University of Amsterdam
Master Thesis Political Sciences: International Relations of the Middle East
US Foreign Policy: Double Standards in the Middle East
- A comparative Analysis of the US Relations with Saudi Arabia and Iran -
Amrit Baboeram 10071210
First Reader: Dr. Saïd Rezaeiejan Second Reader: Peyman Jafari Date: June 24th 2016
Islamic Republic of Iran (The World Factbook, 2016)
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (The World Factbook, 2016)
Content
1 Introduction 4
2. Theoretical Framework 9
3. Methodological Approach 17
4. Norms and values of the US: Double Standards towards Iran and Saudi Arabia 20 5. US Foreign Policy: the Process of Foreign Policy-Making 31
6. US Foreign Policy: the case of Iran 34
7. US Foreign Policy: the case of Saudi Arabia 41
8. US Foreign Policy towards Iran and Saudi Arabia: an explanation of the
use of Double Standards 47
Appendix 55
References 56
1
Introduction
1.1 GeneralThis thesis is written with the aim to gain insights in how and why double standards are used by the United States in relation to the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the major powers in the Middle East. Creating a deeper understanding of the concept of double standards in international politics and an analysis of the US relations during the Obama administration with both countries have to provide these insights.
This study will provide answers to questions like: what are the underlying factors that determine the character of the relations of the US with Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran? How does the Obama administration deal with historically established power structures and which inconsistencies exist within his foreign policy?
The main goal of this study is to create a better understanding of how the relations that the United States has with Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran have evolved. There is a double standard in the Obama administration regarding the Middle East. A few examples of the US using double standards are the following.
Just like its predecessors, the Obama administration considers the kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a strategic partner in the Middle East when it comes to the war on terror and the provision and assurance of energy supplies.1 Despite of the well-explained list of arguments in favor of this strategic alliance, there are also contradictions in policy when it comes to human rights issues. The US does not practice what it preaches on human rights.
The executive summary of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) dedicates two relatively neutral sentences to the position of the US regarding Saudi Arabia and the systematically violation of human rights: The Obama Administration has endorsed Saudi citizens’ rights to free assembly and freedom of expression. Saudi leaders reject foreign interference in the country’s internal affairs.2
The violation of human right issues is discussed in one paragraph that has the length of just over one page. Blanchard also underlines in his report several issues on progress that is made concerning equal rights for women. He describes that “the late King Abdullah recognized women’s right to vote and stand as candidates in 2015 municipal council elections and
1
Blanchard, C. (2010), p. 2.
2
expanded the size of the national Shura Council to include 30 women… The third nationwide municipal council elections were held in December 2015, and expanded the elected membership to two-thirds, lowered the voter registration age to 18 from 21, and were the first in which Saudi women could vote and stand as candidates.”3
Without downplaying these positive developments, the way of presenting the internal issues concerning human rights strongly differs from the way the same issues in Iran are presented. In the report of the CRS on Iran, the other major power in the Middle East, the country’s policy is portrayed in a different and more distinct manner. The violation of human rights issues in Iran is elaborated in six pages with specific data divided over eight categories: ‘Labor Restrictions’, ‘Women’s Rights’, ‘Religious Freedom’, ‘Executions Policy’, ‘Human Trafficking’, ‘Stoning’ and ‘Detentions of U.S. national’. While these practices cannot be trivialized by any sense, the emphasis in the report is clearly laid on the severity of the fact that these practices occur. The way that these data are presented shows that decisive language and a more general harsh discourse are used towards Iran. This method of presenting data on Iran did not match the method that is used in the case of Saudi Arabia.
Katzman4 argues that there is a lot of indistinctness regarding the perception on Iran. Policymakers are not always sure whether to see Iran as a threat or a neutral actor with a security strategy intended to primarily protect it-self. The Director of National Intelligence for instance sees Iran as a threat, while President Obama consistently has tried to open the dialogue for better cooperation and the fight against a common enemy, the Islamic State.5 This divergent perceptions become strange when it is hold against the background of the relationship with Saudi Arabia, that also has an authoritarian regime that violates human rights and supports terrorist groups in the region that are against the US.
There are notable inconsistencies in US foreign policy because the Obama administration emphasizes individual and religious freedom as key objective, while in practice concerns like energy supplies and the grip on the war on terror might outweigh their key objectives6. This study aims to explain the inconsistent approach of the US towards these two major countries in the Middle East.
3 Blanchard, C. (2016), p 10. 4 Katzman, K. (2016), p. 18. 5
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, in his February 2016 annual threat assessment testimony before Congress, described Iran as “present[ing] an enduring threat to U.S. national interests because of its support to regional terrorist and militant groups and the Assad regime, as well as its development of advanced military capabilities.” In: Katzman, K. (2010), p. 18.
In order to explain why double standards are used we should provide a more in-depth analysis that creates possibilities to unravel paradoxes or inconsistencies concerning foreign policy.
1.2 Research Question
Based on the concerns described above and the related questions regarding the foreign policy of the US towards Saudi Arabia and Iran, we come to the following central research question:
How can the use of double standards in foreign policy by the Obama administration be explained in the relation to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran? This question will be answered through the lenses of three different theoretical perspectives: Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism. Each theoretical framework has its own underlining moral guidelines and general perspectives on international politics. I will assess how the foreign policy of the US towards Iran and Saudi Arabia operates on the basis of a double standard according to these theories. These theories generally are related to international politics, but in this research project they will be used because they also provide helpful insights that are relevant for explaining foreign policy and the double standards applied by the United States. I will touch on the three theories.
1.3 Relevance
This study is politically relevant because critically understanding US foreign policy towards Iran and Saudi Arabia helps us to understand and outline the inconsistent attitude that exists in foreign policy. It also enables us to understand how a president functions within a political system and the power structures in that system that has divergent objectives.
It shows how political systems influence the process of foreign policy-making, and with which power structures the Obama administration has to deal with in developing and carrying out his foreign policy. In less abstract terms, studying the dynamics of foreign policy by measuring the impact of one president allows one to understand what the limitations are of a powerful individual within a system. Full awareness of these political constraints enables to understand the room for making policy and the ways to improve policy making.
The central question is scientifically relevant because it can be linked to a broader discussion within the specific field of foreign policy analysis and perceptions of Western and non-Western international relations. There have not been tremendous amounts of research focusing on both countries in one study during the relatively short timeframe of the Obama
administration. One significant and visible shift of Obama’s presidency was in the rhetoric of the US administration regarding Iran7. By creating insights of the frames of US policy in the Middle East, the political relations of the US with both countries under Obama’s presidency from a theoretical point of view we learn more on the weakness and strengths of these theories.
1.4 Structure
This study will be structured as follows. The first chapter provides the research question, political and scientific relevance, and mentions the relevant theoretical perspectives.
The second chapter goes in-depth into the theoretical framework. In this framework the main theories of International Relations will be discussed in order to create a theoretical background, against which the main question on the explanation of double standards can be approached analytically and positioned in a broader sense.
In the third chapter the research design will be presented and motivated by explaining the case- and data selection and the operationalization of the data.
The fourth chapter discusses the morals and values of the US and how they are applied to Iran and Saudi Arabia. The promotion of democracy and human rights will be discussed as the main values in US foreign policy and will be described in the context of double standards.
The fifth chapter discusses the dependent variable in this research project: the US foreign policy. In this study the US foreign policy during the Obama administration is the variable that should be explained. How is this policy shaped and influenced in general?
Chapter six and seven describes two cases of US foreign policy: Iran and Saudi Arabia. The military and economic interests as independent variables are the subjects in the analysis. The independent variables explain the end result of the dependent variable. In the analysis I will make a link with the proclaimed morals and values of the Obama administration and disclose the double standards in Obama’s foreign policy.
Chapter eight concerns the comparative analysis of the US policy towards Iran and Saudi Arabia from a theoretical perspective. It looks at the data of the two cases and the policy of the Obama administration from the theoretical frameworks that were mentioned in chapter
one: realism, liberalism and constructivism. It tries to find an answer to the central question by analyzing the data with the theories.
2.
Theoretical Framework
2.1 Double StandardsThe main objective of this study is to explain the use of double standards in US foreign policy. Double standards are a widely discussed topic in the academic literature. The definition of DS in the Merriam Webster dictionary is straightforward: “a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another.” 8 In this study they will be discussed in the context of international politics, and more specifically US foreign policy during the Obama administration.
Vrbek uses the concept of double standards in the context of policy within the European Union (EU). She defines a double standard as “any deviation of an approach of a country toward similar situations sharing similar context, where the “similarity” of situations refers to the results on the ground achieved not necessarily by identity politics.”9 She compares Latvia with Slovenia and argues that EU policy is driven by fear for a potential conflict in Latvia. A potential conflict might affect the economic interest and the protection of fundamental market freedoms of the EU. This therefore creates the incentive for the EU to get involved in Latvia. In both countries human rights are violated, but only in Latvia a policy has been developed for an EU intervention. In other words, the use of double standards is due to the lack of political and economic interests in one country, compared to that of another. Because of these differing interests, policy in favor of a country is seen as more urgent and therefore prioritized over the needs of the other country.
Glaser elaborates on the concept of double standards by asking the question: does hypocrisy matter? He analyses double standards by questioning how to judge military interventions of the US. He deconstructs the concept of hypocrisy by explaining that terms like “good” and “bad” are judgments related to moral-philosophical systems.10 He discusses the inconsistent approach in foreign policy of the US by examining the development of the use of the term “liberalist” and “universalist”. He argues that the US is inconsistent in foreign policy because the political concept of liberalism is poorly defined and used by the US’s political elite, as well as by many critics of US power. For this reason, it provides “both widely shared
8 Double Standard. 2011. In Merriam-Webster.com. (Retrieved June 8, 2011, from
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doublestandard). Retrieved 24-6-2006.
9
Vrbek, S. (2015), p. 305.
normative terms of reference for a discussion of US foreign policy and a yardstick by which can be measured America's faithfulness to its own professed beliefs.”11 The consequence is that the US does not practice what it preaches and the core of hypocrisy therefore lies in the absence of faithfulness to its own professed beliefs. Double standards in this study are used as a tool for explaining political behavior, rather than for judging political behavior.
Bigo contributes to the debate on double standards and the US by stating that the question of what is meant by freedom or liberty has been left unanswered. This relates to double standards in the sense that the US prioritizes economic and political interests over human rights issues in foreign policy. These priorities are explained by the tension between the concept of liberty and security. In his conception liberty and security are seen as “eternal values” that are differentiable, quasi-quantifiable and compatible dependent of the context.12 Moreover, he argues that the metaphor of a balance between both concepts camouflages the two dimensions and silences the real capacity of political judgment.13 In other words, the concepts are abused because they are used in a misleading way. For example, throughout history liberty and security are used by the US to maintain their strategic or security interests in the region.14 The security and strategic aspects are expected to play a predominant role in the comparative analysis of Iran and Saudi Arabia because of the different interests the US has after the Iranian revolution in 1979. In the next sub-section the main IR theories will be outlined in order to generate variables that are useful for analyzing the selected data.
2.2 Realism
Realism is the perspective on international relations that is based on the belief that states interact with other states on the basis of conflict. Numerous sub-currents of realism have evolved over the course of time, and are all based around four main assumptions.15
First, states are the central actors. Non-governmental or transnational actors have no or a limited role in the international system. Because of the concept of self-help, cooperation between states is hard to achieve due to the need for ensuring state security.
Second, the international system is anarchic, which means that there is no central authority and states are autonomous and responsible for their own survival.
11 Ibid. 12 Bigo, D. (2002), p. 400. 13 Bigo, D. (2002), p. 398. 14
Babayan, N., & Huber, D. (2012), p. 6.
15
Third, states try to maximize their self-interest. This is clarified with the concept of self-help. Each state has to rely on its own for its survival.
Fourth, all states act rational and are trying to pursue power for self-interests. Power is a central concept because it is the basis for interaction between states in the international system. Their primary concern is survival. The international arena is therefore seen as a competitive stage and the issue of power is a central concept. In this research the realist perspective will be derived from classical or political realism and structural realism because currents provide insights on the struggle for power in a distinctive way.
Hans Morgenthau is considered as the founder of classical or political realism with his influential book Politics among Nations in 1948. He analyses international politics as a type of politics that is “governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.”16 An important concept of political realism is that national interest is defined in terms of power. This means that states act mainly in order to acquire economic and military power to ensure national survival. Economic and military powers are important variables for the analysis of how the Obama administration handles their political relations with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Morgenthau also discusses the concept of morality predominantly by saying that political realism is aware of the moral significance in political action and underlines that morality and successful political action are two cohesive factors. However, political realism states that morality is subservient to issues of power: “It is unwilling to gloss over and obliterate that tension and thus to obfuscate both the moral and the political issue by making it appear as though the stark facts of politics were morally more satisfying than they actually are, and the moral law less exacting than it actually is.”17
Because realism assumes that moral laws are less significant compared to the issue of power, there is much room for morally inconsistent policy in international politics, as well as in foreign politics. The use of double standards therefore is legitimized in realism because the struggle for power is prioritized. Enemies are thus treated in a different way in moral terms, compared to allies.
In 1948 Morgenthau already identified the struggle between “rights” and “power” in foreign policy: “There are two basic hindrances to a foreign policy integrally committed to the defence of human rights. On the one hand, consistency in such defence is impossible, since it is not the prime business of a state interacting, as it must with other states, to defend human rights. On the other hand, it is not feasible to pursue human rights without taking into
16
Morgenthau, H. quoted from: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm. Retrieved 24-6-2006.
consideration other aspects of relations with other nations, which may be more important than those connected with human rights.”18
Moral issues from a realist perspective are seen as subordinated and in general consistency in foreign policy as impossible. The pessimistic worldview of realism resounds from the words of Morgenthau by arguing that the world is an unfair place in which progress is hard to achieve, as international politics is a zero-sum game.
The decision to prioritize issues of power over moral issues is also discussed by Hyde-Price. In this work first-order and second-order interests are identified. First-order issues are primarily associated with security and prosperity, like common global or regional problems including pollution, terrorism, failed states and so on. Second-order interests concern issues like human rights, death penalty, democracy promotion and environmental issues.19 In other words, double standards can be explained from a realist perspective by making a distinction in priorities in international politics.
Structural realism, or neo-realism, argues that state survival is not related to human nature, but explained by the inherent structure of the international system. This structure determines state behavior by emphasizing material capabilities. In this sub-current of realism, Kenneth Waltz was a predominant author who published the book Theory of International Politics. Compared to Morgenthau, his work also sees international politics as a zero-sum game, but in a way that he does not seek for answers for political behavior in human nature, but in external factors of human reason. He tries to explain the stability after the Second World War by analyzing structural constraints like anarchy and the distribution of capabilities, which is measured by factors like the size of population and territory, resource endowment, economic capability, military strength, competence and political stability. 20 The distribution of capabilities implies a zero-sum game in which military power is considered as the most important tool to ensure national security. States constantly make a cost-benefit analysis because the gain of a state means the loss of another state.
2.3 Liberalism
Realism is known as quite pessimistic and according to liberalists seen as an obstacle for security and cooperation.21 Liberalism thus believes that cooperation among states is possible
18 Morgenthau, H. (1948), p. 248. 19 Hyde‐Price, A. (2008), p. 29-44. 20 Waltz, K. (1979), p. 29. 21 Keohane, 1986, p. 211.
because international politics is a positive-sum game. The fundaments of the liberal tradition are derived from Western ideals based around the idea of “freedom for the individual”. It has an optimistic view on human nature and believes that progress is possible. In their view individuals are rational actors that are capable of shaping their destiny without assistance of a higher being. 22 Another example a traditional liberalist is John Lock who saw great potential in modern civil society and the capitalist economy. Combining a civil society and capitalism would mean a better life based on democratic principles. They are convinced that when people employ their reason they can achieve mutual beneficial cooperation not only within states but also across international boundaries. 23
Liberalism as a typical international relations theory argues that international cooperation among actors in the international system is possible because of the relevance of mutual interests. They put an emphasis on overlapping interests and international cooperation. They acknowledge that different types of actors within the international system are capable of shaping the preferences of states as well as their policies.
The ideals of liberalism in the context of foreign policy and the use of double standards can be analyzed through the sub-current of liberal institutionalism. Like political realism, liberal has a utilitarian approach as states are seen as rational actors in the international political system. There is a focus on economic ties, mutual exchange and organized cooperation between states. Institutions are seen as playing a key role in cooperation between states because they enforce exchange, increase interdependence and thus reduce the risk of conflict. Institutions are defined as “persistent and as a connected sets of rules and practice that prescribe roles, constrain activity, and shape the expectations of actors. Institutions may include organizations, bureaucratic agencies, treaties and agreements, and informal practices that states accept as binding.”24 Examples of institutions in foreign policy and relevant to double standards are the JCPOA, the concept of anarchy and the concept of the balance of power in the region. These are important institutions because they determine the room for a state to maneuver in.
An influential author that draws on this approach is Robert Keohane. In his book After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy he argues that cooperation can develop on the basis of certain complementary interests and that the role of institutions are crucial in the process.25 Because the institutions shape the state behavior, the
22 Jørgensen, K. (2010), p. 58. 23
Jackson, R., & Sørensen, G. (2015), p. 107.
24
Adapted from Haas, Hane and Levy (1993), p. 4-5.
conditions change in a way that cooperation causes situations in which interdependence occurs. This entails that states increasingly interact because of having mutual benefits. Cooperation on the basis of these mutual benefits can at the same time reduce the risk of war and increases the prospects of peace among nation-states. Liberals see diplomacy as an effective way for states to interact in a nonviolent way.
Neo-liberalism is a useful theory to explain why states cooperate with each other on mutual, mainly economic, interests. However, this theoretical perspective does not take into account that states not always are entirely rational and predictable. It also does not take into account how ideas and identity influence foreign relations.
2.4 Constructivism
Constructivism, introduced by Onuf in 1989, is a relatively young school of thought that rose at the beginning of the 1990s after scholars questioned the existing school of thought, liberalism and realism. These schools of thought were considered as less pervasive and criticized for neglecting the role of ideas and identities [...] that the structure of human association are determined primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces, and [...] that the identities and interests of purposive actors are constructed by these shared ideas rather than by nature”26
Constructivism is not a problem-solving theory that aims to predict or explain a certain phenomenon, but it rather is a tool for analysis. Rezaeiejan notes that Constructivism can be seen as a synthesis, rather than a critique, because it does not simply reject the rational approach of realism and liberalism, but tries to build a bridge by seizing the Middle Ground in-between the two views on world politics. An example of an explicit critique of neo-realism is that while acknowledging the concepts of self-help and power politics as institutions of Liberalism and Realism, these concepts are rejected at the same time when considering them as structural characteristics of anarchy.27
An influential author in the constructivist current is Emanuel Adler. He views constructivism as “the manner in which the material world shapes and is shaped by human action and interaction depends on dynamic normative and epistemic interpretations of the material world."28 Similar to Wendt he emphasizes that all institutions are social constructs and that constructivism deals with the implications of the fact that one speaks of social facts. These 26 Wendt, A. (1999), p. 1. 27 Rezaeiejan, S. (2012), p. 25. 28 Adler, E. (1997), p. 322.
social facts can be seen as collective knowledge that is shared by all that are able to engage in. He also discusses the concept of inter-subjectivity means that identities and interests are socially constructed, and that they the products of inter-subjective social structures.29 The underlying assumption of the concept of inter-subjective is that “facts” do exist, but have to be seen as ideas and understandings that are constituted through human agreement that occur via social processes that are not part of an objective reality. Thus, there are material objects, subjective thoughts on these objects by individuals and culture that reproduces inter-subjective concepts.
In the logic of constructivism, identity politics plays an important role in understanding US foreign policy. From this perspective, national ideas are the starting point for analysis concerning US external behaviour because the national identity does represent an important function of foreign policy and a self-defined image. 30 According to the theory of constructivism, identity is always in relations with the others and emerges from distinguishing itself from the others. For instance, Nau argues that national identity goes beyond domestic politics or special interests because it is the common belief that causes all domestic groups to aggregate their views around a specific institutions (e.g., the Confederacy instead of the Union, or Russia instead of the Soviet Union) and to grant that institution the capacity to use force legitimately against or on behalf of its citizens.31
David Campbell thinks that the issue of identity is at the root of US foreign policy with the argument that foreign policy is made “foreign” by identity politics. With the conception of the Self and the Other, Campbell creates an approach in which US foreign policy can be understood as a political practice that is directly focused on reproduction and maintenance of American political identity.32 The insights extracted from the constructivist approach can be useful in explaining why the US see Iran as a threat and Saudi Arabia not as a threat to US security because the narrative on the Iranian revolution was seen as a threat to modern civilization.
Constructivism also helps to analyze American rhetoric concerning foreign policy. For instance, material capabilities can be framed suggestively, exaggerated or underestimated. In
29 Reus-Smit, C. (2005). p,193. 30 Nguyen, H. T. T. (2013), p. 20. 31 Nau, H. R. (2002), p. 29. 32 Campbell, D. (1992), p 262.
this way constructivism uses the role of inter-subjective ideas to interpret the political behavior of states.
Moral values as prime factors behind foreign policy are dealt with in different ways in each theory.
In realism moral values are subservient to issues of power and interest because of the zero-sum game in an anarchist system.
In liberalism moral values seem to have a more important role compared to realism due to the need of cooperation and the positive sum game and interest are not only conflicting but also converging.
In constructivism moral values are at the core of the theory because morality is inter-subjective.
3.
Methodological Approach
3.1 IntroductionIn this chapter the methodological approach for this research project will be explained. A qualitative research design will be used based on the analysis of documents on US foreign policy and academic literature. Data will be collected on the US foreign policy regarding two cases: Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The dependent variable in these data is the US foreign policy during the Obama administration. The independent variables are discerned from the theoretical framework and focuses on two areas of foreign policy: military factors and economic factors. These factors must lead to the explanation of how these factors influence US foreign policy in such a way that it results in double standards?
3.2 Propositions
In the previous chapter the theoretical framework is presented in order to sketch a theoretical background that generates useful variables for answering the main question of this research: how can the of use of double standards by the Obama administration toward Iran and Saudi Arabia by explained?
In this chapter the methodological plan for approaching this question will be laid out. I will start with an outline of how norms and values are articulated in the foreign policy of the US administration before Obama and during the Obama administration. Then I look how these norms and values are applied to Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Two issues concerning the norms and values of the US administrations will be selected: democracy and human rights. Through these variables the argumentation will be established that will prove the use double standards in US foreign policy, and specifically by the Obama administration. This statement is firstly needed in order to comprehensively explain the use of double standards in a latter stage of this research.
After stating my argument, the dependent variable of this research will be positioned: US foreign policy. I will describe the process of how foreign policy is being made by elaborating on the institutional structure, the key actors and the implicit complexity of the process.
The independent variables are extracted from the different theories that are discussed in the theoretical framework.
Realism provides tools to operationalize the independent variable of power. From this perspective both military and economic powers are the determining factors that explain state
behavior. Military power as a variable in this research entails all forms of power that have to do with security issues of the state in relation to external threats. Exchange of intelligence, defense cooperation translated in arms sales and warfare are indicators that describe the use of power. Economic power entails the use of economic sanctions to put pressure or engagement of trade relations in order to maintain influence in the region. These trade relations are not constructed to make progress, but to maintain or influence the material capabilities that determine the amount of power.
From a liberal point of view, economic power is relevant as a factor that determines overlapping economic interests. Foreign policy strategies therefore are shaped by mutual economic benefits that are exploited in order to foster progress and prosperity. Economic power can be operationalized by focusing on economic activity in ways of trade relations, investment strategies and financial cooperation via loans.
Perceptions of identity and ideology are important variables, derived from the constructivist tradition, that help to synthesize liberal and realist perspectives on US foreign policy. The national identity of the US and the ideology that is proclaimed by the Obama administration are part of the political narratives that are used to justify policy acts in foreign relations. The concept of inter-subjectivity helps to operationalize the variables because different interpretation of facts, or in this study political discourse, must help to further outline the complexity of the political relations and explain the use of double standards.
3.3 Case- and data selection
In this research the dependent variable will be centralized, US foreign policy during the Obama administration, by comparing how foreign policy operates on areas where the foreign policy principles are articulated in a way that it causes the use of a double standard.
The two cases used in this research to collect data and conduct analysis are the relations of the United States during the Obama administration towards Iran and the political relations of the United States during the Obama administration with Saudi Arabia. Chronologically this means the period between 2009-2016.
These two countries have been selected because they are two major powers in the Middle East with considerable influence in the region. Both countries are important oil producers and exert influence supporting divergent political groups in the Middle East. Iran and Saudi Arabia both position themselves as Islamic countries, thus as a religious authority. The countries also are competitive powers as they are rivals, operating in the geographically constrained region of the Middle East.
The data are for the dependent variable – US foreign policy – are collected from primary sources, records from official government institutions that articulate the intentions of the US foreign policy toward Iran and Saudi Arabia. Specifically, the documents of the Congressional Research Service, the agreement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and speeches and press conferences of president Obama. These data will be supplemented with secondary level data and research of qualified and mostly peer reviewed academic articles on the political relations of the US with both countries.
The data on the independent variables – the political relations of the US with Iran and Saudi Arabia – ware collected from secondary sources, mainly academic studies on this topic.
4.
Norms and values of the US: Double Standards towards Iran
and Saudi Arabia
4.1 Introduction
In the previous chapters the theoretical framework and the methodological approach for answering the central question of this research have been elaborated. This chapter will provide an overview of the main principles and values that the US articulates in its foreign policy. The overview of principles and values will form the benchmark for analyzing the consistency in foreign policy towards Iran and Saudi Arabia. The analysis of this inconsistency will make the case for asserting the existence of double standards in US foreign policy.
4.2 The value of democracy
In the policy documents on foreign policy of the Obama administration, the promotion of democracy is officially listed as a policy goal in the Middle East, together with the general objectives to preserve the flow of energy resource, ensure transit and access to facilities to support US military operations and countering terrorism.33
The norms and values that are presented amidst political interests of a more realist character are a sort of moral flagship for the US.
Obama presented his concept of democracy at a meeting of United Nations General Assembly in 2015: “I recognize that democracy is going to take different forms in different parts of the world. The very idea of a people governing themselves depends upon government giving expression to their unique culture, their unique history, their unique experiences. But some universal truths are self-evident. No person wants to be imprisoned for peaceful worship. No woman should ever be abused with impunity, or a girl barred from going to school. The freedom to peacefully petition those in power without fear of arbitrary laws -- these are not ideas of one country or one culture. They are fundamental to human progress. They are a cornerstone of this institution.”34
The core of the concept is that people govern themselves. It is also connected to another value: human rights. The way people govern themselves has to be established in institutions. The political system that enables people to govern themselves is a democratic system.
33
Arieff, A., Danon, Z., Katzman, K., Sharp, J. M., & Zanotti, J. (2012), p. 1.
34
Obama, B (2015). https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/28/remarks-president-obama-united-nations-general-assembly. Retrieved 24-6-2006.
The promotion of democracy is very important because in the US it is believed that it not only promotes the fundamental American values like religious freedom and workers rights, but it also contributes to a more stable global arena that helps to obtain and advance their national interests. Promoting these values means practical assistance to newly formed democracies in the implementation of these principles and helping them to advocate the principles in their region. It also means identifying and denouncing regimes that deny their citizens the right to choose their national leaders in elections that are fair and transparent.
Promoting democracy by the Western world is further clarified by stating that established democracies do not go to war with one another because cooperation on the basis of mutual benefits overrules the risks of war. This assumption is derived from the liberal theorist Immanuel Kant, who argued that democratic states are more peaceful than other states because of the intellectual origin of the liberal thought. Beside the liberal assumption of reducing the risk of war, it is also argued that democracy leads to innovation.
The US state department refers to the cases of India and Brazil as examples of progress as a result the adoption of democratic principles. According to the Council for Foreign Relations in the UK democracies are setting foundations for justice and equality, and pluralism is needed to stop extremism.35
President Obama also promotes the principles of democracy in his speeches, as he mentions the value of these principles in his public speeches and statements: “We deeply believe it is in our interests to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous, and will continue to promote democracy and human rights and open markets, because we believe these practices achieve peace and prosperity.”36
In various ways he determines the moral guidelines of the US by underlining values as dignity and prosperity and thus positioning the moral flagship of the US. Compared to the Bush administration, Obama does ad an important nuance in using different language to promote the values in his policy of spreading the democratic values: “There are some who advocate for democracy only when they’re out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your
35
US State Department: http://www.state.gov/j/drl/democ/. Retrieved 24-6-2006.
36
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.37
By emphasizing consent rather than coercion Obama promoted a conceptual shift by using terms like mutual respect and universal principles. This had set the stage for a wider shift in tone and tactics, along with a more subtle change in substance. Nonetheless, in the context of this study it is important how he cooperates with countries on the basis of these values. In the next sub-sections it will be investigated to what extent the value of democracy exists in Iran and Saudi Arabia.
4.2.1 Democracy in Iran
The political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based on the Constitution that was written after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Although Iran is not a democracy like the US, political power is divided over three similarly types of branches: the executive, legislative and judiciary branch. The political system is a unique system because it is based on a combination of institutions derived from Islamic law – the religious supervisory bodies – and institutions that have a republican character as its citizens legitimize them.38 Figure 2 shows the formal structure of Iran since 1979.
37
Obama, B. (2009), Remarks by the President at Cairo University, April 6.
38
Figure 1: The Formal Power Structure in Iran since 197939
What the figure shows is that the distribution of power is not centralized even in practical terms. The Iranian people are able to exert influence on domestic politics via the election of a president that handles a political discourse. The Council of the Guardian consists of twelve jurists, of which six clerics, and are all appointed by the supreme leader. The other six are appointed by the parliament. The Council of Guardian examines whether laws are compatible with the Islamic law and if potential presidential candidates are qualified to run for the elections. The Assembly of Experts consists of 86 clerics and is also elected by the Iranian people for the course of eight years. However, the most important institutions that are in the hand of the supreme leader are the institutions that are responsible for ensuring the Islamic character of the regime; the Association of Friday Prayer Leaders, and the Special Court for the Clergy.
From an analytical point of view Buchta regards the political system of Iran as three concentric circles that divide power within the elite.40 The first circle, the so-called inner circle elite, consists of the people that are in the position of direct power to take strategic
39
Ibid.
decisions or object to them. The second circle consists of the administrative elite. These are the members that do no take strategic decisions but have a great influence on them or can take political decisions that are less relevant. The main difference with the inner circle is that people of the inner circle actually make the strategic decisions, rather than influencing them. The final circle is the so-called discourse elite. This is a group consisting of people from the two other circles supplemented with individuals that engage in shaping the political discourse of various issues like the economy and foreign policy.
The nature of the political system of Iran as a whole can best be characterized as a mixture of an authoritarian, totalitarian and democratic system.41 It has characteristics of a totalitarian regime because it proclaims absolute control of an ideology over public life. There is a limited degree of pluralism which correspondents with an authoritarian regime. The right for the people to vote relates the practice to democratic principles. This mixture of elements makes Iran significantly different from other nondemocratic countries as it distributes the power top-down in a decentralized way.
4.2.2 Democracy in Saudi Arabia
The political system of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is that of an absolute monarchy based on the principle of the Quran. The royal family Al Saud rules the country, as the dynasty rights are confined to the sons of sons of the Founder, King Abdul Aziz Al Saud. The King decides who the Crown Prince will be and thus who will be the next to which central power will be authorized. The hierarchy of the political system is as follows:
41
Figure 2: The Political Hierarchy of Saudi Arabia (source: hierarchystructure.com)
Figure 2 shows that, compared to the political system of Iran, the power distribution in Saudi Arabia is much more centralized as it is concentrated at the King. The present head of state is King Salman, who acceded the throne on January 23 2015. He combines the executive, legislative and judicial branch and functions as head of state, the Prime Minister and Commander in Chief. This means that the King controls is due to the sole domination of the royal family. The Intelligence Unit of The Economist lists the Saudi in 2010, as the seventh most authoritarian regime among 167 countries.42 The right to vote in Saudi Arabia does not exist on the national level as the power is and remains constitutionally in the hands of the King. Only on issues of the local level, elections exist that allow male and female candidates. Even the municipality elections are rare, because they only occurred two times, of which one was delayed with two years.
The Islamic religion in Saudi Arabia maintains its validity and integrity, as no Muslim should feel inconsistency between the rules of religion and the demands of life. Saudi Arabia stands further away from Western societies compared with Iran because the autocratic system enforces the rules of religion. In Iran, institutions embedded within society in a similar way to institutions in Western societies, cover the application of Islamic law.
4.3 The value of Human Rights
Just like the promotion of democracy as a political system, human rights are positioned as one of the core objectives in US foreign policy. Spreading these values is essential for the achievement peace and prosperity, according to the Obama administration. In this sub-section I therefore will investigate how human rights are judged differently towards Iran and Saudi Arabia. But first the general interpretation of the US perception of human rights will be discussed.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is the concept of human rights that is adopted by the United Nations and supported and signed by the US. The UDHR was adopted in 1948 in Paris and is seen as a first global expression of consensus on which rights human beings should mean. In the first two articles, which are the foundation blocks, the principles of dignity, liberty, equality, and brotherhood are underlines. After these articles, the rights of the individual human being are discussed: the right to life in general, and thus also prohibiting slavery. The fourth part of the declaration, and specifically the articles 22-27, discusses the relation of the individual to society. This field of tension is relevant for this study because the US judges how the state interacts with its citizens, and based on those practices foreign policy is shaped towards other countries. About the dynamics between state and individuals the UDHR prescribes the following: “In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.” (UDHR, Article 29).
Mentioning the democratic society already indicates a cohesive sphere where universalism meets liberalism: the ideals that form the core of US foreign policy during the Obama administration. Obama advocated these ideals of the UDHR clearly in his speeches: “When the United States stands up for human rights, by example at home and by effort abroad, we align ourselves with men and women around the world who struggle for the right to speak their minds, to choose their leaders, and to be treated with dignity and respect.”43
The way that human rights are conceptualized in the UDHR is criticized by many countries, including Muslim countries, for of its universal pretension that does not take into consideration the cultural, religious, and historical reality of non-Western countries.
43
Obama, B. (2008)http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/statement_of_president_elect_obama_on_human_rights_day/. Retrieved 24-6-2006.
Translating the concept of human rights by the US into foreign policy means articulating criteria to judge other countries with the aim to secure peace, promote the rule of law, combat crime and corruption, and prevent humanitarian crises. In practical sense one speaks of freedom from torture, freedom of expression, women’s rights, children’s rights, the death penalty and the protection of minorities. Ironically, the US itself still adopts the death penalty in 31 of the 50 federal states, and is guilty of torturing prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, which still counts approximately 116 inmates.44
Thus, human rights functions as a tool for the US to hold governments accountable for protecting human rights. Implicitly it entails that the promotion of human rights serve the US security interests by advancing responsiveness to the will of people and in that sense diminish the possibility of aggressive action.45
4.3.1 Human Rights in Iran
Iran also signed the UHDR in 1948 but has a different interpretation of human rights as their conception is rooted in Islam and the human rights practices need to be conforming the sharia law. However, its citizens, actors from the international community and human rights activists, have criticized Iran for violating human rights systematically.
The critique of the violation of human rights can be related to the broader academic discussion on how to interpret the UHDR from the perspective of the Quran, which argues that the concept of the individual as “the measure of all things” has a major weakness, namely neglecting the relation with god. Because the individual decides what is right and what is wrong, and what is good and what is bad, erosion of absolute spiritual and moral values will occur.46
The different interpretation of human rights, one without and one with a relation to god has implications for different sorts of human rights within the context of Iran concerning women’s rights, the freedom of press and the freedom of speech. Women face significant legal, religious and cultural barriers to political participation and are not allowed serving as a judge. They have the right to vote, drive a car and apply for government positions, but in practice they are still subject to discrimination under law. Women are required to be covered in public, have less inheritance and divorce rights, and their testimony in court weighs only
44 Amnesty USA (2016). Guantanamo and Legal Detention.
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/security-and-human-rights/guantanamo. Retrieved 24-6-2006.
45
Abrams, Elliott, et al. (2012), p. 20.
half as much as that of man. Gender inequality is thus a major issue as it ranges from institutional barriers to practical implication like inefficient protection of sexual harassments. Media freedom is constrained as the Iranian Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance blocks websites and blogs that are critical to the government. Although the Constitution states that there is freedom of press, in practice most western content is considered as “detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public.”47 Article 3 of the constitution states that the press only has the right to publish opinions, critiques, suggestions and explanations within the frame of public information that is in interests of the community and concerns Islamic teachings.48 Reporters without Borders, a non-governmental organization that ranks countries to the degree of press freedom, ranked Iran in the worse category because of the use of violence against journalists.49 Iran is ranked 169 in the past year.50 This recently also caused tension in the US-Iranian dynamic when US-Iranian journalist Jason Rezaeiejan was convicted in October 2015, a few months before the implementation of the JCPOA.51 Thus, it can be stated that in Iran human rights are violated according to the standards of the US. In the next sub-section the interpretation of the concept of human rights by Saudi Arabia, and the human rights practices on the domestic level will be examined.
4.3.2 Human Rights in Saudi Arabia
In sub-section 4.2.2 the political system of Saudi Arabia has been described as an autocratic system where the power is fully concentrated in the hands of the royal family. The national constitution is directly derived from the sharia law and leaves small space for rights as articulated in the UDHR. Saudi Arabia did not sign the UDHR drawing on the argument that she did not support the fundamental assumptions regarding the relationship between individual and society. The civil law does not protect individual human rights, including freedoms of speech and press. Much critique is articulated from the international community and human rights activists because the different interpretation causes the violation of human rights in many ways that hurts the Saudi citizens. The nongovernmental organization Freedom House measures the degree of civil liberties and political rights and concludes that Saudi Arabia has a minimum score of 7 out of 7 points, whereas Iran has 6 in every single year between 2010-2016.52
47
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2015/iran. Retrieved 24-6-2006.
48
Iranian Constitution. http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/government/constitution.html. Retrieved 24-6-2006.
49 Jounalists Without Borders. (2016). 50
Ibid.
51
Katzman, K. (2016), p. 25.
52
The most recent (2015) U.S. State Department report on human rights in Saudi Arabia states that “women continued to face significant discrimination under law and custom, and many remained uninformed about their rights.” 53 Saudi women face restrictions on travel and employment, are not allowed to drive a car, and have access to higher education, only with the permission of a male guardian.54 Compared to the rights of women in Iran, there is even les social and personal autonomy.
Press freedom in Saudi Arabia is strictly censored in order to prevent dissidents to publish anything that is an offensive to the regime that is built on the fundamental culture of the Wahhabis. The Basic Law prescribes that “mass media and all other vehicles of expression shall employ civil and polite language, contribute towards the education of the nation, and strengthen unity. The media is prohibited from committing acts that lead to disorder and division, affect the security of the state or its public relations, or undermine human dignity and rights.”55
Also according to non-governmental organizations like Journalist Without Borders the violation of human rights is severe as Saudi Arabia is ranked 165 from 180 countries, and thus ranked among the worse countries when it comes to press freedom.56
4.4 Double Standards on Democracy and Human Rights
The value of democracy as articulated by Obama entails the existence of political institutions that enables a people to elect their leadership and exert influence in policy making. Iran and Saudi Arabia are both Muslim countries that base their societies on the principles of sharia law. The first issue in the question of double standard would be the issue of which concept is used to claim what democratic value means. From a US perspective it would mean that a state should be secular, as the religion cannot be imposed on individuals by the government. In that case one can argue that both Iran and Saudi Arabia are not democratic, because they both claim that Islam should be the basis for their political system as they are constitutionally religious societies.
Drawn further on this assumption of democracy and a secular approach, Iran comes closer to the US ideal of democracy because they have political institutions that enable the people to
53
U.S. State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015, Saudi Arabia, April 2016. http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2015. Retrieved 24-6-2006.
54 Human Right Watch (2015). Report: Saudi Arabia. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/saudi-arabia.
Retrieved 24-6-2006.
55
Ibid.
elect leaders in the position of president and the national parliament. Even though human rights are violated in a way that should not be down played, women have relatively more autonomy in Iran compared to Saudi Arabia. The autocratic monarchy of Saudi Arabia stands further away from the American ideal of democracy than Iran. Yet the US supports the Saudi regime, while at the same time it denounces Iran for not being democratic.
The double standards concerning the promotion of human rights and democracy appears from a bill proposed in the US Congress to promote human rights and democracy in Iran on May 4 2011. The bill57 declared: (1) to deny the Iranian government the ability to continue to oppress the people of Iran; (2) to fully and publicly support efforts made by the people of Iran to promote the establishment of basic freedom; (3) to help the Iranian people produce, access, and share information freely and safely via the Internet and through other media; and (4) to defeat all attempts by the government to deny international satellite broadcast signals. The bill was not enacted, but proposing the bill is a signal of a double standard in foreign policy-making because not one comparable bill can be traced in the congressional records concerning the human rights practices in Saudi Arabia.
The conclusion is that the Obama administration maintains a double standard regarding the core values of democracy and human rights. Iran comes closer to these values in its political institutions and practice compared to Saudi Arabia, yet Saudi Arabia is an ally and Iran an enemy. In order to understand why, we should look into how US foreign policy is constructed and which factors determine the political relationship between the US and these two countries.
57
5.
US Foreign Policy: the Process of Foreign Policy-Making
In the previous chapter I have established that fact that double standards are used in foreign policy by the Obama administration. This is necessary for explaining why double standards are used. In this chapter we go into the dependent variable: US foreign policy. I will examine how foreign policy is constructed and put in practice.
Before going into the dependent variable, it is necessary to understand the institutional domestic political structure of the US. The US has a federal structure in which the federal government shares power through government institutions in a decentralized way. These government institutions can be seen as separate units because they are quite autonomous as they are functionally, electorally, and operationally distinct of one another.58 Together they are part of a multilateral system in which the independent units participate on a constitutionally equal basis and can contribute equally to the national decision-making process. However, the national decision-making process has relatively small overlap with the process of foreign policy-making.
Foreign policy is for the most important part made at the national level. The most influential actors in the development of US foreign policy are: the President, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor to the President, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) and lobbyist groups.59 A lot of research has been done on the impact of the public opinion on the process of foreign policy-making, but in this research it will be assumed that it is Congress that expresses the voice of the public opinion.
The role of the President and Congress are very important in foreign policy making because they share power in a balanced way. Thus, the President has power that Congress does not have, and vice versa. The president can veto legislation, Congress can override the president and the courts can declare laws and acts of both actors unconstitutional. As Commander in Chief the President has the leading role because he owns the power to decide whether or not to make use of armed forces, while for the declaration of warfare the approval of Congress is needed.60 Congress does not have executive, but legislative power and is ensuring that the president cannot abuse his power. Edward Corwin therefore characterized foreign
58 Fabbrini, S. (2010), p. 559. 59 Pickering, T. (2000), p. 5 60
making as “an invitation for struggle” between the president and Congress.61 What Corwin basically says is that the question of who makes foreign policy does not have a precise answer. Whether or not this is good, is a question for debate, but inherently the US Constitution is defined in a way that is not easy to determine which branches has the overhand in articulating the foreign policy. Grimmith argues that foreign policy-making inherently is and must stay a complex process that involves countless actors that contribute to a process that results in dozens of individual policies towards different countries, regions, as well as functional problems.62 Finally, the US Supreme Court has the overarching function of making sure that Congress and the President are both not abusing power.
The National State Department also embodies a crucial role in the process of foreign policy-making. This institution is responsible for the US external relations. The Head of the Department is the Secretary of State. In Obama’s first term this was Hillary Clinton, and during his second term John Kerry. The relationship between the Secretary of State and the President is vital for conducting foreign policy as it runs the daily transactions of US foreign policy. These include treaty negotiations, the protection of US citizens abroad, representation at meetings, and so on.63 The officials of the CIA and National Defense Department are relatively new institutions and form the second layer of foreign policy. They give the President advice concerning national security questions and implement decision-making taken by the inner circle. Even though many observers of foreign policy decisions in the past doubt it, they tend not to affect the sharpness of the debate by adding political insights and touch the fields of interests.64
Another important active branch that shapes the dependent variable is the lobby. This nongovernmental branch is perceived as a vague phenomenon that has the ability to work effectively within the American political system. Mearsheimer and Walt wrote a controversial book on the Israel lobby, using the definition that described the lobby as “convenient short-hand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy”.65 Because the US government has a decentralized national structure, there are many channels for interest groups to exert influence on processes of policy making. Contributions in campaigns, voting elections, lobbying elected representatives and members of the Executive Branch and molding the public opinion are only a few of the examples to
61
Corwin, E. (1957). p. 171.
62 Grimmith, R. F. (1999). http://fpc.state.gov/6172.htm. Retrieved 24-6-2006. 63
US Department of State. (2009).
64
Pickering, T. (2000), p. 5.
65
mention. They are active in various sectors and industries. One sources estimates the value of the expenditure of the lobby at more than 3 billion dollars.66 Between 2009-2016 more than 12,000 special lobbyist groups are registered to lobby members of Congress and the administration.67
Over the course of history, the “separated institutions sharing power” have proven to be a pendulum of power on foreign policy that shifted back and forth between Congress and the president. According to Lindsay Congress’s shifting deference to and defiance of presidential leadership are cohesive with a political dynamic that can be traced back to the beginning of the American republic.68 After the 9/11 terrorists attacks Bush’s leadership was unquestioned, while during the Obama administration the realization of policy was more of a struggle. The political context, the timeframe and pressure from the public domain are also important factors that contribute to the making of foreign policy.
In summary it can be stated that the real answer for explaining foreign policy does not lie in the Constitution, but in politics. Lindsay explains that the aggressiveness of Congress concerning foreign policy powers is related to critical questions of the extent to which the US feels threatened or secure and whether the president’s policies are succeeding or failing.69 The power distribution within the US is a complex web of actors and institutions, all contributing to the foreign policy-making process.
Yet, the final result of these process – foreign policy acts – is that there is a consistency in shared norms and values among all the actors and in perceived common economic and military interest. So the double standard is not from one sector of the policy making body, but from the body as a whole. The economic and military interests may be stronger than consistency in norms and values, as I will explain in the next chapters.
66
Statista (2016) Number of registered active lobbyists in the United States from 1998 to 2015. http://www.statista.com/statistics/257340/number-of-lobbyists-in-the-us/. Retrieved 24-6-2006. 67 Ibid. 68 Lindsay, J. (2003), p. 531. 69
