On October 2nd, well-known Saudi dissident and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul and never left. Less than two weeks after his bizarre disappearance, the most distressing news of his brutal murder inside the consulate had been revealed by Turkish media outlets and was later confirmed by the Saudi Government. Both Saudi Arabian and Turkish media outlets have given substantially different accounts as to how he was killed. Though the validity of the report is yet to be confirmed, Turkish media speculate that the journalist was tortured and dismembered, a fact which they claim is evidenced by an undisclosed 11-minute recording from Khashoggi’s Apple Watch device. On the contrary, Saudi Arabia have changed their side of the story several times. First, they claimed that Khashoggi had indeed left the consulate untouched despite his fiancé eagerly awaiting his return, to claiming that he had been killed in a ‘fist fight’ which had ensued upon retrieving his divorce papers and that his death was just the result of a ‘rogue operation’. What is most alarming however, is the degree to which Saudi Arabia would go in order to silence Mr Khashoggi, even to the extent of committing an extrajudicial killing whilst he was in self-exile.
Saudi Arabia is one of the few remaining absolute monarchies in the world, with no constitution and no elected legislative body, the king acts as head of the state and the government. The Saudi royals (Al Saud) have to a large extent, the ability to make all decisions in the kingdom as long as those decisions are in accordance with Sharia law (“Islamic Law”). Obviously, what is quite dangerous about this is its detrimental implications on human rights. For example, Saudi Arabia’s counterterrorism laws have been used as a means of silencing critical and liberal commentary by criminalising all dissident thought and expression as acts of terrorism.
Saudi Arabia does not have the best track record when dealing with and upholding the human rights of its nationals and those operating within the confines of the nation state. The case of Saudi human rights campaigner and co-founder of the blog ‘Free Saudi Liberals’, Raif Badawi, is a clear example of this. Badawi was sentenced in 2014 to 1000 lashes and 10 years in prison on a charge of apostasy, for “propagating liberal thought” in the kingdom and “insulting Islam through electronic channels”. Despite being labelled as a ‘Qafar’ (‘disbeliever’ in Arabic) for merely promoting democracy through the blog, his wife has insisted that he is and was always a follower of Sunni Islam (the dominant religious sect in Saudi Arabia). Badawi is just one of many who have been subjected to Saudi Arabia’s cruel forms of punishment for not committing any real crime. Often times, dissidents once captured for peacefully airing their political and religious views are arrested and sentenced without a fair trial or access to legal counsel and are tortured in prison. The kingdom also has a dark human rights record with regards to discriminating against women and religious minorities, such as the Shi’a Muslim sect.
But why was Jamal Khashoggi specifically targeted? Khashoggi was inexorable and steadfast in expressing his opposition to the increasingly authoritarian regime under the crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman. He praised him for his new reforms on women driving, yet challenged him on the issue of why so many journalists and academics who were opposed to the driving ban were still imprisoned. Fearing that he was to meet the same fate, Khashoggi went into self-exile to Washington, leaving his life and family in pursuit of using his voice to “speak when so many cannot”. In a Washington Post article of his titled ‘Saudi Arabia wasn’t always this repressive. Now it’s unbearable’, he mentioned how he couldn't remain in the kingdom for much longer after the 2017 crackdown on Saudi dissidents. Among those arrested for airing their dissent was human rights activist and author Abdullah al-Malki, a friend of Khashoggi, who was imprisoned for his writings which criticised the Saudi enforcement of Sharia Law. Which he claimed silenced free speech and criminalised the most basic liberties that people should be entitled to in the Kingdom. Furthermore, he called for rulers in the Kingdom to be held accountable for their actions. No crime was ever committed by Khashoggi, who merely wished for the people of Saudi Arabia to be granted very basic but fundamental human rights like freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Sadly, Jamal Khashoggi had to pay the ultimate price for wanting to live a life free from the fear of being imprisoned, silenced and killed for his wish for there to exist an open dialogue on the problems in the Kingdom that other Saudi’s could engage in.
So, where does that leave everyone else? Will the unlawful extrajudicial killing of Khashoggi finally have an impact on how other states approach their relationship with the kingdom? If it doesn’t, will change come anytime soon? This is because the international community are arguably, in some sense complicit in the suffering of Saudi activists and the Yemenis by continuing their relationship with the Kingdom and not holding them accountable for their crimes. If Saudi Arabia knows that arms will still be sold to them by the UK, US and Canada to bomb Yemen with no criticism or sanctions placed on them for their indiscriminate bombings on civilians, how can they be expected to stop? The same could be applied to the present case of Khashoggi’s murder. If this is swept under the rug by the international community and the UN Human Rights Council, who Saudi Arabia is ironically party to, how will the situation ever change, however slight? How do countries who supposedly uphold fundamental human rights such as freedom of expression, of religion, right to a fair trial and right to freedom from torture maintain such a cosy relationship with a country who routinely imprisons, tortures and executes their own people in inhumane ways for simply exercising their right to ‘fundamental’ freedoms?