At the memorial for Nelson Mandela, President Barack Obama eulogized the fallen leader:

Like Gandhi, he would lead a resistance movement – a movement that at its start held little prospect of success. Like [Martin Luther] King, he would give potent voice to the claims of the oppressed.

Listening in the crowd sat Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's second deputy prime minister. Apparently the words were lost on the government His Royal Highness was representing (though it's questionable he even relayed the message), because within the next week, a Saudi judge sentenced democratic activist Omar al-Saeed to 4 years in prison and 300 lashes. His crime: calling for a constitutional monarchy (a government that would likely outlaw such cruel and unusual punishment).

Omar al-Saeed Photo: Twitter

Saeed is a member of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (Acpra), an organization documenting human rights abuses and calling for democratic reform. He is its fourth member to be sentenced to prison this year. In March, co-founders Mohammad Fahad al-Qahtani (who I have met in the past, and previously wrote about) and Abdullah al-Hamid were sentenced to prison terms of 10 and 5 years on charges such as "breaking allegiance with the ruler" and running an unlicensed political organization – despite repeated attempts to obtain a license.

Not surprisingly, there has been no strong public statement from the Obama administration regarding Saeed's sentencing. Following the conviction and sentencing of Qahtani and Hamid, the strongest language came from the obscure United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. It took a direct question at a press briefing to prompt a canned statement from the State department, claiming "concern" at the arrests and sentences, and asserting that the US makes "strong representations for human rights activists" wherever our diplomats are.

It is also of little surprise that American media hasn't pressed Obama administration officials on this latest persecution, and the clear signal the sentence sends that those "strong representations" fell on deliberately deaf ears. After all, there is much to be distracted by in the region: the Iranian nuclear deal, the continuing bloody war in Syria, and the escalating conflict in Egypt. All of these strategically concern Saudi Arabia and its level of influence – briefings at State in the days following Saeed's sentencing touched on issues such as Saudi-US cooperation in the Middle East peace process, and the Geneva II conference over Syria, with no mention of the quashing of nascent civil society.

But what is particularly galling about the lack of public pressure on the Saudi government for their continued crackdown on Acpra and other democratic activists is that it is indicative of a broader flight from the lofty pro-democracy rhetoric of the Obama White House at the beginning of the Arab Spring.

With Syria, the Obama administration seemed interested principally in retributive strikes against the Assad regime for using chemical weapons simply because it crossed an imaginary "red line" and because it violated an "international norm", regardless of what the effect would be on the revolution's non-extremist anti-Assad forces and movements – likely the only (yet swiftly fading) hope for democratization.

The United States government chose not to label the overthrow of Mohamed Morsi as a military coup in Egypt – and then only reduced military aid (which is required by law should a military government overthrow a democratically elected leader) in the face of massive and violent repression where, quite literally, "the whole world was watching". Secretary of State John Kerry then said this aid reduction was not a form of "punishment" in his November visit to Cairo. Now the state department had to issue a statement on 23 December, condemning the recent crackdown by Egypt's military government on peaceful demonstrators and activists – a sign that once again, trust in authoritarian regimes to be the stewards of inclusive democratic transitions will result in failure.

Of course, there are strategic rationalizations for supporting the military government of Sisi in Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, despite human rights abuses. The US is set to sell $10.8bn in military weapons, including standoff land attack missiles and anti-ship harpoon missiles capable of being fired from US-made F-15s and F-16s to Saudi and the UAE – the latter just sentenced an American citizen to a year in prison for making a satirical video about Emirati youth.

These countries are important players, and must interact with the many moving parts of US foreign policy. But this was also the argument behind support for the apartheid government of South Africa – where strategic interests took precedence over addressing clear injustice.

It's clear that half-hearted condemnations have little effect on human rights abuses. The governments of countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt can't afford to truly forswear US support (even if they make public displays of frustration). The US and other allies should demand an end to the suppression of democratic activism and civil society – and back it up with real threats of withdrawal of support.

Supporters of democracy should not be afraid to name, shame, and directly confront tyranny wherever it is seen. Whether it is in Russia or China, or perpetrated under the guise of "national security" by the United States or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Those that deem oppression a strategic necessity or its elimination an impossibility almost always end up on the "wrong side of history".