Top Saudi official issued death threat against UN's Khashoggi investigator | Hacker News Reader

Top Saudi official issued death threat against UN's Khashoggi investigator

theguardian.com

284 pointssofixa115 comments

The UN is pretty useless at this point. A member of its staff that is conducting an investigation can have their life threaded freely by a member government and the UN is powerless to do anything about it (because its member states only pay lip service to their commitments, which is shameful).

I am saying this as someone who Grandfather worked there as part of a delegation and has fond memories of visits to the UN as a child.

It always has been a powerless organization. I'm a Myanmar citizen and I grew up thinking naively that one day, the UN would come and free us from the military dictatorship. It never happened and I eventually got scholarships to study in the US. Before I left for the US, I learned more about the UN and how its affiliated NGOs work/function (e.g., UNICEF) when volunteering at a couple of NGOs that work with the UN. Since then, my impression on UN has never been lower.

Now that the military coup happened a couple of months ago, and seeing the UN being the same old, I am not surprised. Most of Myanmar people, including my mother who is living there, are pinning their hopes on the UN to save them from this coup. I feel really sorry for them about believing in such a false hope.

I'd like to hear more, could you share about your experiences with UN at NGOs?

I have replied to someone who asked similar question [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26561860]. Hope this is helpful. Please talk to local/native workers of the organization (not as a stranger because they may not tell you everything at first) and see what their grievances are about the NGO that they are working for.

I’d like to hear more about your experiences with UNICEF. It’s one of the only places I donate to and I’ve heard many first hand experiences of where they’ve saved lives and provided opportunity

I think UNICEF is a better one to donate to, so is OHCHR. More wary about UNDP.

I would say one has to volunteer as a native person (not a foreigner who usually "oversees" the projects and operations there) to see how lazy and incompetent the people there are. For example, the country director is usually not in the office (in my three months of volunteering there, I saw her maybe twice; mind you, she is not traveling to the project sites because we have logs showing exactly who is traveling where at what time), but she would show up though at the social events like the party hosted by the US embassy or the high-class society there.

The pay disparity is very stark between foreign directors/managers vs. the local/native managers who actually have to do the grunt work. The foreigners are provided with very good housing allowance (my mom rent her home and she always says her dream is to rent it to a foreigner from an NGO because they pay the most money), car+driver, education support for their kids, plus a annual salary of $100K+ (that was 2004 when I volunteered) which is very good for the amount of work she actually puts in. In contrast, the average local/native manager's annual salary in the office ranges between $4000 and $6000 (maybe at most 2-3 local managers earned $6000 per year when I volunteered there).

In my opinion, the foreign managers/directors never took the time to understand what the local population needs and make decisions on what projects to do based on their biases (and what will look good for photo-op). They sit in their air-conditioned offices or houses and do bare minimum. The most important thing for them is to look good in front of donors and to be able to move to a better country (new country director arrives every 2-3 years). Since donation is important to them, they spend more time soliciting money than actually doing the job.

Please always keep in mind that these NGOs and UNGOs live off of donations and the more conflicts/issues they can conjure in the photos/news/media, the better it is for them. I volunteered at World Concern and World Vision as well. Same experience. My sister worked at a French NGO called ACTED [https://www.acted.org/en/] for 2+ years as a logistics and administrative staff. Same experience. That's why I never trust anything that the NGOs say and I always donate directly to local NGOs/groups.

How is the UN supposed to stop a military coup?

In the past, via a UN Peacekeeping detachment.

https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/military

Peacekeeping missions have operated as recently as 2004-2017 in Haiti to stabilize the country after a coup (MINUSTAH).

Most Myanmar people are hoping that there will be some UN peacekeeping troops so that the military cannot just load up machine guns on the truck (e.g., https://scontent.fewr1-5.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/163001326_10...) and shoot people randomly (e.g., NSFW image of a 7-year old boy shot and killed today https://scontent.fewr1-6.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/163537200_24...).

I personally don't trust in UN and don't think of them as an effective organization.

Peacekeeping , as the name implies, only works after a ceasefire is reached. The UN does not invade countries

When they say "I grew up thinking" obviously they're not referring to the recent coup or the time after.

Myanmar was under effective military rule for a long time and only made strides towards becoming a liberal democracy in the last decade - until the coup happened.

As bad as it sounds but nobody's going to move a finger as long as they think it won't spread outside the country. Look at Ukraine- it's almost right in the middle of Europe and the conflict is still ongoing 5 years later. Many governments also understand how little their own citizens want their country to be engaged in some military conflicts thousands of miles away. The only chance for the country is its own people when they decide it's enough.

The security council in particular is pretty much set up for a never-ending stalemate as all superpowers have a veto and usually at least one of them always has a finger (or at the very least some vested interests) in any kind of nastiness happening around the world.

And sadly, the ones where really none of them have any interests, it's not on their radar to do anything about it.

I do wonder if it really had a hand in preventing world wars etc.. Somehow I doubt it as these things tend to get sorted out in direct negotiations (like back in the day with Reagan and Gorbachev, and the Cuban missile crisis - which was the trigger for a direct hotline to be set up between the US and USSR if I remember correctly).

I hope one day we grow up as a species... :(

It kind of provides a distraction from countries attacking each other as they can argue for ages in the UN which may not achieve anything but is better than launching invasions.

The UN's main benefit is that it gets a bunch of nations around a table to discuss various issues. This is something that should not be underestimated.

Unfortunately if the UN could directly exercise authority over nations, many nations would simply just leave.

At this point? Look at the UN decisions concerning Palestine. Those are as old as the UN and they were never respected by anybody.

If I may ask: What use do you think the UN should have? Should it be like a military force? Should it be a world government?

I'm asking because the UN has arguably more power and influence now than it had during Cold War, although its primary purpose was to get East and West on the same table during Cold War and provide a platform where all countries on earth could meet. It nowadays organizes and serves as an umbrella for a vast number of cultural and developmental programs, from concrete food relief missions to counter-terrorism.[1]

You need to keep in mind that the UN's purpose never was and never has been to confront nations or blocks, let alone to govern or serve as an international police force. That's not its purpose and could never be, given that almost all countries are part of it.

[1] https://research.un.org/en/docs/unsystem/fundsprogs

"What use do you think the UN should have? Should it be like a military force?" "UN's purpose never was and never has been to confront nations or blocks"

That's funny, because Wikipedia tells us that UN "aims to maintain international peace and security" and it was involved in a war shortly after its establishment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

The primary purpose had nothing to do with the specific idea of getting East and West to the same table. It was a reaction to the horror of WWII and the failure of the League of Nations. At is founding the path of Cold War was not clear. The charter was signed by the 51 members in June 1945 in San Francisco (the meeting started in April). I am very familiar with the history as I learned it on my grandfathers knee. I have pictures of him at the first full security council meeting in 1946.

If the UN is unable to censure / expel a member for a threat on a UN staffers life as a matter of government policy then the UN should just not even spend the time on these type of issues. The reality is for all the good it does, it powerless in most things because the member states do not stand up for the basic founding principles. I think that the western democracies would be better off building their own replacement where membership is predicated on a shared set of rules around freedom and human rights. Neither Russia, China or Saudi Arabia would qualify.

I wish I could agree but you're misrepresenting history and fail entirely to understand the UN's main purpose. Not just the failure of the League of Nations was reason for the founding of the UN, it was definitely also designed as a way to bring opposing blocks of the East and West to the table. The path of the Cold War was very clear and present at the time the UN was founded. People at RAND Corporation were discussing whether the US should attack Russia with a series of nuclear strikes in a "preventive war."

The main goal of the UN was (and still is) to prevent WW3 and the destruction of humanity, that's why maintaining peace is its main goal. I'm sure your grandfather told you that but maybe you don't remember it.

Building your own "replacement" is kind of silly. Not only are there already plenty of such organizations that only include allied countries (on all sides), they could not possibly replace an organization whose purpose is to bring all nations to a common table - especially those nations who are not befriended with each other.

A platform to meet and talk outside of mere bilateral diplomacy is a prerequisite for preventing large scale wars and conflicts, and that's the primary reason why the UN exists. Read the UN preamble.

The only thing we should do is everything needed to cause the collapse of all the morally reprehensible regimes in the world. That means dialogue, but no economic engagement or investment and keeping containment. It also means maintaining a reasonable level of defense spending to hurt the other sides economy. The idea that western human rights values would win went out with the current state of world re:China. Their model is one that has to be stopped. Failure to do so will be catastrophic. We already have the election of Trump, the right wing governments and populism (hurting the rule of law) in several EU members as proof of the dangerous path we could fall down. We (western democracies) lack a moral compass at this point.

> The UN is pretty useless at this point. A member of its staff that is conducting an investigation can have their life threaded freely by a member government and the UN is powerless to do anything about it

How would this analysis look if applied to the USA? Steve Bannon publicly called for the beheading of Dr. Fauci, a government official, and faces no real repercussions.

Is the US government useless?

How is this related? We have freedom of the press and speech in the USA, which means in general you get to say whatever dumb thing you want. It does not mean you are free of the consequences of doing so. He made those comments a citizen and not a member of a sitting government. If the comments where made when he was a sitting government official I would expect there to be consequences, however given the last 4 years I am not sure that accountability in politics is a thing anymore. We have entered an era where the "Ministry Of Truth" world view seems to get a pass form the public.

The UN thing is a sitting government official threatening the life of a member of an international body of which they are a member of. The question is that the policy of Saudi Arabia? If so the UN should hold them accountable with censure or being expelled as this is obvious a volition of their membership. The fact that the UN can basically do zero is the reason it is useless.

> We have freedom of the press and speech in the USA, which means in general you get to say whatever dumb thing you want.

True threats, such as calling for someone to be murdered, are not covered by the first amendment.

Correct. If there is a belief that Bannon was not just being his normal blowhard jerk self I am sure the police would have had a chat with him.

In the US, the Brandenburg v. Ohio case in 1969 limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

In the case here with the UN, the Saudi government has been proven to be responsible for the planning and death of a dissident, which apply the logic above the threat was credible and the police should show up at their door. The issue is there is no "police" here expect the UN itself and they will do nothing because they are powerless.

> If there is a belief that Bannon was not just being his normal blowhard jerk self I am sure the police would have had a chat with him.

Fauci has 24/7 protection from a security detail for himself and his family. Clearly this “blowhard” blew hard enough for the US Marshals to be worried.

I am quite sure that it was never the concern that Bannon himself would actually commit the murder.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do not believe that advocating for someone to be murdered qualifies as a true threat, as long as the advocation is not likely to lead to imminent violence I believe it is in fact protected speech [1]. True threat's must convery an imminent prospect of execution [2] not an abstract teaching that it is a good idea (paraphrased from [1]).

[1] https://sites.psu.edu/2civichofman/2016/04/17/advocacy-of-vi...

[2] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1025/true-threats

My point that it is very easy to call things useless when they fail at something.

As I’m sure you would know better than I, the UN is an attempt to address what is likely the most difficult and important problem that humanity has ever tried to address: global cooperation. It is an extremely easy target to throw shade at, I find it unhelpful and even inaccurate to call it “useless” writ large.

Displays of anger usually involve violent imagery and rhetoric, so it is usually protected by the first amendment. That is why US politicians are allowed to be calling for additional unrest during riots and protests.

How is that? Written or spoken words to incite hatred and violence are exempted from the protections of the First Amendment [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

Let's also mention the intentional burying of the direct action by the UN HR's giving the names of dissidents to China.

https://www.wionews.com/world/whistleblower-accuses-un-human...

It was always a toothless organization, and it was designed to be that way.

Toothless if you're a permanent SC member, or are supported by one.

The folks being tried at the ICTY probably don't think it's very toothless.

I would say toothless for any state, but not for individuals. The individuals being tried by the ICTY are sort of by definition not being supported by any state (the ones that were got their cases transferred to those states).

A UN SecGen was assassinated in the 60s, so this isn’t unprecedented.

The complaining about supposed shortcomings of the UN is tired and misguided. The UN is far more than just the Security Council and matters of high politicking. It’s also UNHCR, on which million of refugees depend for their life. It’s security forces almost literally acting as hostages to secure the peace in dozens of stale conflicts. It’s the ITU, iSO, and whatever their mail agency is called providing the basic necessities for international trade, travel, and communication. It obviously has some power to establish international law and decency, or otherwise that Saudi two-bit dictator wouldn’t feel threatened enough to make threads himself, and it’s obviously relevant enough for that thread to remain all bark and no bite. In terms of international justice, the UN has successfully run dozens of tribunals and investigations, from Libanon to the Balkans to Ruanda.

Yes, other matters see little progress. Politics is slowly boring holes into thick wood or whatever the saying is. That has little to do with the UN, which is just a forum for nation states to talk. Those matters simply have no solution that everyone agrees to (yet),

In that vain, it’s a mistake to even expect the UN to have the sort of power to force its own will onto states, or to even expect it to have any such will at all. For political questions, the UN does not have an identity, or any power, separate from that of its member states. That’s why it’s headed by a Secretary General, not a President or Prime Minister.

One benefit of the UN, though it may not take proactive steps, is that it is an outlet to prevent a problem from becoming worse. It's very much cathartic theater. So, when the Soviet Union put down uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia that were tacitly encouraged by the US, there was a forum whereby the Soviet action could be condemned while avoiding military action that would have made the situation much much worse. Viewing the UN through the lens of cathartic inaction speaks to a different kind of utility.

I'm sure that the people in Hu gary and Czechoslovakia were thrilled that it didn't escalate beyond that. What a relief!

Given how 99.9% of wars end up for the people in whose country the war is waged, yes, the people of Hungary and Czechosovachia are probably thankful.

I'm not sure why you are downvoted, but you are correct. The UN was created to prevent another world war. Which it has been successful at.

Nuclear weapons and basically nothing else is why there has not been another world war. The UN has had absolutely no part in this outcome and I struggle to think of any positive thing it has been successful at, beside possibly peacekeeping missions, for the entirety of its existence.

The Cuban Missile crisis got pretty far with nuclear weapons, and UN embarrassment and pressure played a part in the USSR's response and ultimate back down.

Actually the us backed down. The crisis was triggered by the installation of us nuclear missiles in turkey, a arm length away from russia. They responded by putting missiles in Cuba. The end game was us pulling its missiles from Turkey and ussr from Cuba.

The UN is to international peace what the FIFA is to soccer: Somewhat involved in nurturing it to a higher level, although that would have happened without it anyway.

Beyond that completely devolved into a curruption feast.

Look no further than what entities made it into the current "UN human rights council": Usbekistan, Cuba, Russia and China.

And its not a coincidence: Prior to them Sudan, Lybia, Mauretania, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela got to be the Champions of Human Rights. A complete joke.

Meanwhile the same UN issued more condemnations of the democratic state of Israel than of all other nations combined (2006-2015: 61 against Israel, 54 all others, none against China).

Indeed, that human rights thing in particular is a total joke. I'm sure those awards were the result of some kind of negotiation but by doing this the UN just completely undermines itself in the public eye.

> Meanwhile the same UN issued more condemnations of the democratic state of Israel than of all other nations combined (2006-2015: 61 against Israel, 54 all others, none against China).

I don't see what democracy has to do with it. Plenty of democratic countries have and still do violate human rights, and Israel is particularly egregious. Maybe the UN considers they have more authority/clout over Israel than Myanmar? Maybe it's due to this usually happening via the General Assembly, where there are quite a lot of Muslim countries who have a bone to pick with Israel by default, so jump at any opportunity ( and there are plenty of them)?

I mean, it was founded after ww2 to keep anything like that from ever happening again. They've been doing ok in that front so far.... I think a lot of posters in this thread are getting their hopes up a bit too high and are starting to expect things from the UN that it was never meant to do. The UN peace corps is not a particularly mighty military force, they're not world police.

Basically, the UN is not Team America, and I don't think it should be.

(That's a reference to the movie by the same name btw, not a comment on relations with any nation)

The UN is by design, not supposed to be a world government, or a world police.

It's supposed to be a forum for countries to talk to eachother. And it's pretty successful at being that.

At policing I think you're right, they are quite flaccid, but organizations such WHO and UNICEF are somewhat successful as well as peacekeepers when they're "welcome" by both sides.

Counterpoint: If it were useless, the Saudi officials wouldn't have felt it necessary to threaten anyone.

It is a diplomatic body only.

The function of the UN is to formalize dialogue to prevent the confusion that escalated the first world war, and some degree of coordination among the nuclear powers to help prevent WWIII.

It was not then - and is not now, an organization meant to further human rights, nor to enforce global will upon its members.

I don't understand anyone complaining about the UN not having teeth. The purpose of the UN was never to be a 'one world government', that's just propaganda from the black helicopter people. The purpose of the UN is to provide a forum for the member nations. That's it.

Unrelated, but anecdotally whenever I hear someone going off on the UN for being toothless, they're usually the same people would be first in line to push back on giving it teeth.

For example, I've personally known many people from a certain country (not America, although that probably applies too) that has a terrible human rights record, that has frequently gotten called out in the UN by fellow members. They'll roll their eyes and talk about how useless and toothless the UN is. But they don't want it to be more effective; in their case they have bad feelings towards the UN because of its complaints about their own country's human rights record. They can't or don't want to defend their country against those complaints, so their nationalism requires them to instead attack the messenger (the UN). And ironically, the very thing they attack it for is its inability to enforce its will on their own country.

Long story short, there's a lot of stuff to complain about when it comes to the UN, but anecdotally it sure seems like most of the complaints about its toothlessness comes from people who want it to go away altogether, not people who want to give it more teeth. I don't think I've ever heard anyone (including pro-UN people) argue that it should have more teeth or evolve into a supergovernment or anything. It always has been a forum and a means for governments to cooperate on shared interests, which is fine and is surely a good thing.

The UN is a diplomatic organization - not a ruling body - by design. Don't blame the turtle for not having wings.

I think anyone who studies the events that led up to the first world war - can immediately understand why that confusion that needlessly escalated the war - could have been easily avoided.

It was for that reason that the original League of Nations was created. It's purpose was to ensure that diplomacy happened in a formal setting, in person, and in one location. No more cables/wires/missed calls, and all the crazy miscommunications you wouldn't believe hand a major hand in starting WWI.

After WWI part 2 (WWII), the nuclear powers decided to try again and formed the United Nations. With much the same goal, they also added the Security Council which provided a very small group, with some semblance of coordination to help prevent an unintentional WWIII.

If you want a one-world-government - ok, go ahead and advocate that.

Looking forward to the world no longer giving the Saudi goverenment / royal family a free pass on everything. It's ridiculous at this point.

> a free pass

It's not free, it costs them a lot of money.

>it costs them a lot of money

Which they happen to sit on a bottomless pit of.

Their wealth is overrated - they run huge deficits and the writing is on the wall for ARAMCO

Very happy to hear this and hope that is indeed the case, but the world's thirst for oil is still huge and will take a long time before it's finally quenched.

Also, these days, running huge, never-to-be-repaid debt seems to be the standard way to run a country, as exemplified by the US and most of the EU ... the other shoe seems to have a gravity belt, so ARAMCO might just be safe for a long time.

Never to be repaid debt only works if the market thinks the country will continue produce something worth buying. That’s why Somalia can’t print its way out of poverty. Once Saudi Arabia runs out of oil, I’m not sure the country produces anything of equivalent value.

They've invested such huge amounts of money that they might be relevant for a long time?

But they might kill (pun intended) that too.

Didn't MBS punish and bring back the head of their fund? I can't find his name quickly if someone else knows the facts - I remember reading an article about him being western in dress & manner, being openly critical as a family member can be. It might be Amr al-Dabbagh?

Was successfully growing their money and power until he was 'Ritz-Carlton-ed'

In their own words, "the stone age didn't end due to a lack of stone". The world will move on from oil, and they'll be left behind.

To them it's pretty much free money.

With Biden it's also costing them a military supplier (along with the atrocities happening to poor Yemen)

So glad the US has great 'partners' like Saudi Arabia...

You forget the US made them the country they are today. [1][2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco [2] https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-saudi-arabia/

Should we make them enemies in your estimation? How many innocent people has the US killed in endless wars? I think SA deserves sanctions but I really don't want to make yet another enemy in the middle east for the US.

Agnès Callamard is a French citizen. What would be likely to happen if said threat were carried out?

It depends on how much France depends on its economic and military ties to the kingdom. France exports a large amount of arms to Saudi and trains some of its army. I imagine this would be covered up Trump admin style to keep the money flowing.

https://saudileaks.org/en/protests/

Edit: Here are the links referring to the Trump admin actions. The Trump admin basically towed the line that MBS had nothing to do with the Khashoggi murder even though they knew that to be a lie and then rushed an arms sale to the Saudis as an emergency.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/saudi-arabia-arms...

I disagree.

The standard response is hand wringing about what one could possibly do, a reminder of the jobs that are at stake and then carrying on as normal.

That’s what Trump did and I’m not aware of any cover up around this murder from his administration. Have you got a link?

“Mike Pompeo has backed his president, saying after talks with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu that "it's a mean, nasty world out there".”

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46283355

>The standard response is hand wringing about what one could possibly do, a reminder of the jobs that are at stake and then carrying on as normal.

Yep. Just like the world's response to the genocide going on in China.

The downvotes will be due to your comment’s lack of relevance.

There is a small connection though - Trump himself noted that America refusing to trade with Saudi would just lead to more trade with China and Russia. My above comment has a BBC link which notes this.

"If we foolishly cancel these contracts, Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries,"

Sanctions != hand-wringing in my opinion but its still not enough to counter what on its face moves closer and closer to becoming Holocaust 2.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-eu-sanctions/we...

[i was wrong]

Jamal Khashoggi was not a US citizen, though he did hold a Green Card as a lawful permanent resident.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/...

If past French actions are any guide, not much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior

Europe in general doesn't really punish intelligence actions of allies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillehammer_affair

The Mossad agents in question were imprisoned, so it was something, and Saudi Arabia really isn't an ally to any European country.

> The Mossad agents in question were imprisoned,

I mean, they were all released within 18 months. And France is definitely an ally of SA, and the third largest seller of weaponry to SA after US & UK.

That was a French intelligence action on foreign soil, so it really can't tell you much about France's willingness to retaliate against foreign intelligence actions against their own citizens.

I'm suggesting the nation that carries out terror attacks on non-belligerent nations should probably sit this one out.

Excuse you?

Every industrialized country does black ops. France just happened to get caught, once, 35 years ago, and has been paying reparations ever since.

Saying it's "the nation that carries out terror attacks" from this is extremely dishonest, especially when compared to other world powers (hello US).

> Every industrialized country does black ops.

Most of them aren't targeting unarmed environmentalist boats in a peaceful harbor of an ally.

It was a remarkably stupid op, and I don't think it's at all inappropriate to describe it as a terrorist act.

That was a long time ago, under an entirely different government.

I think that Macron, being the outspoken politician he is, would probably do something, at the very very least to save face from the far right party who would be all over this.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

When has there ever been an instance where the West has punished Saudi Arabia?

Having them spend so much with Western companies on such an ineffective military can be seen as a form of punishment

The West is a very broad term, including countries as diverse and as wildly different as Belgium, the US, Denmark, Germany, France, Spain, UK, and even Australia and New Zealand.

Germany for instance had the decency to ban arms exports to Saudi Arabia.

I think that they would take exemplary action in this case.

The Saudi's don't have as much leverage as they think they do. Pretty soon they are going to have none, if the French allowed this to go unpunished (and the punishment would have to be striking and humiliating) then it would be open season.

If I were Macron I'd hit Saudi oil facilities up and down the country. What are those fancy subs and cruise missiles for?

A breakdown in EU- and, possibly, US/Saudi relations. Unlike dealings with, say, Iran, any measured would likely to be targeted more directly at MBS and individuals in positions in power, who would see themselves added to various sanction list.

These measures would likely pack some punch, as it is very common for Saudis with means to both do business as well as spend time/get medical care/send their kids to school in the west.

This would point at a possible future resolution, which would see MBS removed from power and some more reasonable person from the family taking over.

One can either have a organization that includes all and thus gives the most minimal set of rights all agree upon to the organization - or make a more exclusive club with strict entrance requirements and then a more powerful commitment to the values of that club. The UN is beyond salvage, but its never to late to create a "democratic, rule of law abiding, humanitarian-values upholding" club, and keep it exclusive to only those natural allies.

How useful would that club be, given that it'd include maybe a dozen smaller countries?

Is anyone surprised? They're at least consistent if nothing else...

Just as useless as the African Union.

Why isn't Saudi Arabia afraid of US sanctions? Biden should do something.

I believe you are underestimating the importance of Biden refusing to speak with the Crown Prince as he called world leaders as his term began. It might seem just symbolic but it's much more than that.

Can you elaborate on that? I'm not doubting you, It's just not obvious to me why it's a big deal rather than a token gesture.

Yeah, it is Biden pandering to a domestic audience who will forget all about this in a few years. The spice must flow.

What spice? The US is a net exporter of oil, these days.

If the spice doesn't flow, Saudi Arabia can't afford US weapons.

Also the oil dependency graph can change during resource-intensive conflicts.

I always thought of America as the Harkonnens, but now that you said it I realize that we are the Imperium, OPEC is CHOAM and Saudi Arabia are the Harkonnens.

It's a reference to the 1984 movie Dune. I don't remember the exact details, but it's very similar to oil, in that it's a valuable natural resource that different factions go to war over.

The fictional Spice (Melange) is used by ordinary rich people to live longer. More importantly since their culture has rejected the use of AI they use much larger amounts of Spice to give the Guild Navigators sufficient foresight to be able to pilot Highliners through space-time, enabling the empire to cover a number of star systems.

Note: It’s “Heighliner”, not “Highliner”.

Or a reference to the 1965 novel Dune, if you're lucky.

Given that the phrase doesn't appear anywhere in Frank Herbert's novels (the horrible dumpster fires by his son may have it, but I couldn't say), it's certainly a Lynch reference.

But my question wasn't what "spice" means, I assumed everyone on Hacker News knows that.

I was asking why Saudi spice is particularly relevant to US interests, when we're a net exporter of said spice.

It was admittedly a bit tongue in cheek; dramatically reduced Saudi supplies would impact energy markets in a bunch of second and third order ways we might not like.

But that doesn't mean we have to keep selling them guns.

It's been almost a few years already, which few were you thinking of?

And with England you call the Queen, not William.

The Saudi government bankrolled 9/11 without consequences. Seems logical to not expect consequences now.

> Why isn't Saudi Arabia afraid of US sanctions?

Because of lots of historical precedent that the US values it's relationship with SA over any principled objection to bad behavior on the part of SA? Obviously there are lines that couldn't be crossed, but SA believes this murder wasn't one of them.

Bezos was good buddies with MBS and then changed his mind. Seems like others could as well.

Posting about Bezos and MBS's relationship really triggers Amazon workers I suppose. Nothing like working for a homophobe in-waiting.

Baby steps: they're withdrawing support for the war in Yemen. https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-military/2021/02/04/us...

Which has, in fact, resulted in a change in S.A.'s tune on the war, at least to the point of offering a cease fire. Baby steps, indeed.

1) Biden has not caused a dramatic rupture in relations with S.A., but he has backed things off a bit (e.g. officially distancing from war in Yemen).

2) The literal answer is that the U.S. never bought anything much from S.A. except oil, and that pretty much ended after fracking made the U.S. a net exporter.

3) If S.A. actually executed a UN official from a NATO country, it might result in a lot more.

4) Given the state of the U.S. economy, and the nearly-civil-war level of polarization, I don't think Biden is looking for an excuse to get into foreign policy projects right now. We have enough trouble running our own country.

Judging from our failure to invade, embargoe or sanction saudi arabia or the bin laden family, it is clear that the USA and the west will aways back the terrorist regime of the kingdom of saudi arabia.

It isn’t even about their oil, it’s about the weapons they buy from us. We are literally being paid to fight, or rather, commit genocide in Yemen for KSA.

Iran has never attacked American soil and politicians treat them like our worst enemies. The house of saud killed 3,000 People on 9/11 and are implicated in almost every terror attack in the USA since, and they are our best friends.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com