Back when I worked in the Pentagon, a colonel in my office would often ask, “How can so many people miss this blinding flash of the obvious?”
That question now applies to a rising Saudi Arabia, but some choose to look away from the illuminating flash to deliberately focus on issues that distract from a global shift in power with direct implications for the United States.
For instance, it has become common for some journalists and media outlets from the left to go after the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for “sportswashing.” The term refers to countries or regimes using sports to improve their tarnished reputations. Last week, CNBC jumped back onto that bandwagon with an article titled “Saudi crown prince says he will keep ‘sportswashing’ as criticism of the practice grows.”
The article is about an interview that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman gave to Fox News, which aired last week. CNBC focused on two quotes. The crown prince said, “Well, if sportswashing is going to increase my GDP by way of one percent, I will continue doing sportswashing.” He then continued, “I don’t care … I’m aiming for another one and a half percent. Call it whatever you want, we’re going to get that one and a half percent.”
Perhaps, in an attempt to go after Saudi Arabia, the reporter and his editors did not notice the resignation and sarcasm in the voice of the crown prince. He and his government have been dealing with this accusation for a few years now.
Critics from the left have long maintained that Saudi Arabia has been using its growing investments in the greater sports world as a way to gain political influence while mending the Kingdom’s reputation from human rights abuses, such as the killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. While many on the left seem fixated by that charge, what if it is as simple as the crown prince explained — that the sports investments being made by Saudi Arabia are sound business practices that are returning high profits to the Kingdom?
But, if CNBC truly is concerned about “sportswashing” being used as a cover for human rights abuses, then I would suggest they gaze inward at their parent company, while looking up the definition of the word “hypocrisy.” In February 2022, NBC and NBC sports broadcast the Winter Olympics from China, making tens of millions of dollars in profit.
Are the reporters and editors from CNBC interested in the human rights abuses taking place in China? Such as the imprisoning, torture and killing of thousands of Uyghurs and other Muslims — including women and children — in forced labor camps in its Xinjiang province? Did CNBC, NBC and NBC Sports do any in-depth reporting on those atrocities while in the nation?
Would CNBC say China used NBC and NBC Sports as vehicles for “sportswashing”? This being the same China that FBI Director Christopher Wray warned of during a speech last year at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum, saying, “the threat posed by the Chinese government here at home to our economic security and our freedoms reached a new level — more brazen, more damaging than ever before, and it’s vital — vital — that all of us focus on that threat together.”
Was NBC focusing on that threat? Do Apple and other big tech companies focus on that threat as they collectively make billions of dollars in China? What about Hollywood? Are the studio heads there focusing on the threat posed to America from China while continually partnering with that nation? What about the many American colleges and universities taking hundreds of millions of dollars from China?
When it comes to “sportswashing,” “entertainment-washing” and “business-washing,” some in the media either have tunnel vision or don’t want to investigate a nation that some see as the paymaster for more and more around the world.
To be sure, the killing of one journalist by anyone, or any government, is horrific. But assuming we all agree on that, what do we call the imprisonment, torture and killing of thousands of men, women and children in forced labor camps in China?
As some in the media obsessively focus on the “sportswashing” being conducted by Saudi Arabia, I would submit that they are missing the much larger picture. The Kingdom is not only becoming one of the most powerful and influential nations in the world, but is moving away from the United States in some real ways in order to hedge its bets.
The better question for some in the media might be: “What does the 38-year-old crown prince of Saudi Arabia see that others are missing when it comes to the positioning and security of his nation?”
Does he see a United States in decline? Does he see an ascending China as well as a surviving Russia? Does his nation represent the critical check on Iran amid growing Iranian attempts to destabilize the Middle East? Does Mohammed bin Salman see a growing partnership between his nation and Israel? Does the crown prince see a future for actual sustainable “green energy” while acknowledging that fossil fuels will power the world for the foreseeable future?
More importantly, are more and more national and corporate leaders turning to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman because they now view Saudi Arabia — with the world’s fastest growing large economy — as a global powerhouse, based in large part upon the reforms he has instituted? And because of that success and others, do more and more leaders now see the crown prince as one of the most influential voices in the world?
Back in the late 1970s and early ’80s, one of the most famous commercials of all time aired regularly. It was for an investment firm with the slogan “When E.F. Hutton talks, people listen.”
That same “the room goes instantly silent to hear the words of wisdom” is now taking place on the global stage. When Mohammed bin Salman speaks, some leaders seemingly do go silent to hear every word. Why?
The world is changing. Power is shifting. Alliances are being created or reinvented, and Saudi Arabia and the crown prince are behind much of the change. It’s time to focus on the flash.
Douglas MacKinnon, a political and communications consultant, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and former special assistant for policy and communications at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration.