Opinion

Saudi Arabia, Gulf states give U.S. a lesson in human rights

Photo of David Meyers
David Meyers
Freelance Writer
  • See All Articles
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • Bio

      David Meyers

      David Meyers served in the White House from 2006 to 2009, and later in the United States Senate. He is currently pursuing a law degree at Columbia University. His personal website is<a href="http://davidrossmeyers.com/David_Meyers/Home.html"> DavidRossMeyers.com</a>.

The Syrian crisis reached a turning point today as Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain recalled their ambassadors from the country. These countries intimated that they would sever all ties and support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad if he didn’t stop murdering his own people or resign.

The United States, by contrast, has kept its ambassador in Syria and has refused to explicitly call for President Assad to step down. Symbolism, rhetoric and perceptions matter. And while America has condemned the Assad regime and pressured it to end the violence, the U.S. has not done enough.

Most people wouldn’t view Bahrain or Saudi Arabia as champions of human rights after their behavior during the Arab Spring. But by their actions today, Saudi Arabia and its neighbors have taken a clear stand in support of human rights, and have upstaged the United States in the effort to end the suffering in Syria.

President Assad had blood-stained hands long before the current crackdown. The Assad regime has been a long-time state sponsor of terrorism, has actively undermined democratic reforms in countries such as Lebanon and Iraq, has actively pursued nuclear weapons and has been a long-time ally and supporter of Iran. And in 1982, Assad’s father (then Syria’s president) ordered a brutal crackdown to suppress an opposition movement in Hama that killed approximately 20,000 of his own people.

In 2005, Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated, and all signs pointed to Syria and its terrorist proxy Hezbollah. President Bush decided he had had enough with Syria’s intransigence and support of terrorism, and recalled the U.S. ambassador to Syria. This sent a clear signal that the United States would not tolerate Syria’s behavior anymore, that it would work to isolate and cripple the Assad regime and that it would support democratic activists inside the country.

From 2005 to 2010, Syria continued to sponsor terrorism and disrupt democratic reforms in the Middle East. And in 2007, an Israeli airstrike revealed that Syria had been working on a nuclear bomb right under the nose of the IAEA. Despite these worrying signs, President Obama attempted to extend a hand of cooperation to the Syrian regime by sending a U.S. ambassador to the country.

President Obama nominated Robert Ford for the post in February 2010. But congressional Republicans blocked the nomination, arguing that Obama’s efforts to engage hostile nations like Iran had failed. President Obama went around Congress by using a recess appointment to appoint Ford in December 2010.

Ford has done an admirable job of bringing attention to the Assad regime’s brutal murder of civilians, most notably by visiting Hama and meeting with opposition members. But Ambassador Ford, at the direction of the U.S. government, has not called for Assad to step down. And there is only so much Ford is allowed to do inside Syria since he is a guest of the Assad government. Therefore, it is high time for the White House to recall its ambassador and unequivocally call for President Assad to resign.

The White House has refused to do either of these things. Administration officials believe these actions would be purely symbolic and wouldn’t have much of a practical effect. What they don’t understand is that steps like these can lead to practical effects. And even if they don’t, sometimes symbolism and rhetoric are important by themselves, because they demonstrate the U.S.’s commitment to freedom, peace and human dignity.

  • Anonymous

    The only reason Saudi and the Gulf States have taken a stand against Assad is due to the fact that he belongs to the Alawi sect of Shia Islam. The Gulf States an Saudi are led by Sunnis. In fact, Bahrain’s Sunni-minority government was all too recently involved in rather brutally suppressing the uprisings of the nation’s Shia-majority. Syria is a Sunni-majority state, and Saudi and the other Gulf States would like to see the nation led by a like minded Sunni. This conflict is an old one, and can be seen in the US’ and Saudi’s support of the Future Movement in Lebanon (which is primarily made up of Sunnis and led by the Hariris) and Syria’s and Iran’s support of Hezbullah (the primarily Shia movement). This is not a story of Saudi’s and the Gulf States’ new dedication to human rights but rather a demonstration of sectarianism. All this, however, is no reason to ignore that Assad is little more than a butcher.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OJ3NJSXLSJCUY64Q4CTOZLCMUI John

    Well I think we should sit back in watch! Both sides want to kill US!
    We should allow them to form a circle and provide encouragement!
    That’s my take!

  • Ibahrainha

    Oh Hypocracy! “Saudi Arabia and Bahrain recalled their ambassadors from the country!”Meanwhile “Saudi Arabia troops are supporting the human rights in Bahrain”No need to mention How Saudi are the champions of Human Rights as they help the poor presidents of Tunisia and Yaman. 

  • http://twitter.com/SkyeADG Joel

    Yes, but this entire article illustrates how backwards this administration is on yet another front.  When the choice is clear, Obama makes the opposite decision.  When he should act swiftly and decisively, he procrastinates and vacillates.  When he should consider the will of the citizens, he simply does what he wants and says “I know better what is good for you”.