The United States and Saudi Arabia have established a rather complex relationship based primarily on mutual reliance

and security. The strategic partnership between the Western hegemon and prominent Middle Eastern country focuses less on cultural and political differences and more on oil, geographic location, and protection. However, maintaining and balancing the relationship between a democratic western force and conservative Islamic monarchy hasnt been simple and both countries have paid significant prices throughout the duration of the alliance. Since the United States and Saudi Arabia began joining forces in the second half of the 20th century the relationship has been challenged numerous times perhaps seeing its most trying times at the beginning of the 21st century following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th. Here we will delve deep into the strains of a US-Saudi alliance. During World War II the United States began to take special interest in Saudi Arabias untouched abundance of petroleum and for that reason sought out a strategic relationship with the House of Saud. During that time Saudi Arabia felt pressure of threats from gaining Hashemite expansionist efforts and welcomed this alliance with the United States knowing that security would be provided in exchange for Saudi crude oil. The mutual agreement of protection in exchange for oil was one that would lead into the 21 st century, however, has seen its share of kinks in the relationship along the way. One of the initial and most problematic issues that faced the alliance was Palestine. Saudi Arabia felt very strongly about supporting Arabs and their territory whereas the United States was interested in backing the creation of a Jewish state in the Middle East. The opposing stances on the issue caused conflict between the two newly allied countries. According to Maurice Jr. Labelle in, The Only Thorn: Early Saudi-American Relations and the Question of Palestine, 1945-1949, for the United States balancing foreign policy between Zionism and the Saudi alliance wasnt a simple foreign policy task and it was a true test for early American-Saudi relations. Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to ease Saudi skepticism on the issue by meeting with King Abdul Aziz following the Yalta Conference in February of 1945. Abdul Aziz expressed his concern for Palestinians and the Arab right to resist the Western idea of a Jewish migration

movement into Arab territory. President Roosevelt confirmed that the US would make, no decision altering the basic situation of Palestine without full consultation with both Arabs and Jews (Labelle, 260-261). However, the election on April 12th of 1945 of President Harry S. Truman wouldnt provide such comfort to the Saudi King. After disputing back and forth on Palestinian policy, Truman joined with the British to create the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry (AACOI) in efforts to solve the Jewish and Palestinian dilemma which eventually lead to a resolution permitting unlimited Jewish immigration into Palestine. The House of Saud was infuriated by the move of their Western ally siding with Jews. Abdul Aziz was outraged that Truman did not hold up the previous agreement he had established with President Roosevelt. The United States was conflicted between Israeli and Saudi alliances but also knew that it had the upper hand given the heavy Saudi reliance on US provided protection. While Saudi Arabia felt betrayed by the United States involvement in AACOI, unfortunately for the Saudis, Hashemite expansionist efforts were expanding and Saudi leadership was left with few options on how to react. Abdul Aziz denounced the US decision publicly, but security threats posed by the Hashemites forced him to make contradicting decisions behind closed doors almost ignoring the issue and remaining close with the United States. Palestine would continue to strain American-Saudi relations throughout the following decades, however, would not succeed in destroying or diminishing ties. Human rights have been one of the longstanding issues where the two countries differ dramatically. The United States has been a leader on the global stage in promoting individual human rights. The US has also put significant pressure on both developed and developing countries to make the necessary changes in policies in order to better address the serious issue. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, has been less worried about the hype over human rights. For the conservative Islamic country the concept has been constructed and endorsed by Western societies and simply cannot be applied to Saudi society. Even though the two countries have had differing views on the significance of human rights, both the US and Saudi Arabia avoided interference on internal matters because disrupting the strategic alliance was something neither country was willing to risk. It wasnt until the 21st century that the United States began

paying closer attention to the internal issues of Saudi Arabia that it had previously turned a blind eye to. Saudi Arabias structure is completely distinct from that of the United States which is why the two countries have often had difficulties understanding each other. The absolute monarchy of Saudi Arabia is set up to where there are no constraints on the power of the king and from there the king then distributes power among the royal princes. The House of Saud is known for its very literal interpretation of the Koran and its strict implementation of Islamic law (also known as the Wahhabist sects interpretation of the Hanbali school of the Sunni branch of Islam) (Simons, 10). The justice system (also known as the Sharia law) is controlled by a system of religious courts and judges appointed by the king. The country has no bill of rights, many trials are held in secret, defense lawyers are not often allowed into Saudi courtrooms, and king appointed judges have complete power over the fate of the suspects. According to Human Rights Watch confessions are often unfairly extracted through torture. Free speech is not permitted, political parties are not allowed, critics of the royal family and political opponents can be jailed without explanation or trial, and criminal suspects have been left long periods of time in jail before even being convicted of a crime. Sharia justice has also been known for the beheadings of those that commit capital crime (murder, rape, treason, etc.) and for cutting off the hands of thieves (Simons, 5). These regulations and punishments are justified through the Islamic Koran. The House of Saud believes that the Koran can be used to provide direction for Saudi citizens in all aspects of life and therefore should combine Islamic economics, politics, and ethics. In Saudi Arabia: The Shape of Client Feudalism Geoff Simons argues that the problem with the Koran being a part of all aspects of the Saudi structure is that it was written with a certain historical context with contingent circumstances of race, social status and general culture (Simons, 15) that simply doesnt suit a Saudi Arabia of the 21st century. Saudi Arabia is caught between external and internal forces that are pulling it in opposing directions, on one side exists the international pressures to modernize the outdated version of the Koran to better meet current international norms regarding human rights, and the other side lie the Wahhabist extremist (a form of Arab nationalism) that encourage and value dedication to the Koran over preoccupations of the individuals rights. Although the Saudi regime has verbally denied many

of the accusations made against them from the international community regarding human rights violations they continue to deny human rights actors and journalists entry into the country. Saudi Arabia would like to alleviate international pressure by disproving the accusations, however, it has been extremely difficult to pull away from Wahabbist traditional way of running the country that has been around since the 1700s. Also, for a society that so firmly believes in Islam, for many Muslims the idea of changing the context of the holy bible is almost unfathomable. The traditional approach also solidifies the position and strength of the House of Saud allowing them to interpret and apply the Koran in whichever way they find necessary which ultimately gives the Saudi regime a great deal of power. The following verses are examples of literal interpretations of the Koran that address punishment for thievery and the issue of gender: the recompense of those who war against God and his Apostle shall be that they shall be slain or crucified or have their alternate hands and feet cut off As to the thief, whether man or woman, cut ye off their hands in recompense for their doings. Koran, Sura 5, Verses 37, 42 Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God hath gifted the one above the other Koran, Sura 4, Verse 38 (Simons, 3) These excerpts from the Koran accentuate the importance and weight the Koran has in the Saudi society and structure. On the other hand, the United States was founded on the basis of a constitution that values the peoples right to vote and free speech, it promotes gender, religious, and racial equality, and supports fair and just trials. Although varying greatly in core values the two countries typically tried to stay out of each others business, however, the United States would periodically address internal issues affecting the Saudi citizens. The US State Department addressed the issue in a statement made in 1966 saying that,

The Government commits and tolerates serious human rights abuses Security forces continued to abuse detainees and arbitrarily arrest and detain persons Prolonged detention is a problem. The legal system is subject to executive and royal family influence. The Government prohibits or restricts freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, and religion intimidation, abuse, and detention of citizens and foreigners of both sexes continued. Other problems include discrimination and violence against women, suppression of ethnic and religious minorities and strict limitations on the rights of the workers (Simons, 6) Besides publicly chastising the Saudi government thats really all the US government did concerning the issue at that point. It wasnt until the 21st century that the United States began condemning Saudi human rights violations and putting considerable pressure to make the essential changes. After the 9-11 attacks revealed that 15 of the 19 terrorists were of Saudi origin the US was shocked and enraged. The United States became extremely skeptical questioning and criticizing Islamic extremism coming from within Saudi Arabian borders. US media fiercely attacked Saudi Arabia and began exploiting the human rights issues that the United States government had often ignored in the past in order to maintain their alliance with the Middle Eastern country. Some Saudi Arabians also claimed that American media, controlled primarily by Jews, was creating conspiracies to disrupt relations between the US and Saudi Arabia (Sinkler, 75). Both Americans and Saudi Arabians questioned whether the US-Saudi alliance could survive the hardship created by 9-11 and urged United States policy makers to increase pressure on Saudi Arabia to fight extreme Islamism and address human rights issues. Saudi leadership was caught off guard as well by the attacks and began contemplating the internal structure that fostered the suicide bombers. Perhaps partially in fear of a falling out with the United States, in October of 2001, crown prince Abdullah publicly castigated the Ulema (Muslim scholars known as the arbiters of Sharia law) for encouraging hatred and

violence through Islam instead of promoting moderation and tolerance (Subhan, 3886). This was the first sign of a Saudi reaction to mend relations post 9-11. Saudi Arabia willingly aided the US in anti-terror efforts in the Middle East and particularly in the Iraq war; meanwhile, addressed international concerns by implementing internal reforms in education and human rights. In June 2003, the crown prince established the National Forum for Dialogue which for the first time allowed the public to present issues in need of reform to the Saudi government and was acknowledged by the international community as the step in the right direction. Since 9-11 the international community has kept a closer eye on Saudi Arabia. Amnesty Internationals annual report of 2011 says that women and girls rights continue to be a serious issue facing Saudi Arabia. Women are treated as minors and must obtain permission from their male guardian to travel, study, or work, which subjects them to discrimination and violence. Saudi Arabia also continues to be the only country in the world that does not allow women to drive. For the United States the gender issue is an important one and the inequality of women is an area where progress and changes must be made by Saudi leadership. Saudi Arabia is making changes that benefit their society, some perhaps driven by ulterior motives. According to Human Rights Watch Saudi Arabia has responded to the fear of democracy sparked by the Arab revolts by pumping nearly $130 billion into programs hoping to reject doubts of Saudi citizens and prevent any potential threats to the regime. Surrounded by new democracies Saudi leadership has felt especially vulnerable and realizes that decisions made now will undoubtedly affect the future of the House of Saud. In March 2011 Saudi troops helped suppress pro-democracy attempts in Bahrain and were against the overthrow of Egypts Hosni Mubarak. For Saudi Arabia democracy is clearly unwelcome. King Fahd was once quoted addressing the democratization of the Saudi political process by saying, Our peoples makeup and unique qualities are different from those of the rest of the world and insisted that democracy and free elections are inappropriate for the Saudi Arabia system (Simons, 6).