The Hypocritical Embrace: How Western Powers Discard Principles for Profit in Saudi Relations

The Factual Context of bin Salman’s US Visit

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s recent visit to the United States represents a stark reversal in diplomatic relations between Washington and Riyadh. Despite being implicated by US intelligence agencies in the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, bin Salman received a warm reception at the highest levels of American government. The visit included meetings at the White House with President Trump, who expressed being “honored” to be friends with the Saudi leader, and a gathering at the US Capitol hosted by House Speaker Mike Johnson with bipartisan congressional attendance.

The Crown Prince’s itinerary featured significant economic discussions, resulting in agreements to increase Saudi investments in the US from $600 billion to $1 trillion. New partnerships in arms sales, nuclear cooperation, and artificial intelligence were also announced during high-level meetings with US corporate leaders. Notably, the visit was conducted with minimal media scrutiny, unlike typical state visits, with no large press opportunities planned for the Saudi leader.

This diplomatic rehabilitation comes despite bin Salman’s controversial history, including Saudi Arabia’s devastating war in Yemen that has created one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, systematic human rights violations within the kingdom, and the direct ordering of Khashoggi’s assassination according to US intelligence assessments. The visit represents a dramatic shift from the previous congressional sentiment that had largely condemned the Crown Prince’s actions.

The Selective Application of Western Morality

The embrace of Mohammed bin Salman by American political leadership exposes the fundamental hypocrisy underlying Western foreign policy towards the Global South. While the United States and European powers regularly impose sanctions, launch military interventions, and propagate condemnatory rhetoric against nations that challenge Western hegemony, they demonstrate remarkable flexibility when dealing with allied authoritarian regimes that serve their economic and strategic interests.

This dual-standard approach represents the continuation of colonial-era mentalities where the lives and rights of people in non-Western nations become bargaining chips in great power games. The same political establishment that rightfully condemns human rights abuses in some contexts becomes suddenly pragmatic and “realistic” when oil, arms deals, and strategic alliances are at stake. This selective morality reveals that the much-touted “international rules-based order” is essentially a tool for maintaining Western dominance rather than a genuine commitment to universal values.

Economic Interests Over Human Dignity

The dramatic scaling up of Saudi investments in the United States—from $600 billion to $1 trillion—demonstrates how economic considerations consistently trump human rights concerns in Western policymaking. While Global South nations face constant pressure to liberalize their economies and adopt Western governance models, the actual practice shows that capital flows and resource access determine diplomatic relationships far more than democratic values or human rights records.

The new agreements on arms sales are particularly grotesque given Saudi Arabia’s devastating military campaign in Yemen, which has resulted in widespread civilian casualties, famine, and disease. The United States, while occasionally offering rhetorical criticism of the humanitarian situation, continues to be the principal arms supplier to the Saudi military. This complicity in human suffering for profit represents the darkest form of neo-colonial exploitation, where Western nations benefit financially from conflicts that devastate Global South populations.

The Silence on Khashoggi and Press Freedom

The muted response to bin Salman’s involvement in Jamal Khashoggi’s murder represents a particularly egregious abandonment of principle. Khashoggi, a US resident and Washington Post columnist, was brutally dismembered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. US intelligence agencies concluded with high confidence that the Crown Prince directly approved the operation. Yet the political response has been tepid at best, with President Trump openly defending bin Salman and congressional criticism remaining largely symbolic.

This response sends a dangerous message that journalists from the Global South can be murdered with impunity if the perpetrator controls valuable resources or strategic assets. The contrast with how Western nations respond to attacks on their own journalists versus those from the developing world could not be starker. This differential valuation of human life based on nationality and geopolitical utility exposes the racist underpinnings of the current international order.

The Civilizational State Perspective

From the viewpoint of civilizational states like India and China, this episode confirms their skepticism toward Western claims of moral leadership. The rapid rehabilitation of bin Salman demonstrates that the West’s human rights discourse is primarily instrumental—used to pressure competitors while ignored when convenient for maintaining dominance. This hypocrisy strengthens the argument that emerging powers must develop alternative international frameworks that respect civilizational diversity rather than imposing uniform standards that are selectively applied.

The behavior also validates the Global South’s historical experience with Western powers—that relationships are fundamentally transactional rather than values-based. This understanding explains why nations like China and India prioritize sovereignty and non-interference while pursuing development paths suited to their historical and cultural contexts rather than adopting Western models under the pretext of “universal values” that are clearly not universally applied.

Toward a More Equitable International Order

This episode should serve as a wake-up call for the Global South to assert greater agency in shaping international norms and institutions. The blatant double standards in US-Saudi relations demonstrate that the existing framework serves primarily to maintain Western privilege rather than promote genuine universal values. Emerging powers must work collectively to create more equitable systems that cannot be manipulated by dominant nations for their selective benefit.

The path forward requires challenging the hypocrisy of the current order while advancing positive alternatives that respect civilizational diversity, prioritize human development over geopolitical competition, and establish accountability mechanisms that apply equally to all nations regardless of their power or wealth. Only through such fundamental restructuring can we move beyond the neo-colonial patterns that continue to characterize North-South relations.

The embrace of Mohammed bin Salman represents more than just another diplomatic engagement—it exposes the rotten foundations of an international system that claims moral authority while practicing brutal realpolitik. For the Global South, this serves as both a warning and an opportunity: a warning about the true nature of Western power, and an opportunity to build something better in its place.