The Caliphate of Saudi Arabia is a British creation. British arms and diplomatic support forged her in the 1920's anarchic post war environment. For that reason it lacks a fundamental label of legitimacy beyond a 'Muslim State'.
Labour and Conservative governments alike have pursued the 'national interest' abroad, colluding with radical Islamic forces, including terrorist organisations.
Our governments simply could not face the demise of Imperialism and the Empire as we knew it in a world with two rising hegemonic States, the USSR and USA. Instead of this ultimatum, they devised tenacious and strategic measures to cling onto their foreign influence within a newly emerging bipolar system. Since we could no longer unilaterally impose our will and lacked local allies we sought other means to maintain influence in the world. We have worked alongside terrorism, connived and colluded with them, trained and financed them. All of which in order to promote specific foreign policy objectives, namely energy security for Britain. Permanent, strategic alliances allowed for British influence to dictate temporary outcomes in this dysfunctional amalgamation of destabilised States displaying Nationalistic surges.
The very fabric of the Middle East was divided and split by British planners so as to deliberately achieve politically and socially charged disparities and defunct divisions between faiths, tribes and sects.
Whitehall has colluded on British soil, granting asylum to terrorists our secret services had trained in 'Londonistan'. A de facto 'green light' to jihadi terrorism.
Subsequently, one or two have become so disenchanted with their curators, it has led to 'blowback' suicide bombings on British soil. It begs the question as to whether we were ever justified to shape the world in the occidental 'western' orientated ideals we bestowed and often forced upon the rest.
Two objectives have been fulfilled through our collusion:
1. Control over energy resources - primary priority in the Middle East.
2. Establishing pro-Western global financial exchange between the Saudi's investing billions in the British economy and banking while we invested in extraction, infrastructure and trade.
The tacit arrangement to bankrupt or impoverish other nations in 1973-5 guaranteed Britain would turn a blind eye to Saudi expenditure on bankrolling anti-nationalistic jihadi causes as long as the rich oil revenues continued to flow freely into Britain.
Our policy for the past 100 years has contributed to the present threat of terrorism we see today. Our government and mainstream media relationships in Britain run thick. Those who should be unfortunate enough to elaborate on whims of classified stories are sued for libel and super-injunction where necessary. These tight lip measures all to preserve the illusion and pretence Whitehall is exempt and detached from the chaotic mismatch of fundamentalism and conflicting ideologies we see today.
This hails back long before this 'government'. The decision making processes are often detached from the annals of Whitehall in order to incorporate a modicum degree of plausible deniability long enough to silence those whistleblowers.
Governments are presumed to act in their citizens best interests. In order to achieve such an outcome, compromises are necessitated. This course of action often leads to collateral damage ligaments, from the whistleblower to the frontline.
While we rant and rave over the occasional domestic terrorist attack our own government has put us at risk of, this is essentially a small price to have paid for the successes in maintaining British post colonial dominance in the world. Governments have an obligation to all their citizens to preserve boundaries, ideals and identity.
The inevitable fatalities are merely a factored in and anticipated collateral ligament from expedient ad hoc dealings with individuals devoid of liberal social values.
The tenacity with which Whitehall has preserved Britain's faltering posture on the world stage, given our imminent decline into oblivion, could only be deemed as successful for the nation as a whole. Whether the decision makers could morally justify the political upheaval and unrest their deliberations have caused is a question for their consciences. They have made the tough decisions for our nations' better interests so we did not, and continue to not, have to.
Richard Bolton writes about politics for The Manchester Magazine. He is a first-year Politics, Philosophy and Economics student at the University of Manchester