Canada-Saudi Arabia Diplomatic Feud: A Conflict of Sovereignty and Threat to Global Security
The disorderliness that often characterise the conduct and management of international relations is, more often than not, a resultant of what the French people have always called ‘ ordre et contre ordre égalent désordre,’ that is, ‘order and counter-order amount to disorder.’ But true, if we espy the saying well, order and counterorder do not result directly into disorder. They first amount to an encounter or a situation of tension, which is described as a crisis situation in polemology. It is when this encounter or crisis is not well managed that it degenerates into conflict and disorderliness. Encounter, put differently, is the diplomatic stage which requires the prompt nipping in the bud and prevention of the situation of order and counter order from amounting to disorder.
More significant, the issuance of an order and the reactive counter-order, in the context of the diplomatic feud between Canada and Saudi Arabia, is also a direct emanation from the exercise of national sovereignty, which is generally considered an attribute of nationhood. All Member States of the international community are considered to be equal, at least, rhetorically. They are considered to have sovereign equality, and this is how independence and sovereignty of decision-making processes has become a hallmark of inter-state relations.
The truth, however, is that this issue of equality is only valid as a principle and not in deed. It is only valid to the extent that a nation-state is able to defend it. In general diplomatic practice, there is nothing like equality in the face of power play. For instance, the introduction of veto power at the level of the United Nations Security Council and its limitation to some five countries (Britain, China, France, Russia, and United States) clearly points to inequality in design and purpose. Put differently, the mere fact that the Security Council comprises some Permanent Members and Non-Permanent Members is an illustration of the inequality in the exercise of sovereignty in international relations.
And perhaps more interestingly, in many financial institutions, the number of votes a Member State has in such institutions is determined by how much such a member is contributing in terms of assessed dues to the institutions. This is one reason why the 54-Member States of the African Union can conveniently make noise when debating, but all to no avail when it comes to voting and having majority at the level of their development partners. A good illustration of this point is evidenced by voting at the African Development Bank in which very few development partners have more financial contributions than the whole of African countries and, by so doing, do have more and casting votes.
Most interestingly, but also more disturbingly, it is the mania of exercise of the right of sovereignty that creates problems or pave way for peacemaking. It is within the context of this framework that the analysis and understanding of the current Canado-Saudi Arabia diplomatic imbroglio should be located. Canada and Saudi Arabia are two different countries, both of which have tried to exercise their right of sovereignty for the purposes of self-preservation. In the imbroglio, Canada is trying to behave from the position of a more powerful sovereign who has to dictate the direction of the bilateral relationship.
On the contrary, Saudi Arabia is responding from the position of a contestant and another proponent of sovereign equality. In other words, while Canada is acting as a superior sovereign state, Saudi Arabia is vehemently objecting to any consideration of being an inferior sovereign. The outcome is the diplomatic row in the relationship, with the potentiality of further generating new international economic crises, if not also aggravating the misunderstanding between and among the states in the Middle East. In other words, Canada represents one civilisation which it is strenuously trying to promote, if not impose. Saudi Arabia is also trying to promote Islamic culture by force of necessity, but which is in conflict with what Canada is preaching. Canada, in general, enjoys the support of the Western countries when it comes to the politics of protection of democracy and human rights. In the same vein, Saudi Arabia has the active support of the Arabophone countries. This is the foundation of the problem. Its politics is another problem of its own.
The Problem and its Politics
At the level of Saudi Arabia, the subjects of dispute are Samar Badawi, a female human rights activist and her brother, Raif Badawi, the dissident blogger, who was arrested and jailed in Saudi Arabia for ten years in 2014 for allegedly insulting Islam. At the level of Canada, the problem is its foreign policy interest. Canada’s foreign policy strategy is to use the detention of Samar Badawi to make a case for diplomatic protection within the framework of private international law, as the wife and children of Raif Badawi are Canadian citizens by naturalisation and are asking the Canadian government for protection in the face of alleged denial of justice and unfairness in Saudi Arabia.
Additionally, Canada’s foreign policy strategy is to underscore the promotion of democratic ethos and fundamental rights. The trending belief is that democracy is the best form of political governance, which promotes respect for freedom of thought, freedom of association and protection of fundamental human rights, regardless of colour, religion and ethnic bias. In this regard, it is the issue of Canada’s perceived non-protection of human rights by Saudi Arabia that is at the root of the current diplomatic row between Canada and Saudi Arabia.
Right from 2015, Canada has been showing concerns about perceived abuse of human rights in Saudi Arabia. In December 2015, Mr. Stéphane Dion, the then Foreign Minister of Canada raised the issue of abuse of fundamental human rights, especially the detainment of human rights activist, Raif Badawi, with his Saudi counterpart, Mr. Adel al-Jubeir. Besides, in 2016 following the execution of 47 civilians found guilty of engagement in terrorism, Mr. Stéphane Dion requested the Government of Saudi Arabia to respect due process, as well as follow standard international norms regarding human rights, especially in light of the need to prevent possible sectarian friction in the Middle East.
In fact, on Thursday, August 9, 2018 Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates jointly launched an airstrike targeting a bus carrying children through a market in Sa’ada Province in Yemen. There were many casualties. As recorded by the International Committee of the Red Cross, 51 people have been killed, 40 of whom were children, and most of whom were under 13 years of age. Since the airstrike, Saudi Arabia has been variously criticised.
In defending the airstrike killing non-combatants and children, Saudi Arabia wrote to the United Nations, explicating that the airstrike was ‘a legitimate military action, ... targeting Houthi leaders responsible for recruiting and training young children, and then sending them to battle fields.’
As revealed by the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, there have been more than 17,000 civilian casualties in Yemen since March 2015. 6,592 of them were fatal. What is particularly noteworthy about the airstrike is that majority of the casualties (10,500) were not only a resultant of the Saudi Arabia-United Arab Emirate-led airstrikes in Yemen, but most of the victims are civilians and children.
Again, if we espy the logic of the airstrikes, Saudi Arabia is considering that there is a good basis to enslave or endanger the Yemeni children. And true enough, encouraging kid soldiering is not internationally acceptable. Arming Yemeni children necessarily raises the extent to which the armed children should not be attacked, especially when looked at as terrorist children. For Saudi Arabia, Yemen is a terrorist country and should be fought to standstill.
Canada looks at the issue differently, and has by so doing, become a self-appointed external policeman, with the responsibility of monitoring the respect or abuse of human rights in Saudi Arabia. It is therefore not surprising that Canada, again, raised the issue of imprisonment of Samar Badawi in early August, 2018. Canada not only criticised the arrest of women rights activists and other civil society activists in the Arab Kingdom, but also requested for their immediate release.
As stated on August 2 by the Foreign Minister of Canada, Mrs. Chrystia Freeland, Canada is ‘very alarmed to learn that Samar Badawi, Raif Badawi’s sister, has been imprisoned in Saudi Arabia. Canada stands together with the Badawi family in this difficult time, and we continue to strongly call for the release of both Raif and Samar Badawi.’
More important, on August 3, the Foreign Minister added that Canada ‘is gravely concerned about additional arrests of civil society and women’s rights activists in Saudi Arabia, including Samar Badawi.’ She urged the Saudi authorities ‘to immediately release them and all other peaceful human rights activities.’ And perhaps most importantly, Madame Freeland made it clear that ‘Canada will always stand up for human rights in Canada and around the world,’ in the strong belief that ‘women’s rights are human rights.’
True, women’s rights are human rights, but who has the right to protect the rights? Has Canada more rights than its allies which have kept silent on the matter? Without doubt, Canada is on record to have been one of the leading countries fighting against injustice the world over. Canada played an active role in the anti-Sani Abacha military oppression in Nigeria. Leading the international condemnation of the detention of Samar Badawi in Saudi Arabia only points to consistency in Canada’s foreign policy calculations.
However, the manner of going about the protection of human rights appears not to be compatible with diplomatic decency, especially from the perspective of dictatorial directive issued to a sovereign state like Saudi Arabia. For instance, Canada urged Saudi Arabia to release immediately the people under detention or in prison. The word ‘urged’ implies encouragement and, therefore not necessarily offensive and unfriendly. However, when giving a specific time within which to release the prisoners, ‘immediately,’ in this case, the encouragement becomes manu militari in design and therefore very unfriendly. This appears to be one major dynamic of the attitudinal response of Saudi Arabia to Canada’s request.
Saudi Arabia’s government first considered the request by Canada as ‘a major, unacceptable affront,’ a violation of the ‘kingdom’s sovereignty,’ as well as ‘a blatant interference in the Kingdom’s domestic affairs, against basic international norms and all international protocols.’ Apparently aggrieved, Saudi Arabia declared the Canadian ambassador to its country a persona non grata, directing him to leave the country within 24 hours following the issuance of the notice. Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Canada was also immediately recalled.
Third, the Saudi government banned new trade with Canada, suspended flights to Toronto, as well as educational exchange programmes. The Saudi government also stopped the sending of sick patients to Canadian hospitals while directing that those Saudi patients already in Canada should be relocated to another country. And most importantly, Saudi Arabia announced that it does not want any effort at mediation with Canada, not only arguing that there is nothing to mediate in the matter as ‘Canada made a big mistake and a mistake should be corrected,’ but also capitalised on the Arabic proverb that ‘he who interferes with what doesn’t concern him finds what doesn’t please him.’
By jettisoning any mediation in the misunderstanding, what does Saudi Arabia want to send out as signals? Can the Saudi position enhance the quest for global peace and security? Can any foreign country really mediate the misunderstanding beyond the level of Canado-Saudi Arabia bilateral ties? We doubt much for various reasons.