motivation of these actions should not be to punish Saudi Arabia but rather uphold the standards America has proclaimed to be in support of.

There will be risks to pursuing the moral stance of human rights. Saudi Arabia may restrict the supply of oil or threaten to stop selling in dollars. This should not deter America in pursuing this liberal policy. The increasing shale production in America and Canada has the potential to offset any decrease in sales for both the US and its allies. Additionally, the threats to reduce the pricing of oil in USD will negatively affect both America and Saudi Arabia, as well as a significant portion of the world economy. Saudi Arabia has $170B investment in US government bonds, as well as investments across the US economy. Any harm caused by the reduction in value in US dollars would be a pyrrhic victory, as Saudi Arabia would also be hurt as a result. Additionally, America also has security partners around the Middle East and the 9/11 commission has ruled that Saudi Arabia has been a problematic ally in combating Islamic extremism. The potential backlash from Saudi Arabia in economic and security terms can be weathered by America due to its advantageous position on the world stage. While hopefully Saudi Arabia will acquiesce to American concerns over human rights, if they choose to create more conflict, America will be in a position to avoid the worst of the downsides. America should follow its ideals in their relationship with Saudi Arabia and push for an improvement on human rights to use their hegemonic position for good.

2 Once again, failures of America in international humanitarian work do not discredit arguments that American values are inimical to Saudi actions.

***************************************************

Benjamin Hopkinson is in his final year at Magdalen College, Oxford studying Philosophy, Politics, and Economics.