Former British ambassador Sir Alan Munro: decorated by King Fahd for "meritorious service" to Saudi Arabia

The price of snuggling up to Saudi Arabia
  
Following his meeting with President Obama last week, British prime minister David Cameron announced:

"We face a poisonous and fanatical ideology that wants to pervert one of the world's major religions, Islam, and create conflict, terror and death. 

"With our allies, we will confront it wherever it appears." 

Well, not actually everywhere. While pushing controversial plans to step up surveillance of the internet, Cameron is peculiarly reluctant to take one of the most obvious and necessary steps – by tackling the poison at its original source.

To do so would jeopardise Britain's longstanding and lucrative "friendship" with Arab Gulf monarchies, and especially that of Saudi Arabia.

While the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill currently before parliament has generated much discussion about its impact on civil liberties, sensible debate about Britain's cosy relationship with the Gulf's tyrants is almost impossible. As soon as questions are raised the foreign policy establishment, usually supported by retired ambassadors, weighs in to defend the status quo.

In a BBC interview last week (16 min 38 sec into the programme), Sir Alan Munro, a former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia was asked if he saw a difference between the killing of alleged blasphemers in Paris and the Saudi authorities' flogging of Raif Badawi who had allegedly ridiculed religious figures:

Munro: There is a difference. It is in my view largely a matter of degree. On the one hand you have criminal acts of outright assassination. Now, at the same time one has to acknowledge that Saudi Arabia remains a deeply conservative religious society. The punishments which they continue to apply are not acceptable in western eyes.

Interviewer: You say it's a matter of degree. Do you mean it's all right to inflict 1,000 lashes on someone if they criticise Islam but killing them is going too far?

Munro: For me, no I don't believe that the infliction of punishment of that severity is acceptable but I do recognise that Saudi Arabia, a very conservative society, its leadership has been leading this country towards a process of reform, towards a more open ...

Interviewer: What are the signs of that? If they are still taking people out and giving them 1,000 lashes for as they see it criticising Islam, where are the signs that things are getting better?

Munro: Gracious me! The signs of change are very apparent now. You have a press that is open to criticising the government behaviour ...

Interviewer: People who criticise the government of Saudi Arabia have also been taken out and flogged and locked in prison.

Munro: Honestly, there is very little of this. It is played up very much in the foreign media. There are many, I am sure, among the leadership, who would like to see that door opened but they can only do so at a pace which their society can adjust to. The point now is that we associate ourselves in dialogue to encourage forward this very process of change.

Interviewer: Should we be taking the same approach to organisations like – I don't know – al-Qaeda or Islamic State, to say "Look, we'd like to work with the moderate elements within your organisations"? It's better that we work with these people, engage with them rather than shun them?

Munro: No, Saudis are in no way to be put in the same bracket as these extremist bodies. It's in the process of change. Slow, but it is happening.

Besides being a former ambassador in Riyadh, Sir Alan has several other relevant connections which the BBC didn't mention. He is honorary vice-president of the Saudi-British Society, a director of the Arab British Chamber of Commerce, was a founding member of the Saudi-British Business Council and advises the British defence ministry on the UK/Saudi Al-Yamamah Economic Offset Programme. 

Following the 1991 Gulf war, he was also awarded the Order of King Abdul Aziz by King Fahd – an accolade bestowed on Saudis and foreigners for "meritorious service" to the kingdom.

The Order of King Abdul Aziz

Sir Alan's "don't rock the boat" approach is of course a familiar one where dogdy but friendly regimes are concerned. We also saw it wheeled out in connection with Bahrain a couple of years ago by another retired ambassador, Sir Harold "Hooky" Walker, who told a parliamentary committee:

"Media presentations imply that the UK’s relations with Bahrain should be governed by human rights considerations, and furthermore that UK criticisms of Bahraini performance should be loudly stated. While this may have political resonance, it cannot be correct. 

"The UK’s relationship with Bahrain is multi-faceted, including trade, investment, culture, and above all the strategic role of Bahrain as a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council in a sensitive part of the world. The UK’s policies towards Bahrain, and the government’s public presentation of them, have to balance all these considerations."

This may be good for business but there's no evidence that whispering softly in the ears of princes helps to protect people's rights. In fact, the Saudis tend to to back off only when there's an international rumpus. We saw that a few years ago when a public outcry persuaded King Abdullah to "pardon" a woman who had been sentenced to 200 lashes after being raped. Similarly, there's no doubt that the Saudi decision last week to suspend Badawi's flogging was the result of a very public outcry in the media.

The British government's efforts in the Badawi case have been typically feeble – more so than those of the United States – as Kate Allen of Amnesty International explains. Meanwhile, Britain's ministry of justice has rubbed salt in Badawi's wounds by submitting a £5.9 million bid to sell British "expertise" to the Saudi prison service.

In the eyes of the foreign policy establishment, business interests are always likely to trump other considerations such as the nature of the regime – for the simple reason that the benefits of trade are tangible and quantifiable. But this doesn't mean other aspects of the policy are cost-free; it's just more difficult to assign a monetary value to them.

Britain and many other countries are already paying a substantial price for Saudi Arabia's efforts (over many years) to spread its pernicious Wahhabi ideology far and wide. A more robust stance against that now will mean less need to spend money on security and defence measures in the future.