Saudis stoke tensions in Mideast
Re Saudi Arabia cuts off ties with Iran, Jan. 4 It is too bad for the spectacle-seeking news media that the Saudi autocracy does not execute its myriad victims in public. The media are left no choice but to focus on peripheral but spectacular sequels such as the attack by angry protesters on the unoccupied Saudi embassy in Tehran, which caused some minor damage before being halted by police.
The sensationalism helps to sideline any discussion of vital issues of far-reaching consequence, such as the nature of the ludicrous monstrosity that is called a “criminal justice system” in Saudi Arabia, the political character of the trials that led to the executions, and the role of Washington’s “green light” to the carnage, in the form of massive armaments sales to the Saudi regime and tacit patronage of its criminal conduct within and outside the country.
Meanwhile, the misguided protesters in Tehran helped divert the world’s attention to marginal issues such as the potential impact on Iran’s already-moribund relations with Saudi Arabia, as well as the larger but still marginal issue of the supposed root cause of it all, namely, the Shia-Sunni rivalry.
Relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia have never been cordial and there has been intense Shia-Sunni rivalry for at least four centuries. The new element in the picture is the Arab Spring and its aftermath, including Washington’s worried reaction and its backing of Saudi and Egyptian dictatorships.
The Mideast turmoil will persist and intensify until Washington abandons its project of imposing fake “democracy” on the region, and leaves its peoples to envision and build their future on the basis of their own needs and aspirations. Al Eslami, North York
“Canada needs to repudiate the Saudi regime and terminate the $15-billion military contract signed in secrecy with the Stephen Harper government.” ALI MANJI THORNHILL
How difficult is it to imagine a scenario in which Iran and Saudi Arabia attack each other’s oilfields? What about if the Shia minority of Saudi Arabia managed to wrest away one of the oil-rich eastern provinces? The devolution of Islam into warring factions, and products of the Iraq War, such as ISIS and Al Qaeda, adds further complexity to the region.
Ever since the U.S. undermined the free and fair election of the Mossadegh socialist government in Iran, and heavily armed its puppet, the Shah, the region has organized itself into either dictatorships or fledgling, internally feuding representatives of warlords and other vested interests trying to present themselves as democracies. It’s clear that neither the rulers of Iran nor the Saudi kingdom are much interested in “sunny ways,” let alone gender-parity governmental institutions. Ron Charach, Toronto Saudi’s execution of Al Qaeda militants is a self-inflicted consequence of the regime’s own advocacy of extremist Wahhabism. The same hateful teachings exported abroad with matching funding serves as both inspiration and capability for ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and other groups to carry out their cold-blooded acts of terror in a growing number of nations including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and France.
The execution of Sheikh Nimr Al-Nimr is a different matter. His only crime was to stand up, through peaceful protests, for the downtrodden and oppressed Shia minority in the eastern provinces of Saudi Arabia. Canada needs to repudiate the Saudi regime and terminate the $15-billion military contract signed in secrecy with the Stephen Harper government. Ali Manji, Thornhill Would someone explain why we are selling armoured cars to Saudi Arabia? Would we sell armoured cars to the Islamic State? Of course not. In that case, tell me the difference between those two entities. Both ISIS and the House of Saud, in the name of their various twisted interpretations of Islam, turn their guns on innocent civilians and demonstrate a particular interest in decapitation. At least four of the 47 people beheaded by Saudi Arabia on Jan. 1 were guilty, it seems, of peacefully protesting against that country’s repressive regime. That’s all.
I, therefore, ask again, why are we sending war material to the likes of the Saudis? Ah, why am I so naive as to believe that money shouldn’t trump morality? Richard Griffith, Ravenna, Ont. The minute I heard of the executions in Saudi Arabia I thought that the delivery of light armoured vehicles to that country would be halted. I was shocked to hear that nothing was to be done. We have a moral obligation to prevent arms going to a country that will not hesitate to use them on its own people.
Even if contracts have been signed and money transacted, it does not mean that Canada must honour this agreement. If we have to compensate the company concerned, so be it. We are aiding, abetting and condoning the atrocious acts of last Saturday if we do not cancel this sale. Carol Duffy, Richmond Hill In its Jan. 6 editorial, the Star says that the sale of $15 billion worth of Canadianmade arms to Saudi Arabia “bears close watching.” What we will be watching is people being run down and otherwise scared into submission by ruthless Saudi rulers using our armoured vehicles.
This deal, begun under the abolished Harper regime, should be cancelled at once. Our new government’s talk about new ways should not be undermined by the same old greedy hypocrisy. Jean Gower, Kingston, Ont. Re Saudi-Iran crisis rooted in ancient religious
struggle, Jan. 6 Olivia Ward asks, “Is the current SaudiIran conflict rooted in religion?” Liyakat Takim goes on to say that there are more political issues than religious at play, but the rest of the article is mostly about religion. It is safe to say that religious manipulation is the main cause of problems in the Mideast. That and Western interference in a part of the world where it seems like many would prefer to live in the past. And that’s not just fantasy. Richard Kadziewicz, Scarborough The Saudi official proclaimed the 47 executions and beheadings as “mercy to the prisoners.” How could any sane person describe the incident so casually as if a life does not matter?
Saudi Wahhabis have executed more people than ISIS in the last two years and yet the U.S., Britain and their allies will not utter a word. They only condemn if it is not their friend or ally.
These Saudi butchers live in an age they do not deserve. Perhaps they were better off living in an Age of Darkness in the middle of desert, riding camels and fighting among themselves.
Canada should take the lead to ensure that these Saudis never hold a prestigious post ever at the UN. I hope the Saudis learn from history that as you sow, so shall you reap. Shafic Kara, Markham ISIS beheads people under their control who disagree with them. So do the Saudis. ISIS invades sovereign territories and kills civilians who dwell there. The Saudis do it by air in Yemen. ISIS practises an absolute dictatorship form of government. So do the Saudis. Why is it that we vilify ISIS, but provide military hardware to the Saudis? Why are the Saudis our valiant allies in the soi-disant War on Terror? Patrick McDonald, Toronto Re Answering Trump’s question, Letter Jan. 1 The letter writer has made a historically incorrect statement unsupported by the facts when he states “a century of humiliation for Muslims followed as Britain, France and the U.S. ignored local history and culture to devise countries . . .” He was referring to the Allies at the end of the First World War and I assume the negotiations with the defeated Ottoman Empire.
Including the U.S. as taking part in the devising of countries and ignoring local history and culture is in error. There were several agreements and treaties between the Allies and the Ottoman Empire at the end of the war, none of which the U.S. was ever a participant or signatory.
To be brief. The Armistice of Mudros of Oct. 30, 1918, which set the partition of the Ottoman Empire, was between Britain and the Ottoman government. No U.S. involvement.
The Treaty of Sèvres of Aug. 10, 1920, included this partition agreement as well as creating the British Mandate of Palestine and Iraq, and the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon. This treaty excluded the U.S.
Then there was the secret Sykes-Picot agreement between Britain and France with Russian assent defining their “spheres of influence” in the Mideast. The U.S. was not a party to this agreement.
In addition, there was the Balfour Declaration” of 1917 by Britain and the Zionist Federation of England and Ireland establishing Palestine as a Jewish homeland. This declaration was incorporated into the Treaty of Serves from which the U.S. was as previously noted excluded.
In summary, to state that the U.S. was involved in the establishing of the current mess in the Mideast dating back to the First World War is incorrect and totally unsupported by any historical facts or documents. William Goss, Markham