Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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)
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.