The announcement shocked many diplomats at the United Nations and left experts on the region scrambling to decipher the decision. In a statement released by the Saudi Foreign Ministry, the kingdom said it was turning down the seat because it felt that the "double standards" of the Security Council, particularly on issues in the Middle East, "prevented it from properly shouldering its responsibilities towards world peace". "To have the Palestinian cause remaining without a fair and permanent solution for 65 years, which resulted in several wars that threatened international peace and security, is evidence and proof of (the) Security Council's inability to perform its duties and responsibilities," the ministry said in the statement. In 1948 the Ukraine refused to attend meetings for a period of time. And in 1950, Russia boycotted the council to protest its refusal to accept the People's Republic of China as a member. As a result, it was unable to use its veto power when the council ratified a US resolution to send troops to Korea. No nation, however, has ever refused to accept the two-year term. Reaction to the Saudi decision was mostly negative. Russia called the decision "strange". "With its decision, Saudi Arabia has removed itself from the collective work of the UN Security Council to support international peace and security," the Russia foreign ministry said it a statement. Edward Luck, a professor at the University of San Diego told the conservative blog "The American Thinker" that he thought Saudi Arabia had made a mistake. Luck described it as "a baffling case of shooting oneself in the foot. Apparently, Riyadh failed to learn the lesson of Moscow's boycott: You can't win if you refuse to play the game." Others said that the reason behind the Saudi action was that it was upset at several recent actions taken by its longtime ally, the United States. Many in the US media speculated that the Saudis were upset that the US for three main reasons: the US had backed off its threats of attacking the Syrian regime of Bashir al-Assad after the use of chemical weapons; the US had taken a stand against the Egyptian military after it had toppled Islamist President Mohammed Morsi, which Saudi Arabia had strongly supported; and most of all, the recent thawing of relations between the US and Iran, seen in the phone call US President Obama made to Iranian President Rouhani. "It is hard not to think that Riyadh's decision reflects an overall cooling of the U.S.-Saudi relationship," Boston University professor Charles Dunbar, a diplomat for four decades told the Washington Post. "Syria and Iran would seem to be the two most prominent reasons for the downturn in relations." Another reason offered was that Saudi Arabia refused the seat because it would have brought more attention to its spotty record on human rights. The day the selection of Saudi Arabia was originally announced, it was condemned by several human rights groups. Saudi Arabia has an "abysmal record" on human rights, Hillel Neuer, executive director of Geneva-based UN Watch, which monitors United Nations compliance with the principles of its charter, told the Los Angeles Times. "Repressive regimes crave this undue and false legitimacy." This explanation seemed to be given some validity on Monday, when Amnesty International submitted a report on Saudi Arabia to the UN Human Rights Council. The report said that promises that the kingdom had made to the UN Human Right in 2009 were "Nothing more than hot air", and that the situation in the country on issues concerning women and migrant workers in particular had gotten worse, not better. The head of the Saudi delegation to the UN human rights group disputed the Amnesty International report saying that "Tangible progress has been achieved on a daily basis." One of the more interesting explanations for the Saudi refusal came from Erik Voeten, the Peter F. Krogh Associate Professor of Geopolitics and Justice in World Affairs at Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and the Department of Government, writing in "The Monkey Cage" blog at the Washington Post. He speculated that the Saudis turned down the seat on the Security Council not because they were mad at the US, but that they didn't want to find themselves in a situation where the US would get mad at them. "Any time the council deals with a major crisis, any non-permanent member is forced to publicly take a position," Voeten wrote. "This often presents a problem, especially for states which depend on the US even though the US is unpopular domestically or regionally. Or, simply because the U.S. has different foreign policy interests....Saudi Arabia often votes against the US on UN General Assembly resolutions. But those are symbolic resolutions. It can sometimes be very convenient to remain ambiguous when things really matter. Saudi Arabia depends heavily on the US for military equipment. Why upset the US if there is little to gain from a seat on the Security Council?"
