The American-Saudi relationship extends for more than ninety years, and this is reflected in the cultural elites, which in turn are nothing but a reflection of the political groups that follow them.
Everyone knows today that private agendas drive newspapers, research centers and other media and cultural and academic institutions, and that all of them are often not independent. In light of the domination of the capitalist system, we can say that most institutions in the United States of America and Britain are also subject to the criterion of mutual benefit and alignment of interests, and this applies to parties that are supposed to support global issues of human rights, as many considerations take precedence over the idea of aligning with marginalized and oppressed groups.
There is a deep problem in organizations concerned with human rights in countries such as Britain and America, and the roots of this problem are mainly cultural.
Dealing with human rights issues in Qatar is a clear example of how human rights issues are selected, highlighted and dealt with based on files and agendas. Qatar's human rights record is marred by many black spots, but the media, succumbing to current standards, chose to highlight the persecution of the LGBT community and the criminalization of homosexuality to condemn it, as homosexuality is the most popular topic in Western public opinion.
Dr. Muhammad Fahd Al-Qahtani, the founder of the ACPRA Association (the Association for Civil and Political Rights in Saudi Arabia), and he is the most important political prisoner in Saudi prisons, and he is one of the cultural elites who have national acceptance in the country, and the political movement he founded constituted the first initiative to establish an alternative political movement of this type within the country. Despite all these facts, Western parties and the media ignore his case, and Al-Qahtani is very well known in the United States, as he is the father of four citizens of the United States and graduates of one of its universities. The political agenda of not promoting important figures like this man is clear to those familiar with the events. The West is looking forward to skirmishing with the Saudi regime, its ally, without causing strategic damage to it. If we compare the media momentum for him compared to Raif Badawi, for example, who has the right cause for sure, we see that the attempt to distance itself from those with deep academic and political influence is deliberate, and the lack of interest in the issue is reflected in the media presence, coverage, articles and attendance at research centers.
The Washington Institute for the Middle East, for example, is an institution that is directly supported by Israel. The institute used to criticize Saudi Arabia with caution, but when there were signs of opening up Israeli-Saudi relations, it stopped criticizing the kingdom. Most research centers are motivated by money first and based on the directives of the funding party, and this often leads to falsifying facts and trying to cover up violations and crimes.
The Middle East Institute is one of the oldest institutes concerned with regional issues. It has received more than $20 million in funding from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and all of its studies today are questionable, as are its academic analyzes.
Based on my personal experience, I graduated from a Catholic university at the master’s level and its president is a clergyman. My star shone among arab and foreign students, due to their small number originally. A few years after my graduation, I contacted the university’s magazine for commerce and business, and they announced their request to put a picture of a graduate of the university on its cover page, so they did a long photo session for me in my office in Washington, and at the last moment the interview was canceled by order of the university president who was a priest. It is remarkable that this is due to the university's fear of the echo that the presence of opponents of the Saudi regime will cause on the external pages, and the possibility of stopping the Saudi government sending its students to the university.
In terms of media, the issue of funding and the flow of money to these media emerges. We have confirmed information about the involvement of veteran journalists in important newspapers such as the Washington Post and the New York Times in promoting and supporting Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, in return for huge sums of money. Some CNN correspondents are also involved in doing reports that look like a propaganda machine for the kingdom's regime.
Ideology and money govern the interaction of many aspects of the Western cultural space with the Saudi regime. One of the responsible workers in the National Security Council in the White House during George W. Bush’s tenure as president once said that some American ambassadors and employees of the American consulate in Saudi Arabia return to America as Saudis, justifying this by the promises they receive from the Saudi regime to obtain high-level jobs in Saudi Arabia after the end of their work at the embassy. It is strange that this person has become one of the most important supporters of the Saudi regime. This is a vivid example of the role that the material factor plays in adopting some positions by those working in politics, media and public affairs.
Few research centers possess real credibility and research impartiality, a short time ago, for example, a research session on Saudi Arabia was held at the Carnegie Center, which is supposed to be at a high level of antiquity in contact with the director of the center, I wondered why a Saudi person was not invited to a session to discuss the Saudi issue, and there were no people speaking Arabic, and about the extent of hatred and the lack of objectivity in that. Refraining from talking about an ethnic, racial, or national group, a national opposition movement, or internal liberation in the absence of stakeholders from the axioms and basics of objectivity in approaching and proposing the issue. This is nothing but an attempt to polish the image of the regime itself.
Nasser Al-Saeed, for example, is one of the most famous opponents of the Saudi regime, who was killed by Turki bin Faisal Al Saud, and he is present on the boards of directors of many universities and research centers, despite the knowledge of these universities that his hands are stained with blood. So, many universities and research centers, in exchange for funding and material support, compromise their principles and compromise with the regimes.
Many presidents, despite their good reputation, normalize relations with the Saudi regime. Canadian President, for example, Justin Trudeau, known for his liberalism, heads a regime that has always supported and armed the Saudi regime, and has participated in the deportation of many asylum seekers to it.
In conclusion, we must not take any association, research center, university, or person as an icon, and pay attention to the networks of interests and ideologies that stand behind every support campaign, and stay away from the appeal that has a kind of groveling. On the other hand, pressure campaigns and investigations that reveal to public opinion those involved in supporting those responsible for the violations appear as more effective and lasting ways of influencing public opinion.
—
*كلمة علي الأحمد في المؤتمر السنوي الثالث لضحايا الانتهاكات في المملكة العربية السعودية الذي عقد بتاريخ 9و 10 ديسمبر 2022.