Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1816983452

Europe pushes ban on weapons to repressive Gulf regimes, why can't the US?

Time to acknowledge that a deal with Israel for 'normalization' won't get the UAE, Bahrain, and others off the hook.

Analysis | Middle East

The European Parliament has adopted a motion on EU arms exports control demanding to put an end to the sales of European arms, as well as surveillance technology and any other equipment that could facilitate internal repression, to Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, and Egypt.

The resolution, approved September 17, reminds us that, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the EU-28 was collectively the second largest arms exporter to Saudi Arabia and UAE for the period 2015-2019, and that both countries, among other parties, are perpetrating international crimes in Yemen. MEPs also urged all EU members to follow the example of Germany, Finland and Denmark which adopted restrictions on arms exports to Saudi Arabia in the wake of the brutal murder of the dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi two years ago.

The European Parliament’s move coincided with a renewed focus on the arms sales to Persian Gulf monarchies on the other side of the Atlantic. In the last several years, efforts to halt them in the U.S. Congress came to naught due to the Trump administration’s virtually unconditional support for Saudi Arabia. An article in The New York Times in mid-September, however, re-ignited the debate by highlighting the possibility that State Department and Pentagon officials who authorized the bombs sales to Saudi Arabia, and in this way, aided strikes against the civilians in Yemen, could be prosecuted for war crimes.  

Meanwhile, in Canada, a coalition of human rights and arms control NGOs urged Prime-Minister Justin Trudeau to halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia after a UN panel for the first time implicated Canada in fueling the war in Yemen, alongside other countries. 

Strengthening the case for a review of the current policy in the U.S., Canada, and the EU itself is not the only reason why the timing of the European Parliament’s vote is relevant. Another is the fact that it took place literally the within 24 hours of the White House ceremony, celebrating, with a great pomp, the so-called Abraham Accords, or Israel’s “normalization deals” with the UAE and Bahrain.  

The reaction of Washington’s European allies was far more subdued. The EU High representative for foreign policy Josep Borrell welcomed the deals in a rather lukewarm statement in which he reminded Israel of the need to abandon, not merely suspend, any plans for annexation of Palestinian territories on the West Bank. It was also telling that the only EU member state invited to the occasion was Hungary, whose authoritarian leader Viktor Orban has spent the past decade dismantling Hungarian democracy and clashing with Brussels. Orban is also known to be an ardent supporter of both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. 

The vote in the European Parliament, meanwhile, tells us that deals with Israel cannot shield the UAE and Bahrain from criticisms of their repressive policies and, in the case of UAE, war crimes in Yemen. 

That is not to say that they have no allies in the assembly. The strategy Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Egypt have pursued over the last few years, often through lobby groups in Brussels, was to forge alliances with the right-of center political groups.  Last week’s vote in the European Parliament, however, suggested that this strategy is not yielding the desired results.  The right-wing groups sought to delete all critical references to the Gulf trio and Egypt, but failed. The main center-right faction, European People’s Party (EPP), however, abstained on the final vote on the resolution.  Some moderate conservatives from Netherlands, Belgium, Finland and Austria dissented from the EPP line and joined the liberal and center-left groups in backing the motion; it seems that the weight of public opinion, particularly on Saudi Arabia, is no longer possible to ignore.  

At the same time, the extreme right rejected the resolution altogether, proving to be, yet again, the most faithful European friends of the regimes in Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, Manama and Cairo. This alliance with Islamophobes, in addition to a perceived indifference to the Palestinian cause, is likely to further tarnish the Saudi, Emirati and Bahraini reputation in the Arab and Muslim worlds. 

The vote in the European Parliament has added momentum for a reinvigorated transatlantic push for a halt to arms sales to Saudi Arabia and UAE. Some influential EU member states like Germany already implement it for exports to Saudi Arabia. Others must follow. The policy of unbridled arms sales to Saudi Arabia and UAE is morally, legally and politically indefensible as it strengthens their highly repressive regimes, fuels regional conflicts and makes Western democracies complicit in war crimes in Yemen.  It is time to stop this aberration, and for that, a transatlantic mobilization of pro-peace and pro-restraint forces is essential. The vote in the European Parliament is a step in the right direction. 

 This article reflects the personal views of the author and not necessarily the opinions of the S&D Group and the European Parliament.


Washington DC, USA - September 15, 2020: Benjamin Netanyahu, Donald Trump, Abdullatif bin Rashid Al Zayani, and Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan attend the Abraham Accords ceremony in The White House. (noamgalai/shutterstock)
Analysis | Middle East
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.