Well if you want to talk sanctions, I'd say selling them $110 billion in weapons a few months back is slightly more concerning than slamming shut the bank counter screens on them.
Selling weapons to Saudis has been going on for decades, Trump, Obama, Clinton, Bush... all have been selling them weapons for billions of dollars.
It's pretty big hypocrisy of US, on one hand you consider Iran the most evil nation state in the world (or at least ME region) and have been sanctioning them for decades (with slight easing of that approach recently), on the other hand nobody bats an eye for selling weapons to SA and treating them as a great ally and friend.
I never could understand this big glaring hypocrisy from my European point of view. Perhaps it has something to do with politics in US but even then it's hard for me to understand why the one is ally and the other enemy.
> I never could understand this big glaring hypocrisy from my European point of view.
Surely you're joking. All the major European nations have been masters of exactly what you're describing for centuries. It has been historically routine European behavior.
There are plenty of modern examples of it. See: the French, UK and German relationship with Iraq pre Gulf War and their assistance with Iraq vs Iran. Germany massively supplied Iraq with the ability to make chemical weapons.
Before the US made the mistake of deeply intertwining itself throughout what goes on in the Middle East, the major European nations had been at it for centuries (and several of them are still very actively doing exactly the same things the US is doing, usually in proportion to their economic or military capabilities).
I'm aware of it. The difference is most European countries have no real way to extend their military or economic power meaningfully.
Only US is capable of invading almost any country it wants relatively easily due to its huge navy and aircraft and military bases all over the world. With its huge economy only US can really put meaningful sanctions on foreign countries (US navy basically singlehandedly controls international maritime trade). Notice that almost all sanctions are led by US as EU just nods in agreement and does whatever US tells them to do.
So similar hypocrisy from European countries is less dangerous but US with its power akin to British Empire before can literally rewrite borders around the world and overthrow governments at whim. So when US says Saudi Arabia is an ally and Iran is enemy, that dictates the policy of the whole western world basically.
> They eventually came to an agreement that centered around U.S. support and military training for Saudi Arabia, then a fledgling country surrounded by stronger nations, in return for oil and political support in the region.
Maybe the problem is the point where they exploit their own citizens, enslave foreigners, fund terrorism, and abuse women - not where they do all that and then invest money in US tech industry? Otherwise it sounds like we're ok with all this enslavement, abuse and all, but just to a point - and the breaking point where we say "no more! we really need to have a serious talk about it now!" is buying AAPL stock. Doesn't sound good to me.
Isolation has been proven not to spread capitalism as well as trade. China, Iran, and more got better at human rights with free trade with free capitalistic societies
I take your point, but I never found SV to be particularly more moral or just than any other money hub. We aren't particularly surprised when Wall Street makes decisions purely based on money.
SV is not particularly moral in relationship to the rest of the society, neither should it be - there's no reason why knowing how to program or assemble electronic gadgets makes one more morally advanced.
However, when all that stuff in Saudia happens, I don't see too many articles in the Big Press worrying about it day and night. But when they buy some AAPL stock suddenly NYT wakes up and cries out for the inhumanity of the Saudi regime. Where were you all the time before?!
I wouldn't expect any particular moral advancedness from SV and Wall Street. But I would expect that the same people who slept through decades of Saudis being around, doing what they do, sending money into the US and buying all kind of stuff won't wake up now and start crying "but how can SV accept money from evil Saudis!"
I mean it's good we're talking morals. But it is very questionable that we are only talking morals in very isolated cases. It is good to have principles, but when principles are taken out of the pocket when it's convenient and hidden back what that is more convenient, those aren't principles one can respect.
We don’t have any moral or ethical ability to police the Saudis or any other foreign state on those issues, and moralizing from afar accomplishes nothing.
But the tech industry and the individuals within it can choose who we do business with, cries of “fiduciary duty” notwithstanding.
The best way to bring countries into the fold of western civilization, to convince them to adopt our beliefs and values, is to engage with them in trade.
Exclusionary tactics have not had great results, historically.
I see your point, but practically speaking they can give tech company is money and still stop women from driving. It seems like they take the profits from trade and give it to terrorists, so we should probably brainstorm other solutions and not create dead ends with pseudo-platitudes
We've come from far, far worse. To suggest that global trade is a dead end is an absurdity -- founding the UN and fostering trade has brought enormous and unprecedented levels of progressive prosperity across the globe.
Dead end? Only if you're ignoring the last century of history.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but we aren't innocent either. I'd say perhaps on a spectrum they are worse than us on human rights, but there was the Iraq war, Vietnam , etc. Are we supposed to no longer pay taxes or use government provided infrastructure?
You are correct, but not quite applicable in this debate.
SV companies didn't actively order/control invading other nations or violate human rights. In fact, they are very vocally against US/West doing such things.
But the sovereign funds from ME that are providing funding are pretty much the same people in charge of those nations.
Ensuring human rights for everything in the tech value chain is going to be almost impossible.
Also consider that if you do this, then the investors will just set up trusts. They'll invest in the companies that invest in the investment companies.
You apply pressure on companies taking investment from the Saudis collectively.
If you can’t support Uber because of an atmosphere of sexually harassment, how can you support them when their investment dollars are coming from a country that subjugates women? That creates an indentured servant class from imported labor? That sort of argument. It’s blood money, and that’s the narrative you use (if one was so inclined).
You apply pressure on companies taking investment from the Saudis collectively.
That's just rephrasing it... how do you apply pressure? Everyone needs oil, many don't care about these issues, so how do we make them toe a line? What pressure do we exert? How much political capital do we burn without a hope of return?
At the end of the day though, you say "blood money" as though both sides aren't drenched in it. Moreover, whoever the Saudis are killing, it's with our weapons systems. They're newcomers to a game that the US has been playing for centuries, and Europe much longer. They're something between our rogue asset in the region, and our abusive soon-to-be-ex-spouse. Everyone sees it coming, especially the Saudis who are going so far as to clean house and contemplate an Aramco IPO to avoid being reclaimed by the desert.
Diplomacy is the art of saying “good dog” until you make it to the rock. We’re not to the rock yet.
I’d agree with your sentiment that they’re too much of an ally for anything meaningful to be done about their investments, but the winds shift quickly.
Minimum standards of conduct before a nation is allowed to do trade another nation or to join a trade agreement...or basically like most other negotiations.
This is the same country that the US funnels weapons into, and uses for leverage in the region. Does it make the US complicit in the actions that Saudi Arabia does? Now does it make sense to ask for Saudi Arabia to be sanctioned when it comes to business investments?
So party A has high standards, parties B and C don't and just trade with each other. Party A withers and and its resources are eventually aligned with B and C anyway. This is not an effective way to fight anything, it's just suicide.
Just quoting @l33tbro <<Well if you want to talk sanctions, I'd say selling them $110 billion in weapons a few months back is slightly more concerning than where they invest.>>
The purpose of political rhetoric is political. The purpose of pro-human-rights language in the west is to change the political order in the west to the advantage of the orators. It is NOT to make things pro-human-rights.
So you're violating the rules. You propose actual change. This is not allowed. You only get to propose putting the current favorites into "power" (for them of course the same rules apply: they don't get to make actual change except on the edges of the sidelines. E.g. assign construction projects to their favorites).
This is as true in San Francisco as it is in Washington.
