Saudis Still Support Arab League Boycott
Despite a promise to end the boycott of Israel as a condition of entry into the World Trade Organization, the Saudis have continued to enforce the boycott. The US continues to press the Saudis, but Israeli-made goods cannot enter the kingdom:
Despite a promise made to Washington nearly 18 months ago to drop its trade embargo against Israel, Saudi Arabia continues to enforce the Arab League boycott, The Jerusalem Post has learned.In November 2005, Riyadh pledged to abandon the boycott after Washington conditioned Saudi Arabia's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) on such a move. A month later, on December 11, Saudi Arabia was granted WTO membership.
The WTO, which aims to promote free trade, prohibits members from engaging in discriminatory practices such as boycotts or embargoes.
Nonetheless, the Post has found, Saudi officials continue to bar entry to products manufactured in Israel or to foreign-made goods containing Israeli components.
The Saudis have backed away from embargoing products made outside of Israel by companies that do business there. Those goods had also been denied entry into Saudi Arabia and most other Arab nations as part of their economic pressure on Israel, but the agreement with the US forced the Saudis to change. They still refuse to abide by the agreements with both the US and WTO on Israeli-made goods, and it doesn't look like they're going to change any time soon.
In fact, the Saudis took the lead in attempting to intensify the boycott in March 2006, just three months after their admission to the WTO. They hosted a conference of the Arab League designed to shore up the boycott. Two months later, they sent a delegation to the League's boycott office to help coordinate the economic sanctions on Israel.
The WTO stands for free trade, and if the Saudis don't want to participate, then they should not reap the benefits of membership. The Bush administration undoubtedly prefers not to start a fight with the Saudis over Israel at the moment, but at some point, we need to make it clear that we do not like it when our trade partners renege on their agreements.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on April 16, 2007 4:56 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (1)
Comments (4)
Posted by patrick neid![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 16, 2007 8:16 AM
"The Bush administration undoubtedly prefers not to start a fight with the Saudis over Israel at the moment, but at some point, we need to make it clear that we do not like it when our trade partners renege on their agreements."
something of this nature would only be a small skirmish compared to what is really coming--the battle with the house of saud in regard to their spending upwards of $100 billion worldwide promoting mosques , schools etc that preach "Wahhabism"--a primitive radical islam that is the root of almost all extreme movements today. when this battle is joined it's a safe bet that it will dwarf, in real costs, all the preceding expenses of this war on terror and the sates that sponsor it.
in the vernacular of a mosque rant--all you pigs and monkey's have been warned!
Posted by docjim505![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 16, 2007 9:46 AM
Man, I wish we could "boycott" Saudi Arabia!
But, then again, don't they have a right to determine what does and doesn't come into their country? I seem to recall the US (or, at least, quite a number of Americans) boycotting South Africa back during the bad ol' days of apartheid. The disgust Americans felt with that political system is nothing compared to how the more rabid Muslims feel about Israel.
Not saying that what the Saudis are doing is right, or that we should do anything that even hints at approval of their tactics, but I guess that this is part of "understanding" and "tolerating" other cultures.
Maybe we should ship the Israelis a few extra F-16s to demonstrate how WE feel about them...
Posted by Lew![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 16, 2007 3:20 PM
Well of course the Saudis aren't living up to their agreements with the U.S., why should they?
They know perfectly well that we need them far more than they need us. And besides, to anybody with even one eye open, we look like the world's most feckless loser in the whole scenario now playing out. They're betting we're going to lose, and from their angle it really doesn't look that irrational to be doing exactly that!
We aren't going to do anything and everybody know's it!
Posted by NoDonkey![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 16, 2007 3:45 PM
"They know perfectly well that we need them far more than they need us. "
I'm not so sure about that. How could they support their 15,000 princes, without selling oil?
And I believe that while the Saudis pump crude oil, they don't refine it. So it's place on the world market. It's the refiners who can control where the oil goes, not the Saudis. And the refiners are not interested in cutting off one of their biggest purchasers.
So the only way the Saudis could cut us off, would be to cut the rest of the world off as well.
The link below is fascinating:
-The United States is the #2 oil producer in the world.
- 75% of the oil consumed in the US, does not come from the Middle East (most of it goes to Asia)
- US import dependency level is only 50 percent of than that of its international partners. Industrialized countries such as Japan and Germany have import dependency levels of 90-100 percent.
-Although U.S. dependence on the long-haul Middle East has fallen sharply, this has not made U.S. prices less vulnerable to a disruption in Middle East supplies. Since oil is a global market, the relevant measure for that vulnerability is not U.S. dependence, but world dependence on Middle East oil -- and that has not shrunk.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/supply_text.htm