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
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

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.