This week the government scrapped a controversial £5.9m deal to provide training for Saudi Arabia’s prison service. The bid – part of a now-defunct Ministry of Justice project aimed at selling “expert” services to foreign governments – was “strongly opposed” by Michael Gove, who became justice secretary in May, notes Kate Allen in the Financial Times.
It had also been criticised by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Supporters (including the home secretary, Theresa May, and the foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, pictured) had argued that the deal, proposed by Gove’s predecessor Chris Grayling, would “cement Britain’s business relationship with Saudi Arabia”. But in the end, as news broke separately of a British grandfather facing 350 lashes in Saudi for being caught with homemade wine, David Cameron overruled his colleagues.
Like it or not, “we have to deal with regimes that make no pretence to be democratic or to subscribe to Western notions of what constitutes human rights or proportionate justice”, argues The Daily Telegraph. Despite its many shortcomings, Saudi Arabia “has been a crucial ally in the Gulf… and sustained many thousands of jobs in the defence industry”. Even Gove accepts that. Changing policy to suit short-term concerns “is neither ethical nor pragmatic, merely opportunistic”.
Trade has “a liberalising ‘nudge effect’ in reducing poverty and keeping lines open to those who one day may foster change in a country”, agrees The Guardian’s Simon Jenkins. But if we’re prepared to cut a deal with Riyadh, “why then do we refuse to trade with Russia, Iran, Burma and other states with which we also claim to have ‘human rights issues’? Such double standards are hypocrisy.”
Cancelling this deal was the right thing to do, but we’re still “up to our necks” in Saudi Arabia, says The Independent’s Jane Merrick. “British and Saudi companies have more than 200 joint ventures worth £13bn” and leaked cables have revealed that the two “worked together to get each other’s country a seat on the UN Human Rights Council”.
Yet these “sordid” attempts to cosy up to the Saudis may be unnecessary, says John Barclay in the Daily Mail. Its “royal family is more vulnerable than ever”. As well as being embroiled in a costly war in Yemen, its Syrian policy has been “scuppered” by “Russia’s dramatic intervention”. Meanwhile, the slide in oil prices has forced “massive” public spending cuts. With King Salman “reportedly on his deathbed”, Britain can make it clear that “the Saudis do not have us pinned over an oil barrel”.
Saudi is far from the only dubious regime our government has wooed, says Rachel Sylvester in The Times. “Nervousness is growing about the chancellor’s determination to drum up business in China”, for example, with civil servants warning that “national security could be compromised if large chunks of British infrastructure are sold off to a potentially hostile power”. While “it is always difficult to balance money and morality in foreign policy… there is more to the national interest than GDP”. Trade-hungry ministers and diplomats are at risk of losing “their sense of British values”.