Blood, oil and cynicism
‘‘Both Republican and Democratic senators are willing to sanction Saudi Arabia. But Trump is thumbing his nose at all of them.’’
History students will remember the word ‘‘realpolitik’’ was coined in 19th-century Europe when high-minded Enlightenment values clashed with the cynical calculations of international politics. It has come to mean sometimes you have to circumvent morals in pursuit of power and the national interest.
It has rarely been displayed as cynically or brazenly as it is in US President Donald Trump’s statement on ‘‘standing with Saudi Arabia’’, a defiant response to both the CIA and the US Senate. The CIA concluded Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the brutal killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Turkey in October. Trump preferred a narrative in which the killing was carried out by rogue actors unconnected to the crown prince.
Both Republican and Democratic senators are willing to sanction Saudi Arabia. But Trump is thumbing his nose at all of them. ‘‘Our intelligence agencies continue to assess all information, but it could very well be that the crown prince had knowledge of this tragic event – maybe he did and maybe he didn’t!’’ Trump says in his characteristically breezy style.
He reiterates that Khashoggi was seen as ‘‘an enemy of the state’’ in his homeland. The line is close to his terrible employment of ‘‘enemies of the people’’ to describe journalists in the US.
His statement goes on to explain why the US relationship with Saudi Arabia is worth more than the life of any one journalist. As a bulwark against Iran that has agreed to spend and invest US$450 billion ($NZ663B) in the US, Saudi Arabia is of enormous value to US interests in every sense of the word. And, Trump warns, if the US cancelled defence contracts with Saudi Arabia, Russia and China would benefit.
Even though fact-checkers doubt important parts of that story, the calculations it reveals are fascinating. The final paragraph of Trump’s statement is more revealing still. ‘‘After the United States, Saudi Arabia is the largest oil-producing nation in the world. They have worked closely with us and have been very responsive to my requests to keep oil prices at reasonable levels – so important for the world.’’
The phrase ‘‘no blood for oil’’ became a familiar protest during the US wars against Iraq in 1991 and 2003. A revival is timely when a journalist famously critical of the Saudi regime’s human rights abuses has been sacrificed for a reliable supply of cheap oil.
Some will shrug their shoulders and say this is how the world works and all Trump has done is make its workings transparent. Others will wish for a moral compass in international relations. A third group will see the worrying context of the president’s statement.
Remember Trump recently boasted of being a proud nationalist. The statement opens with the line ‘‘The world is a very dangerous place!’’ and closes with the declaration that ‘‘in a very dangerous world, America is pursuing its national interests and vigorously contesting countries that wish to do us harm. Very simply it is called America First!’’
The rhetoric is ominous. French President Emmanuel Macron seems to have anticipated it when he said, during the armistice commemoration in Paris, ‘‘history sometimes threatens to take its sinister course again’’.