The UK and Saudi Arabia: realpolitik or retailpolitik?

A core tension in foreign policy is the tug-of-war between interests and values—between ideals and realpolitik. For some critics of the current British government, the issue is more one of ideals versus retailpolitik.

Press coverage of Prime Minister Theresa May’s first state visit to Saudi Arabia in early April—her second to the Arabian Peninsula in the past six months—was centered around her decision to not wear a headscarf when meeting with a senior member of the royal family. Far less attention was paid to the actual purpose of her visit to the conservative Kingdom, which came just days after the UK officially set “Brexit” in motion.

The government made it clear that May’s trip would see a heavy onus placed on discussions of UK-Saudi security cooperation and trade ties. At front and center of Foreign and Commonwealth Office press releases on the trip were statistics: Saudi Arabia is the UK’s largest trade partner in the Middle East. In 2015, the UK exported £4.67bn of goods to the Kingdom while British businesses earned £1.9bn from services in the country.

With Brexit looming, and questions mounting over the impact leaving the EU will have on British trade, the government would like to see these numbers grow. It is widely believed that it hopes to seal a bilateral trade deal with the Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) that can be rolled out post-Brexit, as proof that the UK is a desirable trading partner. In the meantime, Westminster hopes to unlock a further £30bn in trade with the GCC states in the next five years.

May, the former home secretary, is also keenly focused on British domestic security, and was keen to highlight the importance of intelligence sharing with Saudi Arabia, which has apparently seen a number of terror plots foiled on British soil. “[G]ulf security is our security and Gulf prosperity is our prosperity,” May said in comments published by the BBC.

Less was said on the more problematic aspects of the UK’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, which critics say undermines Britain’s commitment to international liberal order—a rules-based system underpinned by global institutions like the UN and NATO. Late last year, Boris Johnson argued that the world risked returning to a system where “the strong are free to bully or devour the weak,” and vowed to uphold liberal values post-Brexit.

Critics argue that the UK-Saudi relationship undermines that posture. The UN, along with organisations like Amnesty and International and Human Rights Watch—and the US Department of State—rank Saudi Arabia among the world's worst human rights violators, while UN experts, along with major human rights organisations, accused the Saudis of violating international humanitarian law during the prosecution of its ongoing military campaign in neighboring Yemen. The Yemen campaign is particularly problematic given that the UK’s trade relationship with Saudi Arabia is underpinned by arms sales. According to the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, the UK approved a total of £3.3bn in arms sales to the Kingdom in 2015—a big chunk of the UK’s overall trade with the Kingdom.

These issues are likely to break out into the open in the coming weeks. British High Court judges are currently mulling over a legal challenge to UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The Court has been tasked with deciding whether or not there is a significant risk that international laws are being broken by the Saudis—and whether the UK should, as a result, stop supplying the Kingdom with arms.

The government says there is no credible evidence that international law has been broken. Ministers have described the evidence provided by the UN and others as unconvincing, while the government has said a Saudi-led self-investigation into its own conduct is sufficient. One Conservative politician has suggested that, if the government loses the court case, it could change the law on arms exports, loosening the criteria so that sales to Saudi Arabia can continue. While May did mention the Yemen war, and said that she would raise concerns over human rights during meetings in the Kingdom, she was clear on where her priorities lay.

The point of a system based on laws that apply equally to everyone is to make sure that there is an even playing field between the weak and the strong. When exceptions are made, and powerful countries go unpunished for breaking those rules, it destabilises the system, blotting out an incentive for others to toe the line. Why, for instance, should the Yemeni Houthi rebels the Saudis are bombing uphold agreed international laws if no-one else is?

As Brexit draws closer, the tension between upholding British values and maintaining British interests can only grow. Win or lose, the High Court case is a timely reminder of some of the moral dilemmas at the heart of Brexit.