Clinton Supports the Women of the Gulf!

Saudi women have begun a campaign to end the driving ban that has intensified with the United States’ entrance on the front lines. This issue has drawn the attention of the British newspaper The Guardian, which commented on statements made by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the topic, saying that Clinton’s comments are the first on women’s right to drive in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and that it is in the nature of these comments to further harm relations between Riyadh and Washington. Clinton’s remarks came a day after the State Department announced that it would deal with this issue through “quiet diplomacy,” which demonstrates that this issue has officially entered the context of Saudi-American relations. In her comments, Secretary Clinton praised women’s protest against this ban and credited the movement with encouraging the pursuit of their rights, and stressed that they are acting on their own behalf(!). She added, “I am moved by [their effort to end this ban] and I support them, but I want to underscore the fact that this is not coming from outside the country,” as though trying to contradict any future interference!

On the other hand, the Guardian’s position on the issue of the driving ban for women is that, in the newspaper’s words, “The protests have put the Obama administration, and Clinton in particular, in a difficult position. While she and many other top U.S. officials personally oppose the Saudi ban on female drivers, the administration is increasingly reliant on Saudi authorities to provide stability and continuity in the Middle East and Gulf amid uprisings taking place across the Arab world. Thus, some officials have been reluctant to antagonize the Saudis.”

The United States’ position on the issue of Saudi women gives us a level of proof of the White House’s mechanism for dealing with the Arab Spring: On one hand, the U.S. wants to appear to be a guardian of democracy and a supporter of human rights, but at the same time it wants smooth cooperation with the countries with which it depends on a certain level of cooperation. It measures the weight and essence of the comments made on a golden scale, waiting for a protest movement in an Arab country to develop — the rise in its rhetoric is directly proportional to the escalation of the popular movement, and this and the situation are linked to the degree of popular support. Thus the heat of its comments increase alongside this popular support, and this explains America’s cautious position on the Syrian movement; the White House is waiting for more heat from the Syrian street before it changes its constant position. As Assad begins to lose his legitimacy, the continuing calls to translate his speeches on reform into action, statements may rise to the level of “Assad must go!”

Those expecting outsiders to change things will be waiting for a long time. The Libyan case is an exception, singular in more than one way; Gadhafi encouraged disputes with Arab leaders over his expulsion from the Arab League, and additionally the atmosphere was ripe for sanctions from the Security Council, covering the attack on him with a U.N. decision. This is not to speak of the oil factor, which the West considers to be its property, simply held in trust by the Arabs. With regards to Egypt, the people resolved the conflict quickly. In Yemen, counter-support came from neighboring countries for their special relationship with Yemen while foreign support was delayed, because Yemen is the first line of defense for the oil wells. As for Syria, a great deal more blood will be spilled before foreign support arrives!