Is the US-Saudi alliance crumbling? (1)

(Link on Daily Trust)

King Abdul-Azeez Al Saud and President Franklin Roosevelt

To comprehend the dimensions and dynamics of the increasingly deteriorating Saudi-US alliance and its implications on both countries, the Middle East and the world at large, it’s important to look at the alliance against the backdrop of its historical and strategic contexts.  

It all started in early 1945 towards the end of World War ll amid worries of a looming shortage of crude oil supply badly needed for post-war reconstruction and economic recovery around the world. 

The United States was busy capitalizing on the prevailing circumstances to influence the formation process of the post-war global political and economic order. The United Nations (UN) was formally founded barely a month after the end of the war. The United States was increasingly desperate for a reliable source of uninterrupted oil supply for its domestic consumption and in pursuit of the economic aspect of its global ambition. 

Meanwhile, a massive crude oil reserve with proven potential to be the world’s largest source of oil had been discovered in the then only thirteen-year-old Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which was equally in a dare need of a strategic partner with appropriate technological capabilities to develop and operate the oil sector, and indeed oversee the capacity development of generations of Saudis in various relevant engineering and technical fields. 

Also, considering the circumstances through which the Kingdom came into existence, it was expecting a partner with military capabilities strong and advanced enough to ensure the survival of the Kingdom against any foreign aggression or subversive activities from within. 

Preliminary contacts in that regard were established, which culminated in the February 1945 historic meeting on an American naval ship in the Suez Canal between the then US President, Franklin Roosevelt and the founder of Saudi Arabia, King Abdul-Azeez ibn AbdurRahman Al Saud. 

Since then the US secured access to the world’s largest source of crude oil on highly favourable purchase terms, which also opened the Saudi market for US corporations and manufacturers, marking the beginning of the dominance of American-made products in Saudi Arabia. In return, the US has, among other things, been committed to developing the Kingdom’s defence and intelligence capabilities, and indeed supporting it diplomatically in regional and international politics. 

Over the decades, the alliance has transcended administration and reign levels in Washington and Riyadh respectively, to establishment levels in both countries. Likewise, top business and political elites in both countries have maintained networks of friendship in each other’s country. 

The first major faceoff between the countries was in 1973 when the then Saudi King, Faisal ibn AbdulAzeez led Arab members of the OPEC into imposing an oil embargo on the US and some other western countries, in protest of, particularly, the US continued support of Israel in its war with Arabs. The embargo caused the worst energy crisis in the US since World War ll. The faceoff deteriorated to the extent that the then US President, Richard Nixon considered invading Saudi, Kuwait and UAE oilfields.  

The current deterioration in the US-Saudi relations is a resumption of what had begun during the Barack Obama administration. Though the relations were largely normalized during the Trump administration only to take a nosedive with the coming of President Joe Biden into power.

As a notoriously radical liberal, Barack Obama, assisted by particularly the then Vice-President Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, the then US Secretary of State and Susan Rice, the then US Ambassador to the United Nations and later US National Security Adviser, vigorously pursued radical political changes across the Middle East and North Africa during the so-called Arab Spring in 2011. The chaos it unleashed, which swept away regimes, destabilized many and indeed threatened the continued existence of all left Saudi Arabia utterly disappointed with the Obama administration.   

The Obama administration, on its part, was hugely frustrated by the Saudi’s resolute resistance against the “spring”, which averted Syria-like situations in the Gulf region. The then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was particularly frustrated when she failed to dissuade Saudi Arabia from sending troops to neighbouring Bahrain to prevent looming chaos in the name of protests. In one of her declassified emails, Hillary Clinton lamented that “I warned Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal against sending the Peninsula Shield forces to Bahrain in 2011 because this might cause a crisis between the US and Saudi Arabia, but Prince Saud hung up the phone in my face, and forces were sent to Bahrain for its protection.” 

Now, having come into power as President, Joe Biden was/is, of course, more frustrated than Hillary. That’s why no sooner had he assumed office than he embarked on policies and measures that undermine the longstanding US-Saudi alliance. He even vowed to make a pariah out of the Kingdom. 

On its part, Saudi Arabia has since resorted to fighting back largely from within the US political establishment itself, using lobbying to blackmail Biden through members of the opposition Conservative Party and even his Democratic Party, for that matter. 

In the conclusion, I will, God willing, look at how either country plays its tactics, and indeed how it seeks to blackmail the other into submission.     To be concluded

As Rainbow resumes...

(Link on Daily Trust)

This piece marks the resumption of this column after more than a ten-week unannounced break necessitated by travels and other distracting schedules too successive to accommodate writing a newspaper article. It has been the longest break since the launch of this column more than ten years ago, though it was only titled Rainbow last year.  

I appreciate the understanding of those who, all through, looked forward to my humble thoughts on some interesting developments on the global stage. Many reached out wondering about my prolonged inactivity in both print and electronic media. My appreciation also goes to Daily Trust’s Editor-in-Chief and others who checked on me.

Though, writing and, of course, maintaining a regular newspaper column, more so weekly, is fulfilling, it’s equally demanding. It’s fulfilling in the sense that one derives the fulfilment of literally relieving one’s mind of some nagging thoughts over some developments, events or issues one addresses regardless of who agrees or disagrees with one. Once one feels strongly about something, a persistently nagging urge to write it sets in especially when one observes the need for an alternative perspective. 

That’s also particularly demanding when one is expected to write on a regular basis to maintain a column. It’s even more demanding when one isn’t in a particularly enabling field e.g. journalism, for, in this case, one has to always struggle to meet the deadline for sending in one’s piece while still constantly obsessed with what to write about next amid other unrelated schedules. At this juncture, I must appreciate the editor for bearing with me as I mostly manage to send in my piece quite late. 

Yet, maintaining the column has been fulfilling anyway; the associated pressure, being self-induced, has been exciting. That’s what happens when one is driven by a sheer passion to do things voluntarily. The like-minded would certainly relate more. 

Now, though a lot of interesting developments especially on the international scene have occurred over the break, I would, God willing, revisit the most relevant of them in due course to highlight their underlying politics, geopolitical, economic and strategic implications. 

The ongoing Russia-Ukraine war along with its attendant US-led NATO and Russia geopolitical power struggle and its economic and political implications on the global stage would remain of particular interest to this column. After all, my last piece was at the height of the tensions between the two countries a few days before it escalated into a full-scale war.

In a broader context, Rainbow would equally be addressing instances of Russia’s assertive pursuit of global political influence that suggests its determination to grow influential enough to rival the US. 

Rainbow would similarly be looking at instances of China’s resolve to equally grow strong enough militarily to rival the US having already risen to become the world’s second-largest economy after the US, and is, in fact, expected to overtake it.

Also, as the world consequently and steadily transforms from unipolar, where the US has practically enjoyed unrivalled global influence since the collapse of the former USSR in 1991, into a multipolar world, Rainbow would be examining the multifaceted implications of that transformation in international politics.  

Rainbow would also be looking at the lingering negotiations between some major western powers and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program to examine the dilemma behind President Biden's failure to revive the deal, which was rendered effectively ineffective by his predecessor Donald Trump following his withdrawal from it. 

Another interesting development that Rainbow would be examining is Turkish President Erdoğan’s persistent entreaties to pacify and restore normal ties with the countries he  fell out with in, the Middle East e.g. the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even Israel.

Equally interesting is the unprecedented deterioration in the almost eighty-year-old US-Saudi alliance under the current administration in Washington and reigning reign in Riyadh. Rainbow would be addressing the development by tracing its genesis and highlighting the interests involved and its geopolitical implications in the region and economic impacts beyond. 

Of course, the decades-old Palestinian-Israel conflict and its complex impacts in the Middle East and indeed international politics would always remain a matter of major interest to Rainbow, for, after all, it’s the “mother” of all crises in the region. 

As usual also, Rainbow would also be analyzing other global and geopolitical issues to identify the underlying interests of the countries involved and look at how each country plays its politics in pursuit of its interests.

The power politics behind Russia-Ukraine tensions

(Link on DailyTrust)

As the heightened tension on the Russia-Ukraine border subsides with Russia’s gradual albeit partial withdrawal of its combat-ready troops, the power politics behind the whole crisis continues to unfold. 

Over the past several weeks, Russia’s massive military buildup towards the border triggered fear across major Western capitals of its looming invasion of Ukraine. The hallmarks of impending war were all over the place. The global media was awash with frightening analyses warning of a possible confrontation. Many countries advised their citizens living in Ukraine to either leave or remain on the alert, while other countries advised would-be travellers to reconsider travelling there.

Meanwhile, diplomatic efforts went into high gear to prevent further escalation and douse the attendant tensions. Politicians and diplomats in Washington, Paris, Berlin and other major Western capitals were deeply absorbed in frantic efforts in that regard. 

Also, though all along Ukraine has maintained its “readiness” to defend itself in the face of Russian aggression, that’s rightly seen as a mere face-saving tactic. After all, its officials and diplomats were out there literally begging for de-escalation. At the height of the tensions, Ukraine’s ambassador to Britain, Vadym Prystaiko suggested that, for the sake of peace, his country may reconsider its ambition to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), which Russia is hell-bent on preventing at any cost; though the ambassador subsequently retracted the remarks, apparently under pressure.  

Interestingly, however, Russia actually never had any intention of invading Ukraine, in the first place, after all. President Putin has only resorted to playing power politics that way to blackmail both Ukraine and NATO into abandoning the planned inclusion of the former in the latter. The US and its NATO allies were already aware of that, yet they feigned tactical naivety while exaggeratedly warning of an impending Russian invasion of Ukraine to portray the former as a belligerent country hell-bent on bullying the weaker countries. 

Anyway, since coming into power two decades ago, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has been increasingly committed to reviving and assuming the role of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR), which collapsed in 1991; a development that resulted in the spring of 15 sovereign countries, including Russia, in its place. 

Russia somehow ended up with the largest territorial share and the Soviet’s military arsenal, which made it the largest country on earth and the second largest military power in the world. 

The former Soviet Union had led a NATO rival alliance known as The Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) amid raging geopolitical and global power struggle (Cold War) between the US-led West and its allies, on the one hand, and the Soviet-led East and its allies, on the other. 

However, amid worsening turmoil and towards the Soviet’s eventual breakup, WTO was dissolved in 1990 in the wake of the collapse of the Berlin Wall that signalled the reunification of the Soviet-inclined socialist East Germany and the US-inclined capitalist West Germany, which gave rise to the Republic of Germany. 

The collapse of the Soviet Union gave NATO a free hand to expand not only to the former Soviet’s traditional sphere of influence i.e. Central and Eastern Europe where more than 10 countries have joined but also to the former Soviet republics as well, i.e. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Georgia, Ukraine, and Bosnia and Herzegovina have also been recognized as aspiring members, which means their inclusion is just a matter of time. 

President Putin rightly considers NATO’s continued expansion to Eastern Europe a strategy aimed at sabotaging Russia’s geopolitical influence in the region and beyond. NATO is worried about Putin’s increasingly growing geopolitical and global influence at the expense of its members. Though many countries in the region have already joined NATO, President Putin has been committed to reversing the trend and frustrating further inclusions. In that regard, he is particularly interested in Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus for their particular significance to Russia’s strategic interests.  

Though Putin may not invade Ukraine, he isn’t likely to abandon his plan to impose a Russia-influenced political reality in the country that would frustrate the insistence of the country’s current Western-influenced political elites to join the organisation. 

NATO, including the United States and, of course, Ukraine live with the fact that tackling Russia militarily was/is never an option, and won’t be in the foreseeable future, either. Russia isn’t only disproportionately stronger than Ukraine, but, being the second-largest military power on earth, is also too strong to be tackled even by the United States and the other NATO members combined. A full-scale war between Russia and, say, the US or any equally major military wouldn’t only culminate in the annihilation of the warring parties but would equally cause the annihilation of most, if not the entire, world, for that matter.  

Likewise, even economic sanctions won’t work in this regard, because major European economies including Germany, which is the largest depend largely on Russian gas. Besides, about 70 per cent of foreign investments in Russia are owned by some NATO members. Other mutual economic interests equally explain the counterproductive effects of full-scale economic sanctions against Russia on Europe’s major economies as well.  

How Russia overshadows France in Africa

(Link on Daily Trust)

France’s hitherto undisputed influence in Africa is being increasingly overshadowed by Russia’s growing influence across the continent. 

Over the decades, Africa has been largely a French exclusive sphere of influence under the longstanding tacit understanding amongst the major world powers to share most of the rest of the world as spheres of influence among themselves.

While other major powers exercise influence over their respective spheres quite tactfully, France exercises it in Africa in a quite domineering way, thereby overshadowing countries like South Africa and Nigeria; and indeed rendering them bereft of continental influence befitting their weight in the continent. 

Moreover, French activities in the continent have always been enmeshed in one controversy or another. From particularly blatant exploitation to subversive activities against many governments including its supposed allies, France is largely viewed in the continent as a bully too strong to be tamed by its victims, and too influential to be challenged by its fellow superpowers whose interests are, after all, never affected anyway. Besides, France generally effectively represents Western interests in the continent. 

French forces are spread across many countries in the continent supposedly on a mission to fight terrorism and other forms of organized crime. There are also many French-linked “humanitarian organizations” ostensibly providing humanitarian services to the displaced. However, there has always been a quite credible suspicion of their involvement in the perpetuation of insecurity and instability amid which they perpetuate the systematic plunder of the countries’ mineral resources. 

Likewise, many incidents of government overthrow and/or assassination of politicians opposed to French activities in their countries have been linked to Paris. Many instances of the rise and reign of governments and political elites committed to doing the French biddings at the expense of their respective countries have been equally linked to successive French governments. 

France’s purported pursuit of terrorists in many African countries has always been the pretext on which it justifies the continued stay and deployment of its forces and intelligence units. 

Meanwhile, the international community continue to turn a blind eye to the largely credible allegations against French activities in those countries whose individual and collective diplomatic weight, if any, remains too insignificant to arouse the conscience of the international community, let alone prompt appropriate actions. Their growing tendency of turning to Russia is, therefore, quite understandable. 

Russia has what it takes in terms of diplomatic weight and, of course, military and intelligence capabilities to not only tackle terrorist groups but also expose French activities in the region. The affected governments capitalise on the persistent tensions between Russia, on the one hand, and Euro-American countries, on the other, to involve the former in the situation to introduce a balance to the power equation. 

The ongoing face-off between France and Mali rages in that context. The authorities in Mali advised the French ambassador in Bamako to leave. Anti-France sentiment has equally been raising in the country and beyond amid growing suspicion over French activities and their suspected impact on security and stability across the region. 

Anyway, realistically speaking, French presence in those countries is too established to be significantly undermined in the foreseeable future by the advent of Russia on the scene. After all, apparently for tactical reasons, Russia is still reluctant to officially confirm its growing involvement there. Also, though its military-related pacts with African countries are growing, it still largely operates through its private military company Wagner whose mercenaries are increasingly active in Africa and beyond on behalf of Moscow. 

Interestingly, Wagner mercenaries operate also in Nigeria, according to a Euronews report, which suggests that they are out there since at least last year assisting the Nigerian authorities in the fight against Boko-Haram and ISWAP terrorists in the North-East. 

In any case, just like France and other major powers, Russia is equally only pursuing its own economic and strategic interests in its growing involvement in different countries around the world. In its growing African adventure, in particular, it simply wants to dislodge France in the plunder of the countries’ resources and to indeed outmanoeuvre it in influence in the region. On their part, the governments partnering with it aren’t unaware of that fact; they only consider Russia a lesser evil that may not end up as treacherous and exploitative as France anyway. 

Meanwhile, France and Euro-American countries are increasingly worried, while Russia remains hell-bent on further expansion at their expense. The struggle can be better understood when viewed against the backdrop of the raging struggle for influence between the two parties. 

The affected African countries cannot afford to lose either party; they should act smartly enough to secure the maximum benefit at the minimum cost from both. 

In the absence of deterrence

(Link on Daily Trust)

Despite the public outrage provoked by the kidnapping and subsequent murder of a little girl in Kano recently, other would-be child kidnappers are certainly lurking out there determined to follow through on their plots in the absence of appropriate deterrence.

Meanwhile, correctional facilities across the country are literally overflowed with duly condemned murderers benefitting from the governors' inexcusable reluctance to sign their execution warrants. There are equally many easily convictable murderers benefitting from bureaucratic, legal and judicial foot-dragging that has stalled proceedings on their cases. Besides, as usual, many of them would end up somehow released on “technical”, “humanitarian” or other purported grounds. Some are even recognized as “repentant” to end up being effectively rewarded under various costly but hardly productive rehabilitation initiatives.

Yet, even though the link between the absence of appropriate deterrence and the growing prevalence of capital crimes against individuals and communities, is unmistakable, it remains largely ignored. 

Kidnapping and murder incidents have become so prevalent that only incidents with particularly outrageous circumstances or those involving advantaged persons attract public outrage, which, in turn, prompts a semblance of momentary concern on the part of those in power who express “shock” and “commitment” to preventing a recurrence. 

People live, or rather languish, in perpetual fear; and have resigned themselves to fate praying silently that a would-be kidnapper lurking out there doesn’t develop an interest in them or their relatives. In most cases, relatives of kidnapped persons pay the ransom quietly to get their kidnapped loved ones back, for they rightly lack confidence in the supposed commitment and capacity of the authorities to rescue them. After all, the instances where the authorities successfully rescued kidnapped persons without paying ransom are, if any, extremely few.   

On their part, the ransomed are left with permanent trauma from their ordeals most of which are too traumatic and indeed too humiliating to be shared with anybody. Many, for instance, were serially and constantly raped by their kidnappers. Most of the few who share their ordeals publicly are either too naïve to realise its associated social implications or are simply too devastated to bother. A foreign-based Nigerian woman (probably US-based) who was kidnapped along with members of her family while on a visit to Nigeria, was too devastated to keep her ordeal to herself and her close relatives. After going back to her base following their release after paying the ransom, she went on a viral video in an agonizing tone to share her rape ordeal at the hands of their kidnappers in Nigeria.

Children are particularly vulnerable to kidnapping and all sorts of abuse at the hands of non-strangers due to child neglect particularly prevalent in the Hausa-Fulani communities, which explains the relative ease with which their children are abused, exploited and kidnapped for ransom or rituals. 

The sight of unaccompanied, unattended, malnourished, barely clothed, and unkempt kids some as young as four and even younger roaming the streets and alleyways in a typical Hausa-Fulani community, is particularly distressing. Even many supposedly caring parents inadvertently expose their underage kids to avoidable harm by sending them to school or on an errand unaccompanied. 

Also, the culture of blindly trusting kids with anybody simply because he is a relative, neighbour or acquaintance explain the high rate of sexual molestation and other forms of child abuse against kids in those communities. Reported and unreported cases of child abuse involving cousins, uncles, domestic workers, neighbourhood shop owners, and other supposedly trusted acquaintances are quite prevalent in those communities. The real picture may not be easily clear as most cases end up suppressed by the very guardians or relatives of the victims on the pretext of protecting the victims from the social implications, especially stigma.

Though tackling crimes, especially capital crimes, necessarily entails a compressive approach that addresses all relevant things accordingly, appropriate deterrence remains the most effective mechanism to deter would-be criminals. 

Appropriate deterrence against capital crimes is dispensed only when capital punishment is executed against convicted and condemned criminals. To achieve that maximally, wherever capital punishment is applied, it’s either carried out publicly or covered widely in the media. In some countries, when a capital crime provokes widespread public outrage like the recent one in Kano, the trial would be given priority in terms of scheduling of proceedings to conclude it as soon as possible. Also, the execution wouldn’t take long. And to maximise the deterrence effect, some other condemned criminals waiting for their execution would be executed along with the criminal involved in the outrageous crime.

It’s an unexplainable irony that capital punishment is effectively suspended in a country like Nigeria despite being one of the worst crime-ridden countries in the world. This irony per se is enough to explain why the country is not taken seriously on the global stage.