I have a case study due on Friday in my international politics class. I’ve been looking at recent events that include Syria, and just by pure luck Saudi Arabia says they’re going to refuse the seat they won at the U.N. Security Council.
It’s quite fascinating especially since that country had spent so much time and money working on a special group of ambassadors. The Saudis apparently campaigned really hard for this seat. (A seat I had no idea was so competitive and wanted in the international world.) The fact that King Abdullah allegedly said, “no,” to accepting the seat in a move of protest is strange. You would think a country that is mostly able to align itself in both the western and middle eastern worlds wouldn’t take advantage of that and be able to put forth their credibility to solve certain issues.
They say it themselves. They don’t like the way the western world is handling the Syrian conflict. Well, shouldn’t they stay on board and offer some help in their own point of view? Shouldn’t they be able to offer their social and cultural points to get the western world to understand how to deal with this better? I feel like this could lead to more conflict of the same kind. Here is a perfect opportunity for a highly persuasive government to voice their points on an international level and they refuse. I can see the value the Saudis can add to the security council. It’s just baffling to know the lengths states can go (US included) to make a point of protest.
As always, more educated thoughts are welcome. I still need to do more research for background’s sake, and more credible newspaper links are welcome too!
I’m really looking forward to putting this all together. ……… by Friday.