No Arab Spring In Saudi Arabia?

Eggy Baby!

The Arab Spring has brought about huge change in the Arab world, either by non-violent or violent means. However, one country seems to have largely escaped unscathed. Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive and draconian regimes in, not only the Middle East, but the world, has only seen small scale and minor protests. This is very unusual for such a large Arab country at this time.

This story is the first notable one I have heard so far on the effects of the Arab Spring on Saudi Arabia:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/07/saudi-state-media-says-protesters-detained-in-east.html

What I am asking is; why haven't Saudi Arabs made a serious attempt to revolt against their government or organise mass protests?

It seems unusual given the nature of the Saudi government. I am thinking that there was a lack of economic hardship to spark a serious revolution, whereas in other places unemployment (such as in Libya, where the revolution that started in the east coincided with large scale youth unemployment) or poverty (as in Egypt and Tunisia) sparked events which eventually evolved into revolution. Or maybe the Saudis have been engaging in some clandestine mass repression under our noses?

What do you guys think?

(Note that protests were present, but were largely ignored in the media while Egypt/Libya stole the show, and many protests were actually against the Peninsula Shield Force. The protests never really reached the lofty heights of Egypt/etc.)

Einhard

Bribery. Simple as. Saudi Arabia bribes its citizens into quiescence. Since the start of the Arab Spring, the regime has increased spending at home by a large margin. After Mubarak fell in Egypt, the state approved spending increases of almost $100 billion. Also, as far as I know, Saudi Arabia is more homogenous than other nearby states, and unlike Syria and Bahrain is not ruled by an ethnic/religious minority. Finally, Saudi Arabian society is itself extremely hierarchical and paternalistic. The nature of the regime is reflected in the nature of society. In Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, and even Libya, one has relatively significant liberal constituencies, and this simply does not occur in Saudi.

Eggy Baby!

Great reply, but isn't there anti-Shia discrimination in Saudi Arabia?

Nodin

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Great reply, but isn't there anti-Shia discrimination in Saudi Arabia?

O yeah. They're only around 10% of the population though, so in terms of numbers they'd be insufficient to destablise the regime.

Einhard

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Great reply, but isn't there anti-Shia discrimination in Saudi Arabia?

As Nodin said, they're a tiny proportion of the population, and perhaps more importantly, they're not in charge, as is the case with minorities in Syria and Bahrain.

lagente

I've been thinking about this recently. While I had been thinking that the Arab-Spring was a complete misnomer and left out the Alawites (background of Persians and European) Africans etc involved I now see some reason behind it. Every western international military measure and political pressure has been taken on the same side of the Saudi rulers of Arabia (S.A and Qatar and Bahrain). In that respect Arab Spring is certainly very fitting.

Nodin

lagente wrote: »

I've been thinking about this recently. While I had been thinking that the Arab-Spring was a complete misnomer and left out the Persians, Alawites, Aryans etc involved I now see some reason behind it. Every western international military measure and political pressure has been taken on the same side of the Saudi rulers of Arabia (S.A and Qatar and Bahrain).

...left out two "ethnicities" and a minority sect within Islam....? Seeing as the term "aryan" has only been used in the middle east with regard to Iranians/Persians, it would seem you've mentioned the same bunch twice.

lagente

Nodin wrote: »

...left out two "ethnicities" and a minority sect within Islam....? Seeing as the term "aryan" has only been used in the middle east with regard to Iranians/Persians, it would seem you've mentioned the same bunch twice.

Splitting hairs, and the less said about these Ancient religions the better.

Nodin

lagente wrote: »

Splitting hairs.

That Alawis are a religous sect? No. That the term "aryan" was used with regards persians? No. Those are facts.

Cork boy 55

Nodin wrote: »

O yeah. They're only around 10% of the population though, so in terms of numbers they'd be insufficient to destablise the regime.

I have seen higher estimates some sources put it at 15%

In addition this population is concentrated largely in two regions

A) The eastern region, a relatively poor part of the country that contains the major share of its oil resource

b) the south west border area with Yemen


Bigger map at link.
http://geocurrents.info/place/southwest-asia-and-north-africa/saudi-iranian-tensions-and-shia-islam-in-saudi-arabia



This raises the issue of separatism and/or irredentism
In the case of
A) greater Bahrain or Greater Iran or perhaps some kind of new shia arab state.

Greater Yemen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Yemen


I doubt it will come to this as an uprising would be put down by the Saudis they have money enough for weapons and mercs
This is the threat that Shia uprisings potential poses to the House of Saud.

plasmaguy

There should be democracy in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and every state in the middle east.

It's simply inexcusable to have any state run by a dictatorship or monarchy in the twenty first century, be it Saudi Arabia, Iran or Syria.

If the Saudi's carried out a barbaric crackdown like Assad did in Syria, then its possible the West may also turn against them too.

However the west is getting a stable supply of oil from Saudi Arabia and the last thing the leaders of the US, UK, Germany and so on want is disruption to that oil supply caused by a civil war.

Canvasser

The CIA isn't funding any rebel gangs in Saudi Arabia like they were in Libya and are in Syria.

Canvasser

plasmaguy wrote: »

There should be democracy in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and every state in the middle east.

It's simply inexcusable to have any state run by a dictatorship or monarchy in the twenty first century, be it Saudi Arabia, Iran or Syria.

If the Saudi's carried out a barbaric crackdown like Assad did in Syria, then its possible the West may also turn against them too.

However the west is getting a stable supply of oil from Saudi Arabia and the last thing the leaders of the US, UK, Germany and so on want is disruption to that oil supply caused by a civil war.

Ermm no. Did you not follow what happened in Bahrain? You're kidding yourself if you think the British, French or American governments give a sh1t about some dead arabs in the middle east.

Eggy Baby!

If the Saudi's carried out a barbaric crackdown like Assad did in Syria, then its possible the West may also turn against them too.

You did watch the news when the Saudis sent the tanks rolling into Bahrain, didn't you?

I'd say if in the event there were huge protests/a revolution, that the Saudis would most likely make large concessions, like the way Mubarak keeled in Egypt without bloody crackdowns (as he knew the Americans could exert pressure on his regime and could make him suffer economically if he used the army to suppress protestors).

You're kidding yourself if you think the British, French or American governments give a sh1t about some dead arabs in the middle east

While true, the Americans wouldn't provide tacit support for a bloody crackdown in Saudi Arabia, as doing so would tarnish their image beyond repair.

plasmaguy

They sent in tanks..but they didn't flatten whole cities like Assad did. There's a world of difference.

The west have done next to nothing in Syria so lets knock that one on the head straight away. Medical supplies and communications equipment to help protect civilians mostly, they've also funded the refugee camps as the west always has to do when some maniac runs amok somewhere around the world.

But this thread isn't really about Saudi Arabia. It's just the latest in a long line of sticks with which to beat the west. They tend to get monotonous after a while.

If some people hate the west so much why not move somewhere else and send us a postcard. If North Korea, Cuba or Syria under Assad is so great, why not move there? I bet they'd soon get tired of not actually having a choice in who their president is!

plasmaguy

The West and US have had a pretty good record on the Arab Spring by the way.

They have called for the leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Libya to step down. Yemen and Egypt are allies and the US was central to the transitions in both countries.

They have also called for peaceful demonstrations to be allowed in Bahrain

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12762500

Contrast that with some posters on here who have wanted all the dictators mentioned above to stay in power though they may deny it.

So the US and the West has had a reasonably consistant position on the Arab Spring calling for peaceful protest to be allowed and movements towards democracy put in place. Contrast that with the Irish radical left who had called for no such movement to democracy. The Irish radical left really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the Arab Spring, they wanted Gadaffi to stay in power FFS.

Chuck Stone

plasmaguy wrote: »

If the Saudi's carried out a barbaric crackdown like Assad did in Syria, then its possible the West may also turn against them too.

Not a chance.

The Saudis and 'western interests' are thick as thieves. The Saudis have massive sums of money, from selling oil in dollars, invested in the US and the west enjoys lucrative weapons contracts with the Saudis.

Both Western interests and the Saudis have too much to lose from squabbling over silly things like human rights and democracy.

Einhard

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Both Western interests and the Saudis have too much to lose from squabbling over silly things like human rights and democracy.

In fairness now, the impact of a prolonged crisis in Saudi Arabia wouldn't simply affect Western business interests, but every citizen of practically every Western state. In a democracy, one has to take account of the electorate, and I doubt very much that the average Irish or British citizen would be long in venting their fury when queueing for hours of petrol and such supplies.

Canvasser

plasmaguy wrote: »

They sent in tanks..but they didn't flatten whole cities like Assad did. There's a world of difference.

The west have done next to nothing in Syria so lets knock that one on the head straight away. Medical supplies and communications equipment to help protect civilians mostly, they've also funded the refugee camps as the west always has to do when some maniac runs amok somewhere around the world.

But this thread isn't really about Saudi Arabia. It's just the latest in a long line of sticks with which to beat the west. They tend to get monotonous after a while.

If some people hate the west so much why not move somewhere else and send us a postcard. If North Korea, Cuba or Syria under Assad is so great, why not move there? I bet they'd soon get tired of not actually having a choice in who their president is!

Ridiculous post. Why don't you go live in a caravan park in Alabama? You can put a "support the troops" sticker in the window.

Eggy Baby!

If some people hate the west so much why not move somewhere else and send us a postcard. If North Korea, Cuba or Syria under Assad is so great, why not move there? I bet they'd soon get tired of not actually having a choice in who their president is!

Right, so let me get this straight.

Because I dislike American (not even Western, because the entire West never acts as a cohesive unit anyway) foreign policy, I should move to North Korea?

And where have I expressed my undying love for North Korea/ etc.?

But this thread isn't really about Saudi Arabia. It's just the latest in a long line of sticks with which to beat the west. They tend to get monotonous after a while.

So we should completely ignore Saudi Arabia like the Arab Spring has? I don't believe I have seen a thread on Saudi Arabia yet with regard to the Arab Spring on the politics forums. And so far, the discussion has 100% been about Saudi Arabia. You do realise that YOU were the one to bring the West into the discussion, don't you?

If the Saudi's carried out a barbaric crackdown like Assad did in Syria, then its possible the West may also turn against them too.

However the west is getting a stable supply of oil from Saudi Arabia and the last thing the leaders of the US, UK, Germany and so on want is disruption to that oil supply caused by a civil war.

(I bolded it just in case you have a sudden bout of I-Can't-Read)


That can only tell me one thing- you are attempting to bait people into a passionate discussion about "the west" and then criticise them all for insulting "the west" as you usually do.

Now let's just all step away from the myopic right-winger, okay?

I do respect your opinions (whereas you don't respect ours) no matter how dumb it actually is. But antisocial behaviour like that ain't gonna get you anywhere here.

They have also called for peaceful demonstrations to be allowed in Bahrain

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12762500

Right, okay, yet Russia (off-topic a bit here but this is what you do to me) says the same about Assad all the time and yet you maintain that they still technically support him. Words mean nothing, you know.

So the US and the West has had a reasonably consistant position on the Arab Spring calling for peaceful protest to be allowed and movements towards democracy put in place. Contrast that with the Irish radical left who had called for no such movement to democracy. The Irish radical left really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the Arab Spring, they wanted Gadaffi to stay in power FFS.

Really? Irish radical left? You are back to using that?

JustinDee

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Right, okay, yet Russia (off-topic a bit here but this is what you do to me) says the same about Assad all the time and yet you maintain that they still technically support him

Are you going to claim they don't now? Would be interesting to see you attempt to prove this. Apart from rhetoric and waffle in the press by little Medvedev, what other excuse can you find for their blocking every other resolution against the Syrian regime?

Russia both in its current form and its former Soviet form have long supported the Syrian governments, the Ba'athists included. Exactly the same as other countries supporting the Saudis, including Pakistan.

Foreign Policy is determined by nothing other than what it can do for you.

stevedublin

Fret not, KSA will be "Arab Spring"ed in due course.

troposphere

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

You did watch the news when the Saudis sent the tanks rolling into Bahrain, didn't you?

I don't remember any tanks

Canvasser

troposphere wrote: »

I don't remember any tanks

Considering the protesters they were going to beat and arrest were unarmed then the armoured cars sufficied. The "rebels" in Syria on the other hand are armed to the teeth with weapons supplied by foreign powers. 2000 Syrian police alone have been killed by the "pro-democracy" rebels. No one is asking who these rebels are. The fact is they are anything but democracts and are often islamic nut jobs.

Eggy Baby!

I don't remember any tanks

Oh sorry then, they sent in armoured cars to crush unarmed demonstrations. Silly me!

Posting two pictures doesn't exactly back up your point either. Also- figuratively speaking.

Are you going to claim they don't now?

Of course Russia wants Assad to remain at the helm! If not Assad, then a friendly government.

I'd really love if you and plasmaguy would stop trying to bloody constantly derail the thread, thanks.

Apart from rhetoric and waffle in the press by little Medvedev

Another pointless attack on the Russians in a thread which has nothing to do with them. Sigh.

And you call everyone else myopic? You seem obsessed with Russia/China.

JustinDee

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Of course Russia wants Assad to remain at the helm! If not Assad, then a friendly government

You're contradicting your own slant now. There's a reason they support who they do. Its the exact same effing reason that any other government supports anyone who benefits them.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Another pointless attack on the Russians in a thread which has nothing to do with them. Sigh.
And you call everyone else myopic? You seem obsessed with Russia/China.

I didn't bring them up.
You on the other hand seem perfectly happy to discuss them . . . if you think it suits. When banging on endlessly about agendae, try applying the same level criticism to equal parties. Just a little advice, kiddo.

Eggy Baby!

In that respect Arab Spring is certainly very fitting.

It is, isn't it? Iran and others have largely escaped it (and the Iranians self-identify as Persians)

Frank Grimes

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

It is, isn't it? Iran and others have largely escaped it (and the Iranians self-identify as Persians)

Not all of them, e.g. Armenians.

Eggy Baby!

Frank Grimes wrote: »

Not all of them, e.g. Armenians.

Well, the majority anyway!

Cork boy 55

troposphere wrote: »

I don't remember any tanks

Well pointed out ......

I find the misclassification of armoured fighting vehicles (AFV)
by commentators, journalists and newscasters very annoying.

If they cannot identify and classify AFV's correctly then I suggest
they call everything an AFV or get training in Recognition of AFV's.

Canvasser

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Well pointed out ......

I find the misclassification of armoured fighting vehicles (AFV)
by commentators, journalists and newscasters very annoying.

If they cannot identify and classify AFV's correctly then I suggest
they call everything an AFV or get training in Recognition of AFV's.

You should get out more

Cork boy 55

Canvasser wrote: »

Considering the protesters they were going to beat and arrest were unarmed then the armoured cars sufficied. The "rebels" in Syria on the other hand are armed to the teeth with weapons supplied by foreign powers. 2000 Syrian police alone have been killed by the "pro-democracy" rebels. No one is asking who these rebels are. The fact is they are anything but democracts and are often islamic nut jobs.

Wrong again The vehicles in the second photo are not armoured cars

They are

British made (BAE systems INC)
Alvis Tactica
4X4 Armoured personnel carrier (wheeled) internal security variant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvis_Tactica

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2838.html
I have seen other variants of it deployed in the six counties.

Eggy Baby!

If I'm honest, Cork Boy, that's just nitpicking. Plus the vehicles in the pictures were MRAPs and jeeps, not APCs. APCs are technically tanks too, but the term "armour" would be more accurate.

One thing is for certain- nobody cares

Cork boy 55

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

If I'm honest, Cork Boy, that's just nitpicking. Plus the vehicles in the pictures were MRAPs and jeeps, not APCs.

They are not MRAP They are an APC from the Tactica range
Saudi Arabia brought 261 one of them from the UK in 2006 for 900,000,000 dollars see my last post for links.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

APCs are technically tanks too, but the term "armour" would be more accurate.

APCs are not tanks.

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

One thing is for certain- nobody cares

I care.

Nodin

I think its safe to say that the vehicles sent over were not baby carriers nor were they intended to pick up children and bring old people to hospital.

plasmaguy

Big difference between the "tanks" saudi arabia sent into Bahrain and the T-72 and T-55 Main Battle tanks Assad sent into cities like Homs and Aleppo against peaceful protesters, not to mention mortar bombing and shelling of peaceful funeral processions.

For the most part the Bahrain police used teargas to break up protests. Assad however went way way over the top and in the first four months of the uprising the vast majority of people murdered by Assad, several thousand in fact, were peaceful unarmed protesters.

That is not to mention the tens of thousands of disappeared in Syria, no-one even knows their fate but one has to suspect the worst.

The 20,000 deathtoll most often cited in Syria is verified deaths only. Its very hard to count those who have died in government custody, tortured to death, disappeared and so on since obviously the government are going to cover up numbers of dead killed in government custody.

Eggy Baby!

plasmaguy stop trying to bloody derail the thread!

Also, by plasmaguy:

They sent in tanks....

Big difference between the "tanks"....

So they were sending in tanks, but then you say they sent in "tanks". Make up your mind child.

RATM

Also the royal family run the House of Saud which claims direct lineage back to Muhammed. For many Saudis challenging their authority is like challenging god so it won't be happening full stop.
Also the structure of Saudi society is a factor- there are over 15,000 members of the Royal Family alone before you get into all the liggers and hangers-on that each member has. They pervade deep into society and even the normal Saudi on the street is probably only one step away from royalty.

Any proper uprising is more likely to come from the Shia population but their numbers are tiny. They would be crushed in an instant with the blessing and assistance of the CIA.

K-9

Canvasser wrote: »

You should get out more

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

plasmaguy stop trying to bloody derail the thread!

Also, by plasmaguy:





So they were sending in tanks, but then you say they sent in "tanks". Make up your mind child.

Less of the one liner posts adding nothing. If anybody thinks somebody is trying to derail a thread, report the poster, don't argue it on thread.

cyberhog

K-9 wrote: »

Less of the one liner posts adding nothing. If anybody thinks somebody is trying to derail a thread, report the poster, don't argue it on thread.

You don't really believe plasmaguy's reply was on topic do you? I don't understand why you need to wait for someone to report plasmaguy but you take action yourself against Eggy Baby! The fact you have only taken Eggy Baby! to task even though it clearly takes two to argue shows that you are biased. You say we should use the report function but what is the point in doing that when it's already obvious you don't have a problem with plasmaguy's posts?

K-9

cyberhog wrote: »

You don't really believe plasmaguy's reply was on topic do you? I don't understand why you need to wait for someone to report plasmaguy but you take action yourself against Eggy Baby! The fact you have only taken Eggy Baby! to task even though it clearly takes two to argue shows that you are biased. You say we should use the report function but what is the point in doing that when it's already obvious you don't have a problem with plasmaguy's posts?

PM me if you want to discuss moderation, you know the score at this stage. Just to be clear, I didn't issue any cards, just the warning.

cyberhog

K-9 wrote: »

PM me if you want to discuss moderation, you know the score at this stage. Just to be clear, I didn't issue any cards, just the warning.

Yes I do know the score. The reason you won't discuss this matter in public is because you are unable to refute the charge of bias.

plasmaguy

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

plasmaguy stop trying to bloody derail the thread!

Also, by plasmaguy:





So they were sending in tanks, but then you say they sent in "tanks". Make up your mind child.

I was quoting you I believe when you said the Saudi Arabians sent in tanks, when in fact they werent tanks as pointed out by another poster. They were no more than armoured vehicles of the type used by the PSNI in NI to protect against riots. They certainly weren't tanks.

As opposed to the T-72s and T-55s sent in by Assad to deal with protesters.

I'd rather be attacked by the Saudi Arabian vehicles than a T72. A T72 can demolish an entire apartment block with one shell. The vehicles SA sent into Bahrain have little or no firepower.

So lets get real here.

K-9

plasmaguy wrote: »

I was quoting you I believe when you said the Saudi Arabians sent in tanks, when in fact they werent tanks as pointed out by another poster. They were no more than armoured vehicles of the type used by the PSNI in NI to protect against riots. They certainly weren't tanks.

As opposed to the T-72s and T-55s sent in by Assad to deal with protesters.

I'd rather be attacked by the Saudi Arabian vehicles than a T72. A T72 can demolish an entire apartment block with one shell. The vehicles SA sent into Bahrain have little or no firepower.

So lets get real here.

Okay, can we drop the discussion and comparisons to Syria? You and other posters made those comparisons, you've made your point, but it is time to move on now and discuss the OP's point.

Eggy Baby!

I was quoting you I believe when you said the Saudi Arabians sent in tanks, when in fact they werent tanks as pointed out by another poster. They were no more than armoured vehicles of the type used by the PSNI in NI to protect against riots. They certainly weren't tanks.

I was using it figuratively, like I said earlier. My post would have had much less kick if I said; "They sent in the MRAPs erm..the AFVs...no, wait...the APCs..."

Even then, two pictures does not prove the absence of tanks in Operation Peninsula Shield. I could take two pictures of the Nazis hugging kittens in Eastern Europe; would that whitewash the fact they massacred millions?

The fact remains- a significant force was used by the Saudis to crush revolts in Bahrain. It doesn't matter whether they used tanks, APCs, AFVs, AAVPs, MRAPs or whatever. I don't know why you are so obsessed with tanks being used because its absolutely circumstantial whether or not they were.

I'd rather be attacked by the Saudi Arabian vehicles than a T72. A T72 can demolish an entire apartment block with one shell. The vehicles SA sent into Bahrain have little or no firepower.

Being dragged a little bit off topic here but hey.

Have you seen the damage a 50 calibre machine gun can do? Many of those vehicles in the pictures seem to have HMGs.

In Syria, the army mainly uses BMPs and Shilkas (AAA) on protestors/whoever. A T72 shell cannot level an entire apartment block- that is a myth. The ammo used by tanks varies, but usually its either AP or AT. AT has better penetration, and would just punch a hole in the building. AP is usually explosive or frag-based, and would just explode on the face of (or inside) the building.

"I would rather be attacked by..." unfortunately its not very fun to be hit in the chest by a machine gun, whether its from a tank or from a jeep. This is an abhorrent justification of the violence in Bahrain perpetrated by the Saudis.

P.S Tanks wouldn't use shells on protestors anyway unless they are fortified- they use the coaxial MG. Another Hollywood myth debunked.

P.S.S It would also be awesome if you would stop pointlessly diverting the discussion from the Saudis onto Syria. If you want to talk about Syrian tanks, then use the thread for Syria.

troposphere

Be hard to sneak some tanks into Bahrain since there is only one road unless you think they decided to airlift them the 25km.

Eggy Baby!

troposphere wrote: »

Be hard to sneak some tanks into Bahrain since there is only one road unless you think they decided to airlift them the 25km.

Since when have tanks needed roads?

troposphere

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Since when have tanks needed roads?

Take a guess

Eggy Baby!

troposphere wrote: »

Take a guess

LOL my bad!

Could have brought them in by ship or by air easily enough.