Web Edition

Internal » Breaking News » Saudi Arabia

The Saudi position on the double veto!

14 Feb 2012 - 5:43

Islam Times - King Abdullah Al-Saud issued a statement on Friday 02/10/2011 on the margin of the “Janadriyah” annual festival, in which he expressed his disappointment over the United Nations because of the Russian-Chinese double veto against the draft project that condemns Syria, which was prepared by the Arab and Western countries.

This strange statement takes things back to their normal status with respect to the axis of Arab reactionary, its position, and its role in paving the way for the U.S. control over the region and ensuring its interests, as well as that of its ally “Israel” that is historically known.

The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques said: “We are living scary days... Unfortunately, I believe that what happened in the United Nations is not endorsed at all. We were proud of the United Nations that brings justice and not division and that is fair, and we expected it to act well”. Hence, did the man think a little bit about his words? If the issue was related to the Zionist entity and the U.S. veto, which has been repeated dozens of times to protect it and its aggression on Palestine and the Arab nation, would the statements of the King be this way with the same meaning?

At the nineteenth Arab summit in Riyadh, which was held in the last days of March 2007, the Saudi king talked about the status of the nation linking it to the complex conditions experienced by it and its miserable situation at that time. He considered that those who caused and are responsible for that are the Arab leaders without exempting himself from responsibility. He pledged to work on the unity of the Arabs, after he described the U.S. presence in Iraq as an occupation as well as that found in Palestine, and considered that the siege of the Gaza Strip is unjust without continuing to talk about the legitimacy of resisting the occupation and its moral importance and without referring to its legal and religious legitimacy. At that time, we said about his speech at the summit that it is a brave speech, but...”
Going back to the king’s statement about the double veto, the man continues saying: “The States no matter what, do not rule the whole world at all. What rules the world is the brainpower, what rules the world is equity, and what rules the world is ethics. Equity protects the world from the aggressor, who rules the world”. He stressed that his confidence in the United Nations has been shaken, and that the confidence of the whole world has been shaken as well.

What is striking in these statements is not only that they are issued by a King, who does not know how to read and write, and who is known for his reservations over the issues of the Arab dispute and the International bickering, but also that they were not delivered with the same meaning against the injustice and aggression faced by the Islamic sanctities in Palestine and Iraq at the hands of the sons of Zion and America. Also, we did not hear from him anything similar against the unethical behavior and the delinquency, including the Judaicization of Jerusalem and the desecration of the first Qiblah and the third of the Two Holy Sanctuaries, and they are the title of that man.

Even, giving the aggression and injustice the cover of the veto by America against the Arabs and their right dozens of times did not raise the enthusiasm of the King or his Arab and Islamic eagerness so that to take a stand like the one we are hearing today from him on the dual veto to protect the Arabian Syria from the foreign intervention and to prevent the imposition of additional blockade and sanctions on it. Here we should mention the great ethical difference between the American unjust and immoral veto and the moral and courageous veto of Russia and China.

The attitude towards what is going on in Syria and the crisis faced by the Syrian people force those who pretend that they are keen on justice and morality such as Saudi Arabia and others to act and take positions that contribute first to stop the bloodshed, the fighting, and the violence instead of harnessing the potentials of the Kingdom and its allies so that to strain and poison the atmosphere and to incite in Syria. Yet, the one who calls for justice and morality have first to be fair, to behave ethically, and to have moral attitudes towards the issues of right and freedom in his country.

A country having the name of a family such as Saudi Arabia that does not allow women to drive a car or to stand with a colleague man in private, even if she was a university professor, a country where there is no Constitution or any form of democracy, or the modern country, if not the trendy one, that discriminate between its people on the background of color, creed, family (social) origin, and others- what violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights- the rulers of such a country have no right to talk the way the King of Saudi Arabia did in opposition to the double veto.

The allegations of some people about the fact that the veto has caused more death and encouraged the Syrian government on attacking its people are false allegations that lack the scientific and logical analysis. This comes because the decision of a military solution related to the armed groups (regardless of the attitude towards them) was taken at the highest levels in Syria before the vote, and any resolution whatsoever would not have prevented the implementation of this decision for many reasons, we are not going to list them here. Contrary to reality, the passing of the resolution would have led to a disaster within weeks if not days after the size of lurking taking place in Syria by some countries in the region and outside became clear, what was clearly shown by the calls for the conference of the so-called the friends of Syria that is to be held during the coming period, which aims at attacking Syria under the pretext of protecting the civilians, just as happened in Libya, under the same title.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with its economic and religious Arab and international weight, and with what the King Abdullah Al-Saud still have of the remnants of respect in the Arab world, can play a positive and constructive role like the one played by Russia in drawing the viewpoints of the opposition and the Syrian government together so that to put an end to the fighting and to start the transition negotiation to reach to democracy and pluralism without slipping in the civil war or granting the enemies of the nation the opportunity to intervene military in Syria and to divide it as they are planning to do. Thus, would the Saudi position be in line with what the Saudi King says about justice and morality?