Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1588002304-scaled

European Parliament urges boycott of G-20 in Saudi Arabia

The European Parliament joined an international movement to protest the Saudi government’s gross human rights abuses.

Analysis | Reporting | Middle East
google cta
google cta

On October 19, members of the European Parliament unveiled a petition to the leaders of the EU — Charles Michel and Ursula Von der Leyen, the presidents of the Council and Commission, respectively — not to attend the G-20 summit to be held in Saudi Arabia on November 21-22. 

Marie Arena, chair of the human rights sub-committee, and Marc Tarabella, vice-chair of the committee for relations with the Arabian Peninsula spearheaded a letter, signed by 65 MEPs, urging the EU leaders not to legitimize the oppressive Saudi regime with their presence, and downgrade their participation to a level of senior officials, if not withdraw altogether.  

This initiative mirrors similar efforts in the U.S. Congress and British parliament and  comes after the mayors of New York, Los Angeles, Paris, and London decided to pull out from the G-20 mayors’ meeting because of Saudi Arabia’s gross human rights record. The petition also reinforces the resolution the European Parliament adopted on October 8 with a similar call.

That landmark resolution, adopted with 413 votes, 233 abstentions, and only 49 votes against, was one of the strongest rebukes ever issued by the EU to the kingdom. While technically not binding, it sends a strong political message of disapproval of wide-ranging Saudi human rights abuses — from appalling treatment of Ethiopian migrants and continued imprisonment of women rights defenders, such as Loujain al-Hathloul, to the lack of accountability for the murder of the dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi and continued oppression of the Shia minority.

The letter’s text, accordingly, calls on EU governments to cease all export of surveillance technology and other equipment that can be used for internal repression, adding to the EP’s insistent calls to end arms sales to the Saudi regime that make the EU complicit in alleged war crimes in Yemen.

The resolution, adopted few days after the second anniversary of Khashoggi’s murder, also reiterated a call to introduce targeted sanctions against the Saudi officials involved, as part of a EU-wide human rights sanctions mechanism to be launched in coming weeks.

Yet the call to downgrade the EU representation at the G-20 summit in Saudi Arabia  was the politically most incisive — because of the potential immediate diplomatic repercussions it could have. While relations with the United States were always the big prize from the Saudi perspective, and more so with Donald Trump as the president, the EU is a significant diplomatic and trade partner for Saudi Arabia. Not only it is represented in the G-20 under its collective aegis, but also Germany, France, and Italy are its individual members.

European pullout or downgrade would be a blow to the Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman, or MBS, the de-facto ruler of the kingdom, who sees the summit as a golden opportunity to showcase his much-vaunted reforms and himself as a modernizing, forward-looking leader. There is even speculation that the occasion would propel an abdication of the aging King Salman and a formal introduction of Mohammad Bin Salman to the world as a new king. If there were already not enough reasons for European leaders not to attend this summit, to bless with their presence a possible coronation of MBS would only add to their embarrassment.

Procedural rules allow European MPs to vote on separate measures within the October 8 resolution, and the fact that even more lawmakers voted specifically in favor of skipping the G-20 than for a resolution as a whole sent a strong signal not only to Riyadh, but also to Michel and Von der Leyen that anti-Saudi sentiment covered the entire political spectrum from the center-right to the left. The tiny minority that voted against the resolution represented the nationalist-populist and far right end of European politics: parties like Polish Law and Justice, Spanish Vox and the party of the notorious Dutch Islamophobe Geert Wilders. 

Both the main center-right bloc — European People’s Party (EPP), from which Von der Leyen hails, and the liberal Renew Europe, the political family of Michel, voted in favor of downgrading the EU G-20 presence. It must surely be relevant for mainstream EU politicians that the Saudi brand has become so toxic that only Eurosceptic, extremist forces are still openly embracing it.  

So far, there has been no indication from either Michel or Von der Leyen on their plans regarding the G-20. Meanwhile, with the latest moves from the European Parliament, mayors of the world’s top cities, and dedicated NGOs, the international campaign to boycott the summit is likely to gather steam. It is time for American lawmakers to join their European counterparts in demanding that there are diplomatic costs for systematic violations of human rights and reckless foreign policy by the Saudi regime.

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


European Council President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Charles Michel, December 2019 (Photo: Nicole Mess via Shutterstock.com)
google cta
Analysis | Reporting | Middle East
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: Afghan Taliban fighters patrol near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in Spin Boldak, Kandahar Province, following exchanges of fire between Pakistani and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer

What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means

QiOSK

Pakistan’s airstrikes on Kabul and Kandahar over the last 24 hours are nothing new. Islamabad has carried out strikes inside Afghanistan several times since the Taliban’s return to power. Pakistan claimed that the Afghan Taliban used drones to conduct strikes in Pakistan.

What distinguishes this latest episode is the rhetorical escalation, with Pakistani officials openly referring to the action as “open war.” While the language grabbed international headlines, it is best understood as part of a managed escalation designed to signal resolve without crossing red lines that would make de-escalation impossible.

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.