All this means that those who argue that our national interests in Saudi Arabia are much more important than how women are treated there are suffering from a severe case of short-sightedness. The export of political volatility and violence—and misogyny—throughout the international system is not in the interests of the United States of America. Hillary Clinton herself said it best, declaring in a 2013 speech: “The next time you hear someone say that the fate of women and girls is not a core national security issue, it’s not one of those hard issues that really smart people deal with, remind them: The extremists understand the stakes of this struggle. They know that when women are liberated, so are entire societies. We must understand this too. And not only understand it, but act on it.”
Why, then, was Clinton not more outspoken against the Saudi regime while she was secretary of state? And why, to this day, does her family’s foundation accept money from a government know to contradict her stated beliefs on women’s rights? Certainly she was not ignorant of the facts: In a 2009 Wikileaks document, top officials at the U.S. State Department proclaimed bluntly to its embassies in the region, “It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority. … Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” Clinton knew then and knows now that the national interests of the United States and Saudi Arabia do not dovetail, whether on the issue of terrorist financing or on that of women’s rights.
Critics have been scathing in their appraisal of Clinton’s silence concerning Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member