Personally, I don’t see the problem; it’s not like every single Saudi citizen wants to see the U.S. blown into smithereens. And if a few of them do, well, then I don’t see why those who don’t should be ostracized; I think we should place blame where, and only where, it is due. And if that ends up including high-level Saudi officials, then by all means, I’m in favor of some very public dressing-down, but why punish the little guy? To me, generally anything that promotes harmony is a good thing.
What are your opinions, and the reasoning behind them? Have you seen the ads? Do they bother you? Why or why not?
To borrow a term from the BBQ Pit, the OP is being an [CENSORED].
Yes, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia wants to repair its image in the United States. What of it? Unless you take the view that every citizen – indeed, the Royal Family itself – is out to destroy the U.S., there’s no reason not to believe that some (many) Saudis were horrified by the 9/11 attacks, and want to distance themselves from the ijits who pulled it off.
It’s no different than the Pope offering a public apology for the current spate of Catholic Priest molestation cases; the only difference is that it’s being done via the ad biz, but there’s nothing horribly wrong with that, either.
Personally i’ve opined that al-Qaeda could’ve done more to sway th epolicies of the US if they’d invested in some made-for-tv movies and a few feature films about the issues they have with our foreign policy. Would’ve been a net gain financially I bet. bin Laden’s $300 mil could’ve pulled in some serious talent in front and behind the camera.
Well, perhaps it’s a wee bit dishonest to present themselves as our staunchest allies against terrorism when Prince Nayef is out there denying that they have an al-Qaeda problem, and that the 9/11 attacks were done by “Zionists”.
I mean really, how evil do you have to be that advertising executives quit their jobs over the prospect of representing you?
What does that prove? For all we know, they quit because they were intolerant racist xenophobes. There’s no proof of any wrongdoing from the House of Saud one way or another here.
I see you chose to answer the tongue-in-cheek portion of my post rather than the substantive portion. My point is that the ads paint Saudi Arabia as reliable American allies against terrorism, which experience (over the past 2 years specifically, and the past 10 years more generally) has shown that they have not been. One of the ads is titled “shared values”: this from a totally undemocratic country, with an absolutely abysmal human rights record, where, according to the State Department, “Freedom of religion does not exist.” Where Americans are being held captive against their will because they need a male relative’s (their kidnapper’s) permission to leave. Where Prince Nayef (the interior minister I mentioned before) stonewalled the investigation of the Khobar Towers bombing and refused to extradite the suspects in that act. Can I fault Qorvis for taking the Saudi blood money? I suppose not. But let’s not pretend it’s not dishonest for them to claim they are our “allies” in anything but name and oil.
As much as it pains me to write a defense of the Saudis, despicable bastards that they are, Fang’s little recounting leaves quite a lot to be desired.
First, behind the scenes, the Saudis, meaning the Government, are a reliable supporter of most US initiatives in the region - allowing for their national interest. Not often public for their own domestic political constraints. On the international level, ranging from oil price management to cooperation across a number of areas including security, SA does well. In that context they have been a damned good behind the scenes ally on security and economic issues.
Where things break down is internal to the Kingdom: there internal politics and the logic of internal interests. There the Saud face a number of internal contradictions, including being partially beholden to some of the most rabid of the Wahhabite ulema, perhaps ‘prisoner’ to is almost accurate. Thus, in the context of the 1995 bombings and anything that runs into internal Saudi affaires, you get another face.
I see no problem with an American advert agency taking SA money for a public and up-front advert campaign, above all for all their sins (the Saud) many in the States have an eniterly skewed view of the issue, as in the concept the SA Gov’t officially supported Bin Laden et al. Of course PR campaigns are hardly terribly accurate either, so …
In any case, it is likely wasted money on their part.
Personally, if I were the ad agency, I’d ask for the fee up front. With the internal faultlines in the royal house, there’s going to be a dynasty-quake before too long, and it may not have a happy ending for either the House of Saud or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia…