Saudi Investment

smacl · 29-03-2017 10:19am

looksee wrote: »

I don't see the arguments of 'well we buy their oil' and 'other governments are just as bad' are all that relevant.

What are you suggesting as the alternative? We either do business with them or not, and I would consider buying from them (i.e. increasing their net wealth) is considerably more damaging than selling to them. If we're not selling to the Saudis you may also want to have a word with Glanbia, who've recently announced another large deal with Almarai. As a small open economy, we'd need to think long and hard before rejecting trading partners from countries with dubious human rights records.

robindch · 29-03-2017 10:28am

looksee wrote: »

I don't see the arguments of 'well we buy their oil' and 'other governments are just as bad' are all that relevant.

The point that "all governments are as bad" is an instance of moral equivocacy or the fallacy of relevance. Or more recently and more simply, whataboutery - the idea that any point can be rebutted by claiming that somebody else has done something else which the person making the point believes, or pretends to believe, is just as bad.

Not a useful debating tactic.

looksee · 29-03-2017 10:43am

smacl wrote: »

What are you suggesting as the alternative? We either do business with them or not, and I would consider buying from them (i.e. increasing their net wealth) is considerably more damaging than selling to them. If we're not selling to the Saudis you may also want to have a word with Glanbia, who've recently announced another large deal with Almarai. As a small open economy, we'd need to think long and hard before rejecting trading partners from countries with dubious human rights records.

Tbh, I don't feel strongly enough about it to start a campaign, I am evidently in a minority of one on both this and the Waterford forum. I was just interested to see whether anyone at all had considered the topic; it appears that it is not a problem to anyone else.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think we're accepting investment from the regime, here, are we? W're accepting investment from individuals who live in a country governed by this regime. I think that's a material difference.

Fair point. I have had passing contact with a couple of Saudi men - one is a neighbour of my son - and while they are superficially charming and courteous to women, in neither case do they even hear anything a woman says, they just ignore or talk over it - not with any sense of intention or malice, just completely ignoring the background twittering of birds. Since men will not have experienced this it is not relevant to the discussion ( :rolleyes: ) but it may go some way to explaining my jaundiced attitude.

robindch · 29-03-2017 10:59am

looksee wrote: »

I have had passing contact with a couple of Saudi men - one is a neighbour of my son - and while they are superficially charming and courteous to women, in neither case do they even hear anything a woman says, they just ignore or talk over it - not with any sense of intention or malice, just completely ignoring the background twittering of birds. Since men will not have experienced this it is not relevant to the discussion ( :rolleyes: ) but it may go some way to explaining my jaundiced attitude.

With becoming submission, I feel I should point out that I've been in and worked in KSA and have been dealing with the country and its peculiar culture for perhaps ten years.

While I entirely agree that some Saudi men - I don't recall speaking to any Saudi women - must be amongst the most polite and gracious people on the surface of the planet, I couldn't help but notice that, broadly speaking, my words were treated as little more than the curious bleatings of a stranger's distant sheep.

AlmightyCushion · 29-03-2017 11:01am

looksee wrote: »

Tbh, I don't feel strongly enough about it to start a campaign, I am evidently in a minority of one on both this and the Waterford forum. I was just interested to see whether anyone at all had considered the topic; it appears that it is not a problem to anyone else.

Fair point. I have had passing contact with a couple of Saudi men - one is a neighbour of my son - and while they are superficially charming and courteous to women, in neither case do they even hear anything a woman says, they just ignore or talk over it - not with any sense of intention or malice, just completely ignoring the background twittering of birds. Since men will not have experienced this it is not relevant to the discussion ( :rolleyes: ) but it may go some way to explaining my jaundiced attitude.

America has serious race issues, Japanese people are known for not accepting outsiders, China has numerous human rights issues (and if even a fraction of the shít my Chinese co-worker says about the Chinese government is true, it's worse than most people even realise). Should we refuse investment from people from these countries as well? How far does this extend? Should we ban them from buying property here? Should we ban them from buying shares in Irish companies? Should we ban companies here from selling goods and services to them? Should we ban them from visiting here?

smacl · 29-03-2017 11:01am

looksee wrote: »

Tbh, I don't feel strongly enough about it to start a campaign, I am evidently in a minority of one on both this and the Waterford forum. I was just interested to see whether anyone at all had considered the topic; it appears that it is not a problem to anyone else.

Trading with a foreign power with a history of human rights violations is most certainly an issue, but my point is that the Waterford development can't be considered in isolation. To stop it would probably require trade sanctions which would no doubt be reciprocated, the effects of which could be far reaching. Very easy to take the moral high ground and say we shouldn't be dealing with these people, but again, what is the alternative and what are the consequences?

looksee · 29-03-2017 11:11am

smacl wrote: »

Trading with a foreign power with a history of human rights violations is most certainly an issue, but my point is that the Waterford development can't be considered in isolation. To stop it would probably require trade sanctions which would no doubt be reciprocated, the effects of which could be far reaching. Very easy to take the moral high ground and say we shouldn't be dealing with these people, but again, what is the alternative and what are the consequences?

I agree with that, but I really don't think that trade sanctions etc were in the minds of the enthusiasts for the scheme - just 'oh goody, money coming in', a bit reminiscent of some of our own governments' 'lollipop' budgets of the past.

smacl · 29-03-2017 11:46am

looksee wrote: »

I agree with that, but I really don't think that trade sanctions etc were in the minds of the enthusiasts for the scheme - just 'oh goody, money coming in', a bit reminiscent of some of our own governments' 'lollipop' budgets of the past.

Greed is very much the driving force behind big business in particular and consumer driven society in general. The sad truth is that if it effects the money in their pockets, most people couldn't give a damn what the the Saudis get up to once it is kept out of sight and polite conversation. As AlmightyCushion pointed out, the same holds true for many countries we deal with on a routine basis. Personally, I'm no better, and while I haven't been to Saudi I've worked in the UAE in the past which amounts to pretty much the same thing.

recedite · 29-03-2017 12:05pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

America has serious race issues, Japanese people are known for not accepting outsiders..

Maybe Japan doesn't have serious race issues because it has few outsiders. And vice versa with USA.
Maybe criticising other countries is a form of xenophobia, like when we are accusing them of being morally deficient in some way, or even of being xenophobic. Maybe they are just different, not deficient :pac:.
You can criticise Saudi Arabia for being enthralled with Islam, or criticise Hungary for being hostile to Islam. But if you seek to punish both of them economically in some way, doesn't that in reality make you some kind of xenophobic hypocrite? As in, "I'm right, and everybody else is wrong".

These various countries have their own ways of doing things. Accept it.

magicbastarder · 29-03-2017 12:12pm

in short, 'i can't criticise anyone for that would make me a cultural imperialist'?

smacl · 29-03-2017 12:29pm

recedite wrote: »

You can criticise Saudi Arabia for being enthralled with Islam

Or more simply we can criticise a country such as Saudi for an extensive and very specific list of human rights violations regardless of their religion or creed.

recedite · 29-03-2017 1:21pm

smacl wrote: »

Or more simply we can criticise a country such as Saudi for an extensive and very specific list of human rights violations regardless of their religion or creed.

One person's "human rights violations" is another persons "religion", as in the executions, and the discrimination against women, and the war against the Yemeni shia infidel as mentioned in your link.

recedite · 29-03-2017 1:31pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

in short, 'i can't criticise anyone for that would make me a cultural imperialist'?

I don't shy away from criticising Islam. But I am not "a cultural imperialist" because I don't feel the need to subjugate or to "reform" inferior or barbaric cultures when I see them.
Neither do I want them coming here. That attitude might make me an xenophobe in some peoples minds, but I am happy enough believing that in accepting a foreigner's choice to maintain their own culture, in their own land, I am actually less xenophobic than most people.

smacl · 29-03-2017 2:37pm

recedite wrote: »

I don't shy away from criticising Islam. But I am not "a cultural imperialist" because I don't feel the need to subjugate or to "reform" inferior or barbaric cultures when I see them.
Neither do I want them coming here. That attitude might make me an xenophobe in some peoples minds, but I am happy enough believing that in accepting a foreigner's choice to maintain their own culture, in their own land, I am actually less xenophobic than most people.

Can we assume therefore that you strongly disapprove of all and any military actions or interventions in foreign countries?

recedite · 29-03-2017 3:35pm

Most military interventions, but not all. I'd be in favour of some kind of global council with a military capability, to replace the UN. The UN is corrupt, the votes of smaller countries can be bought, it is paralyzed by the veto powers of WW2 victors, and it rarely tries to impose peace; it only tries to keep peace.
For example, a global military force to invade Syria, and impose a temporary and humanitarian secular global govt. would be a good thing. But such an imposed govt. would have no mandate to strip Syrians of their own culture.

If you seek to export your own vision of liberal values to countries where people don't want them, is that really any different to the missionaries of old seeking to re-educate the natives by making them read the bible and to make themselves "decent" by wearing European style clothing?

robindch · 29-03-2017 3:43pm

recedite wrote: »

Most military interventions, but not all.

I recall you approved of the military seizure of Crimea and - presumably? - the endless violations of precedent, law, decency and human rights which followed.

smacl · 29-03-2017 4:23pm

recedite wrote: »

I'd be in favour of some kind of global council with a military capability, to replace the UN. The UN is corrupt, the votes of smaller countries can be bought, it is paralyzed by the veto powers of WW2 victors, and it rarely tries to impose peace; it only tries to keep peace. For example, a global military force to invade Syria, and impose a temporary and humanitarian secular global govt. would be a good thing. But such an imposed govt. would have no mandate to strip Syrians of their own culture.

But what is a humanitarian government if not a government that supports human rights, where you've already clearly stated that one person's "human rights violations" is another persons "religion", and that you don't feel the need to subjugate or to "reform" inferior or barbaric cultures?

These statements are contradictory, you can't impose a humanitarian secular government on a barbaric culture without first changing that culture. Perhaps the local culture would consider your global military council barbaric.

I'd also question why you'd endorse an action in Syria and not elsewhere, as one reason that comes to mind would be to stem the flow of all those pesky immigrants.

recedite · 29-03-2017 4:42pm

smacl wrote: »

These statements are contradictory, you can't impose a humanitarian secular government on a barbaric culture without first changing that culture.

Not so. Its possible for any country or culture to become locked into a seemingly endless cycle of violence. It has happened in Europe often enough. A temporary intervention can knock them out of that cycle. Afterwards, one would hope that they would evolve into a more peace loving and sophisticated culture, but if not, that is their choice.

robindch wrote: »

I recall you approved of the military seizure of Crimea and - presumably? - the endless violations of precedent, law, decency and human rights which followed.

Crimea seceded by referendum. But even if you deny the legitimacy of that, you cannot deny the statistics that prove the majority culture there is Russian, as opposed to Ukrainean (not that an outsider would see a huge difference).

robindch · 29-03-2017 5:20pm

recedite wrote: »

Crimea seceded by referendum.

By a vote rigged by a hostile power in direct violation of the laws of the country in which it was held, which was entirely ignored by reliable international observers and relevant organizations, where voting fraud was widely reported, where there had been violence prior to the vote almost exclusively against one side only, where the choice provided was fixed, where there was no voter rolls, which was boycotted by substantial parts of the regional population, which was counted by a hostile power which stood to gain substantially by a purported "win", and which followed armed assault and takeover of the regional assembly.

The vote had all the legitimacy of a nine dollar note and in all respects, was a travesty of democracy.

Not that the result has produced any happiness in Crimea either:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-crimea-chaliy-idUSKBN16Y10R

And - since under Russian federal law, secessionist talk is now a criminal offence for which people can be imprisoned for up to six years - it's a little improbable that the vote, fake and all as it was, will be reversed, at least on account of efforts of any suicidal enough to raise the topic within Crimea.

Off topic, of course

recedite · 29-03-2017 5:20pm

smacl wrote: »

I'd also question why you'd endorse an action in Syria and not elsewhere, as one reason that comes to mind would be to stem the flow of all those pesky immigrants.

I just gave Syria as a relatively clear cut example of a situation where a military intervention is needed.
For the record, I consider Syria to have a sophisticated culture, but marred by a significant and malevolent presence of Salafist Islam. Most of the Syrian refugees have stayed in neighbouring countries in the region, as is their preference, and where it is much more cost-effective for humanitarian organisations to look after their needs until things return to normal in Syria.

Unfortunately a lot of chancers calling themselves "Syrians" have travelled to the EU since the borders were declared open by Merkel in 2015, which has precipitated a change in many European's own attitudes to the EU itself.

recedite · 29-03-2017 5:40pm

robindch wrote: »

By a vote rigged by a hostile power in direct violation of the laws of the country in which it was held
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-crimea-chaliy-idUSKBN16Y10R
Off topic, of course

Thought you might say that, while not admitting that the majority identify as ethnic Russians. And don't forget, Britain did not give her permission for Ireland or the USA to be independent, until after it became a fait accompli.

But your link is slightly on topic...

Soon after Russian's annexation,pensions and public sector wages rose dramatically because they were brought into line with Russian levels, higher than in Ukraine.
This though was offset by a rise in prices in stores, partly the result of difficulties of getting goods to the peninsula - which is not connected by land to Russia....

The private sector, heavily dependent on tourism, has suffered. Ukrainian tourists stopped visiting, and major companies, including some Russian ones, suspended investments because of the risk of being hit by sanctions.
"Businessmen are accustomed to going skiing in Europe and nobody wants to leave themselves open" to being included on a list of people barred from entering the European Union, Chaliy said.
He saw no prospect of the sanctions being lifted any time soon, and offered advice to his fellow Crimeans: "Breathe slowly, relax, and live under a state of sanctions."

So here we have sanctions and an embargo organised by the EU and US which has stymied the prosperity that Crimeans would otherwise have enjoyed.
Why? Because they seek to export and impose their own "liberal western values" on these people, and seek to punish Crimeans economically for rejecting that missionary zeal.

robindch · 29-03-2017 6:05pm

recedite wrote: »

Thought you might say that, while not admitting that the majority identify as ethnic Russians.

I'm not denying that lots of Crimeans might feel that they are "Russian" - recall that emigration from Russia to Crimea was popular for many years, quite apart from any forced expulsions of locals organized by Stalin et al. Nevertheless, justifying the invasion and seizure because people speak the same language and referring to them as "compatriots" (the reason offered by Russian FM, Sergiy Lavrov) is entirely illegal, quite apart from its predatory intent.

I presume that you now accept that the vote was entirely fraudulent in intent and execution..

recedite wrote: »

Because they seek to export and impose their own "liberal western values" on these people, and seek to punish Crimeans economically for rejecting that missionary zeal.

Don't be silly - it's not to do with "exporting Western values" and everything to do with doing something (frankly, as little as possible) to stop Putin from either destabilizing more regions or simply, just invading somebody else somewhere else, and potentially triggering a more widespread war.

Putin has, after all, noticed that oldest of tricks - declaring, then talking up an external, hopefully existential threat, then declaring himself the only person who can resolve it. The policy of scruple-free religious and political leaders since time immemorial.

recedite · 29-03-2017 8:39pm

robindch wrote: »

it's not to do with "exporting Western values" and everything to do with doing something (frankly, as little as possible) to stop Putin from either destabilizing more regions..

Its all about detaching Ukraine from Russian culture, and attaching it to EU/Nato instead.

Peregrinus · 30-03-2017 7:16am

looksee wrote: »

Fair point. I have had passing contact with a couple of Saudi men - one is a neighbour of my son - and while they are superficially charming and courteous to women, in neither case do they even hear anything a woman says, they just ignore or talk over it - not with any sense of intention or malice, just completely ignoring the background twittering of birds.

Well, apparently they're not alone.

robindch wrote: »

. . . I feel I should point out that I've been in and worked in KSA and have been dealing with the country and its peculiar culture for perhaps ten years . . . I don't recall speaking to any Saudi women . . .

Ok, I jest, I jest. Different context. But I couldn't resist the juxtaposition of the two posts.

But, more seriously, if what we're concerned about is the social attitudes, values, conventions, etc that prevail in Saudi Arabia with respect to women, it's not at all clear that economic boycott or economic disengagement is the best way to bring about change. It's highly arguable that, if you'd like to see social change in Saudi, the rational strategy is to promote the highest degree of engagement between Saudi and the rest of the world.

Back in the day, we did engage in economic boycotts, sporting boycotts, etc, to put pressure on the apartheid government of South Africa. But those worked (to the extent that they did work) precisely because the South Africans cared a great deal about how they were perceived abroad. They saw themselves as an outpost of western civilisation beseiged by non-western communist neighbours. The fact that "western civilisiation" generally found their racism repellent was a real problem for them.

But in a society that is basically not interested in European/western social and ethical perspectives, European/western disapproval is not going to shake their beliefs or change their values. Before you can get to the point where you can put moral pressure on them, you have to get to the point where they respect your opinions and want to have your good opinions. And you get to that point by engagement, not by disengagement.

smacl · 30-03-2017 7:45am

The issues that human rights organisations such as Amnesty International have with Saudi Arabia run much deeper than their treatment of women. The main reason we engage with them is that they have something that we need and they are very much aware of this. While I take your point regarding engagement as a path forward, it is unlikely to get very far with what amounts to little more than mutual antipathy.

Peregrinus · 30-03-2017 8:00am

Granted. But it will, I suspect, get further than disengagement will.

The bottom line is that disdain thrives on ignorance. The more contact there is between Saudi Arabia and the western world, the better Saudis will understand the reality of the western world, and the harder they will find it to accept and act on caricatures of the western world. And I think this works both ways; the more exposure we have to Saudi society, the better we will understand why they feel the way they do about women, etc (and, therefore, the better positioned we are to challenge that in ways that might be effective).

And, in general, the greater the intercourse (shut up sniggering, ye blackguards in the back row) . . . the greater the intercourse between Saudi Arabia and the rest of the world, the more Saudi attitudes and values will be influenced by other perspective and other experiences.

If you want Saudi society to remain unchanged, isolate it as much as possible. That's pretty much the policy of the Saudi government, effectively confining western guest workers in Saudi to large and luxurious compounds, largely served by other guest workers, investing hugely in higher education in SA so that Saudis are less tempted to go abroad to study, etc, etc.

Robin, no doubt, could talk about this from his own experience much more intelligently than I can, but my sense is that, yes, engagement with Saudi Arabia is likely to be a very slow way of bringing about change, but disengagement is likely to be even slower.

Yourself isit · 30-03-2017 8:26am

Interesting that one of the charges against Saudi is its war against the shia in Yemen.

However I don't see much opposition to the US, another beligerant in Yemen.

Yourself isit · 30-03-2017 8:28am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Granted. But it will, I suspect, get further than disengagement will.

The bottom line is that disdain thrives on ignorance. The more contact there is between Saudi Arabia and the western world, the better Saudis will understand the reality of the western world, and the harder they will find it to accept and act on caricatures of the western world. And I think this works both ways; the more exposure we have to Saudi society, the better we will understand why they feel the way they do about women, etc (and, therefore, the better positioned we are to challenge that in ways that might be effective).

And, in general, the greater the intercourse (shut up sniggering, ye blackguards in the back row) . . . the greater the intercourse between Saudi Arabia and the rest of the world, the more Saudi attitudes and values will be influenced by other perspective and other experiences.

If you want Saudi society to remain unchanged, isolate it as much as possible. That's pretty much the policy of the Saudi government, effectively confining western guest workers in Saudi to large and luxurious compounds, largely served by other guest workers, investing hugely in higher education in SA so that Saudis are less tempted to go abroad to study, etc, etc.

Robin, no doubt, could talk about this from his own experience much more intelligently than I can, but my sense is that, yes, engagement with Saudi Arabia is likely to be a very slow way of bringing about change, but disengagement is likely to be even slower.

That's a bit naive. The Saudi ruling classes are well aware of Western values. They just ignore them (at least for non royals).

smacl · 30-03-2017 8:31am

@Peregrinus, fair enough, but lets not fool ourselves that our primary motive is altruism, when there are many other regimes out there committing human rights violations that don't have something we need that we're quite happy to ignore.

My feeling is that the Saudis are unlikely to engage until such a time as they need to. If you compare the attitudes in Dubai for example, which doesn't have the natural resources, while far from perfect (from our point of view) they are very different.

Peregrinus · 30-03-2017 9:46am

Obviously, the financial pressure that Ireland can bring to bear on Saudi Arabia, whether by rejecting Saudi investments or by refusing to buy Saudi oil, is not in itself going to be enough to persuade the Saudis to change their ways.

You could argue, nevertheless, that there is a moral value in manifesting our criticism of Saudi social and political norms by refusing to deal with them. (And, obviously, there are many other countries in relation to which you can make the same arguments, but lets put that to one side.)

This is an idealistic argument, obviously, but there's nothing wrong with idealism.

My main concern is that it means treating individual Saudis adversely because you object to aspects of Saudi culture/society/politics, without any inquiry into whether the particular person that you're refusing to deal with shares in, or is responsible for, the values, attitudes, actions, etc, which you object to. Essentially, you're victimising him because you know he's a Saudi, rather than because you know he's sexist or politically oppressive or violent or whatever. And the contradictions inherent in doing that in purported defence of Western liberal values, of human rights, are obvious.

I think it would be easier to defend a policy of boycotting the Saudi government and its agencies, rather than a boycott of the entire Saudi people. (And you could extend that to particular private companies that you knew to be doing or supporting objectionable things.)

It's a bit like the difference between boycotting Trump hotels (which I have done without even thinking about it all my life - are my liberal instincts not impeccable?) and boycotting all Americans.

Saudi Investment

Comments