Britain's Saudi policy risks ethical and practical failure

The Government should clarify its muddled approach to a country that has been an important British ally despite its domestic record.
When the late Robin Cook decreed in 1997 that British foreign policy must have “an ethical dimension”, he was ridiculed. An old Palmerstonian instinct asserted itself to insist that this country’s diplomatic relations should be guided by what is in our national interests. This means we have to deal with regimes that make no pretence to be democratic or to subscribe to Western notions of what constitutes human rights or proportionate justice.
No country has highlighted this dilemma more than Saudi Arabia. The desert kingdom has been a crucial ally in the Gulf region and has sustained many thousands of jobs in the defence industry through the al-Yamamah arms deal brokered by Margaret Thatcher. But the Saudis have always been exceptionally sensitive to criticism of the way they run their internal affairs. This has been clear ever since the row in 1980 over the screening on British TV of Death of a Princess, a film about the execution of a Saudi woman for adultery. Matters became so heated that the British ambassador was kicked out of the country. Another controversy arose in 1997 when Tony Blair’s intervention spared two British nurses execution by beheading for allegedly murdering an Australian nurse.
Now the case of a British grandfather sentenced to 350 lashes for making wine in contravention of the prohibition on alcohol has triggered another ethical quandary. At the same time, the Government has cancelled a £5.9 million contract to provide prison services to Saudi Arabia. Ministers say these two events are unconnected but that is, frankly, hard to believe. Moreover, what is the policy now towards Saudi Arabia? Are we to stop selling them any goods and services that could be construed as helping internal repression; and, if so, what about agreements already entered into for police training?
This has provoked a row between Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, who cancelled the contract, and Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, whose support for its continuation has been overruled by No 10, thereby undermining his position. In the Commons, Mr Gove confirmed the cancellation of the prison deal yet said it was important for our national security to maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia. There is a danger of falling between two stools by adopting a policy that is neither ethical nor pragmatic, merely opportunistic. That is a certain way to lose influence.
Now the case of a British grandfather sentenced to 350 lashes for making wine in contravention of the prohibition on alcohol has triggered another ethical quandary. At the same time, the Government has cancelled a £5.9 million contract to provide prison services to Saudi Arabia. Ministers say these two events are unconnected but that is, frankly, hard to believe. Moreover, what is the policy now towards Saudi Arabia? Are we to stop selling them any goods and services that could be construed as helping internal repression; and, if so, what about agreements already entered into for police training?
This has provoked a row between Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, who cancelled the contract, and Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, whose support for its continuation has been overruled by No 10, thereby undermining his position. In the Commons, Mr Gove confirmed the cancellation of the prison deal yet said it was important for our national security to maintain good relations with Saudi Arabia. There is a danger of falling between two stools by adopting a policy that is neither ethical nor pragmatic, merely opportunistic. That is a certain way to lose influence.

Advice for Britons in Saudi Arabia

The law is strictly enforced in Saudi Arabia

Agencies