Is democratic reform in Saudi Arabia in Americas national interest?

The society needs:

1. A more even distribution of economic resources across the population
2. An end to monarchal underpinnigs, i.e. the concept of aristocracy has to go
3. Literacy
4. Understanding of a market economy
5. General stake in the economic stability of the country by most of the population
6. End of state sanction race hate
7. Freedom of press/religion

Many other factors.

It's safe to say, this will never, never, never happen in Saudi.

How is that not incredibly condescending? So the people of Saudi Arabia cannot handle any form of progresive government, ever?

Many other factors.

you could say at least some of these things about the UK and Japan, for that matter.

1. Women are not allowed to drive.
2. Women are not allowed to appear in public without a male family member.
3. Despite countless billions in oil revenues, more and more of the population exists in poverty.
4. Women are denied meaningful access to education.
5. Literacy: male: 84.7%
female: 70.8%
6. arable land: 1.72%
7. 35% of the population in the 15-64 age group is non-national
8. Still "at war" with Israel, the country, or rather Jews, blamed for most of the world's problems.

It's unlikely that the physical, geographical, political, religious, and economic features of the country and culture are going to allow for positive change.

Rather than saying that it's condescending not to adopt Marlo-Thomas-I'm-OKAY-you're-OKAY-free-to-be-you-and-me party line that all cultures are equally valid, you can point out how the specific features of the saudi culture are going to lead to positive change.

that sucks, and seems to be something peculiar to muslim fundamentalist societies.

2. Women are not allowed to appear in public without a male family member.

again, that sucks. but see the "barefoot and pregnant" mentality of the christian right (and other neanderthals of whatever [or NO] religion). the mindset is not peculiar to the saudis, though arguably its mentality is.

3. Despite countless billions in oil revenues, more and more of the population exists in poverty.

see United States, jan '01 to present.

4. Women are denied meaningful access to education.

again, not exclusive to the saudis. see also those ranting against affirmative action.

5. Literacy: male: 84.7%
female: 70.8%

what's the appropriate context for a valid comparison? is this out-of-whack for a country of saudi arabia's economic development?

6. arable land: 1.72%

this has to do w/ geography, not the saudi government's doing!

7. 35% of the population in the 15-64 age group is non-national

what's alarming about this is that the non-nationals are treated poorly. again, this is not exclusive to the saudis -- and american illegals (or german/french/japanese/israeli "guest workers") aren't exactly pampered, either.

8. Still "at war" with Israel, the country, or rather Jews, blamed for most of the world's problems.

there's no anti-semitism outside of saudi arabia?

Compare the economic development of South Korea or Taiwan to Saudi Arabia, both of which were also completely built from scratch around the same time without the natural gift of billions in oil revenue.

I'm not sure how proving the society isn't progressive now proves it can't change in the future. Pressure for reform will come internally (and hopefully externally) the more globalization continues to move across Asian and Arabic countries.

It's one thing to want a woman to raise kids and stay at home, it's another to beat her to death for being raped (etc. etc. etc.).

I'm not sure Iran is a useful comparison. Until the revolution, Iran was extremely western facing, open and liberal economically even though the shah ruled with a heavy hand. The economy was more diversified, the role of women was different, the emphasis on education was different, the geography is different, on and on. Saudi has never had an open model. Their biggest problem is that the majority of the stakeholders in the country have nothing to lose. That doesn't lead to stability. This was different in Iran and this is one reason the strangle hold of the mullahs is slipping there.

Of course the geography of Saudi isn't the people's fault. That doesn't change anything, however. They've got little to work with. And the huge number of guest workers implies that they don't want to do the kinds of jobs that often provide unskilled workers access to the workplace. Come on, 35% non-nationals?

Comparison of the US christian right to saudi sharia re: treatment of women is a specious argument.

Change has to come from within. If it comes from without, it is seen as a different form of oppression, and will only make things worse.

The trick in gareth's question is what the fuck "national interest" means, and I agree w/kate that the current intl. definition of this as put forth by US of A needs a boot up its ass, from within (unless we want to suffer even more boots from without)

probably a fully functioning, open, democratic saudi would be in the interest of most nations. But the kind of transition that would be necessary, would be marked by years of anarchy, violence, etc. So getting to openess is probably not in the "national interest" of those with a vested interest in the nation. Or something.

But is it in the National Velvet of the U.S.? That's the question!

SARS: it's not just for diseases anymore.

I appreciate Dutton's implicit forthrightness in the article. "Look, I can't say anything anyone would believe, so will this do?"

Why does any society need this?

seriously what the hell is going on pic.twitter.com/citVKdNviH

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 7, 2017

"Michael Corleone boldly consolidates power and pushes sweeping reforms on NYC Italian-American community"

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) November 7, 2017

lots of cringe-inducing parts to @NorahODonnell's MbS puff piece but where she claims "the crown prince represents the vast majority of the Saudi people" & they see him as "a kindred spirit" was the low point. Was there an election i missed? A poll? Anything to back this claim? pic.twitter.com/hxlNAZxsZG

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) March 19, 2018

increasingly believe that "national interest" is a categorical error

That 60 Minutes interview was fluff

The US never indulged SA before. Trump is once again trampling on old norms. Obama’s arms sales had nothing to do with Yemen, and SA’s contributions to the @ClintonFdn are trivial. https://t.co/73lvv5SKDH

— Doug Henwood (@DougHenwood) October 12, 2018

Probably the same deep ties that the House of Saud had with the House of Obama, and every President's House before that. https://t.co/tF1UT5uIp5

— Dennis Perrin (@DennisThePerrin) October 20, 2018

The deep US ties to the Saudi monarchy go back to the beginnings of Aramco (Arab-American Oil Company) in the 1930s. We've been scratching one another's backs ever since. If 9/11 wasn't enough to put substantial distance between us and the House of Saud, then the gangland style execution of Khashoggi surely won't disturb that cozy relationship.

someone tell Meathead