Paying Fealty to al-Saud, the Murder of Shaimaa al-Sabbagh and Obama's Al-Azhar Speech Five Years Later

Briefly yesterday a story appeared on the Gray Lady's home page about Obama's visit to kiss the ring of the new king of Saudi Arabia. Written by Michael Gordon and Peter Baker, "Top Officials Join Obama in Brief Visit to Saudi King" describes a large entourage of current and former USG officials arriving in the Kingdom as an act of fealty to the new ruler of the House of Saud:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — President Obama met with King Salman of Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, leading a bipartisan delegation of prominent current and former officials to shore up an important relationship and offer condolences for the death of King Abdullah. 

American officials said the meetings were the first official discussions the new monarch has held with a visiting foreign dignitary. 

Air Force One landed on a clear, mild afternoon with a brisk wind snapping the American and Saudi flags to attention. At the Erga Palace, the king and the president sat in gold chairs as their meeting got under way. 

Mr. Obama was in Riyadh for only a few hours, detouring from the return leg of a three-day visit to India. Still, the fact that he made the stop was significant, because he rarely travels overseas to mark the death of a foreign leader; more often, he dispatches the vice president, secretary of state or other dignitaries to represent the United States.

American relations with Saudi Arabia were strained by Mr. Obama’s decision not to mount military strikes in Syria against the government of President Bashar al-Assad over the use of chemical weapons. Saudi Arabia has been a bitter foe of Mr. Assad, who has repressed the Sunni Muslim majority in Syria and who has the backing of Iran, the Saudis’ regional rival.

The Saudis are also uneasy about the Obama administration’s pursuit of a nuclear deal with Iran, fearing that it will do too little to restrain the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons. And they were unhappy with American policy toward the Arab Spring uprisings, especially in Egypt, where they accused the United States of turning its back on a friend, President Hosni Mubarak.

Still, the Obama administration has worked assiduously to try to repair relations with the Saudis. After a pivotal June meeting in Jidda between Secretary of State John Kerry and King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia agreed to join the United States in carrying out airstrikes against Islamic State fighters in Syria and Iraq.

Joining the president for the visit on Tuesday were his Republican opponent from 2008, Senator John McCain of Arizona, and several veterans of Republican administrations, including two former secretaries of state, James A. Baker III and Condoleezza Rice.

Ms. Rice was also one of four former national security advisers in the delegation, which also included Brent Scowcroft, Stephen J. Hadley and Samuel Berger.

Senior figures from the Obama administration who joined the delegation included Mr. Kerry; Susan E. Rice, the current national security adviser and former ambassador to the United Nations; John O. Brennan, the director of the C.I.A.; and Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, who oversees Middle East operations. Democratic members of Congress also took part, including Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Ami Bera of California and Eliot L. Engel and Joseph Crowley of New York.

What is strange about this story, besides the obvious -- leaders of the United States, the world's beacon of freedom and democracy, kowtowing to an absolute monarchy -- is that it didn't remain for long in its prominent spot on the NYT home page, and this morning it can't even be found online in the "World" section, one has to type "Saudi Arabia" in the search box and sort by "Newest."

Obviously the story is embarrassing and needs to be hidden. The fawning tweets of Kerry and Susan Rice portray a government in thrall to al-Saud, a totalitarian dictatorship that exports the jihad the lickspittle U.S. leadership is ostensibly waging a war against. It is all hogwash.

Note the conclusion to the piece:

Mr. Obama said before flying to Riyadh from India that the United States has an interest in a strong partnership with Saudi Arabia, despite its record of repression, human rights abuses and links to terrorism.

“It is important for us to take into account existing relationships, the existing alignments within a very complicated Middle East, to recognize that we have strategic interests in common with Saudi Arabia, and that even as we work on those common interests — for example, countering terrorist organizations — that we are also encouraging them to move in new directions, not just for our sake but more importantly for their sake,” he said in an interview in New Delhi with Fareed Zakaria of CNN.

Mr. Obama was asked whether he would raise the case of the Saudi blogger who was sentenced to receive 1,000 lashes. He said he would not on this occasion, but that he does regularly raise human rights issues with the Saudi government, just as he does with other countries with undemocratic governments.

“What I’ve found effective is to apply steady, consistent pressure, even as we are getting business done that needs to get done,” Mr. Obama said. “And oftentimes, that makes some of our allies uncomfortable. It makes them frustrated. Sometimes we have to balance our need to speak to them about human rights issues with immediate concerns that we have in terms of countering terrorism or dealing with regional stability.”

One wonders what kind of "steady, consistent pressure" is being applied to Egypt where police gunned down protesters last weekend commemorating the fourth anniversary of the Arab Spring.

Robert Mackey reports today in "Egypt Condemns Western Outrage at Fatal Shooting of Protester" on the growing tumult over the murder of socialist activist Shaimaa al-Sabbagh:

Egypt’s Foreign Ministry expressed dismay on Tuesday that the killing of a female activist in Cairo, which occurred as riot police used force to disperse a peaceful protest, had drawn widespread condemnation from the West.

The death of the activist, Shaimaa al-Sabbagh, on Saturday sparked outrage online in large part because it was so well-documented. Wrenching images of Ms. Sabbagh bleeding in the arms of a colleague who picked her up afterher heart and lungs were pierced by shotgun pellets reverberated on social networks.

While Interior Ministry officials initially denied that the police officers who were filmed firing in her direction had played any part in her death, the state prosecutor opened an investigation a day later, in the face of widespread skepticism and the testimony of numerous witnesses.

The graphic images of Ms. Sabbagh’s last moments evoked comparisons to the fatal 2009 shooting of the Iranian protester Neda Agha-Soltan, who bled to death as two witnesses recorded the scene on their phones. 

That Ms. Sabbagh, 32, was engaged in a peaceful protest, with a handful of marchers carrying flowers to Tahrir Square in memory of those killed there in the Egyptian revolution four years ago, helped make her death a focus of anger at the police in a way that the death of at least 18 civilians in clashes the next day did not.

Where are the State Department tweets reminding the Egyptian government of Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Egypt is propped up by the Saudis. So don't expect any outrage from USG.

I went back to read Obama's ballyhooed Cairo address, the one he delivered in June of 2009, the full flush of his "Hope and Change" popularity, at Al-Azhar University announcing a new day in relations between the West and the Muslim world. It is a conservative speech, and knowing what we know today about Obama, that he has been a great failure as a progressive leader, it reads even more as an apologia for business-as-usual U.S. unipolarity.

Something of course that rings absolutely false today is the part of his speech devoted to democracy:

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other. 

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere. 

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people. 

As a full partner in the Saudi rollback of the Arab Spring, Obama couldn't make this speech in Cairo today. The blowback will be felt in the U.S. homeland in the form of reduced turnout for Democratic nominee during the next presidential election. There are consequences for such a dramatic about-face. People lose faith. Trust erodes.  Better to stay at home than be gulled into another false message of "Hope and Change."