Saudi Arabia is preparing to acknowledge the death of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in a botched interrogation, CNN and the New York Times said on Monday after U.S. President Donald Trump speculated “rogue killers” may be responsible. It has been two weeks since Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi…
Saudi Arabia is preparing to acknowledge the death of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in a botched interrogation, CNN and the New York Times said on Monday after U.S. President Donald Trump speculated “rogue killers” may be responsible.
Background
It has been two weeks since Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi disappeared in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. Turkish officials have disclosed worrying details from their search, claiming that Khashoggi’s body was dismembered by a bone saw that 15 Saudi intelligence officials brought with them to Istanbul. Saudi Arabia has vehemently denied those allegations, claiming Khashoggi left the consulate and insisting that the 15 officials that arrived from the kingdom at 3.13 a.m on the day Khashoggi disappeared, and who all left that same day, were merely tourists.
Turkish officials also say they have audio and video proof of the assassination.
President Trump previously promised “severe punishment” if proof emerged that Saudi Arabia has killed Khashoggi. After a phone conversation with the king of Saudi Arabia, Trump told reporters “The denial was very, very strong. It sounded to me like maybe these could have been rogue killers. Who knows?”
Trump has now dispatched Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to meet King Salman over the case that has strained the Americans’ carefully cultivated relationship with the Saudis. Pompeo will then head to Turkey.
Analysis
After denying any involvement in the Khashoggi case for two weeks, sources now say Saudi Arabia plans to acknowledge the death of the journalist, and claim it was the result of an interrogation botched by an intelligence agent. Pompeo is presumably on his way to gather more details on behalf of President Trump.
If the Turkish official reports that Khashoggi was murdered there and that his body removed are true, one must ask what reasons a government could have to assassinate a journal so brutally, and in a consulate in a foreign country. Only two seem obvious: firstly, to send a message to other dissidents, and secondly, because they believe they can carry out such activities with impunity.
Saudi Crown Prince MSB has plans to reorient the Saudi economy away from oil and towards technology, a plan he calls Vision 2030. He has taken great pains to assure investors that Saudi Arabia is stable and progressive, and has taken measures such as lifting a 35-year-old ban on movie theatres and allowing women to drive for the first time, to corroborate those assurances. His Future Investment Initiative is a giant effort to further investments into Saudi Arabia (many prominent leaders have boycotted this year “Davos in the Desert”, as the investment conference has been dubbed), and MBS has made efforts to significantly improve public perception of Saudi Arabia.
However, scratching below the surface of Saudi Arabia’s new progressive outlook sometimes tells a different story. Women were given the right to drive a week after the arrest of a dozen female activists who campaigned for the right to drive. A week after 2017’s “Davos in the Desert”, the same hotel that hosted the conference was used to imprison hundreds of businessmen and members of the royal family; at least 17 detainees were hospitalised for physical abuse and one Saudi Military Officer died in custody. President Trump supported this “crackdown on corruption”, even as the rest of the world strongly objected.
Journalists who have threatened to sabotage the Saudi image of being progressive and stable have been targeted in the past. That seems to corroborate the “sending a message” motive. As for the Saudi government possibly believing they could get away with such an assassination, it is feasible that their unconditional embrace from the USA and other governments could have contributed to this idea.
For years, the United States has had a relationship with Saudi Arabia based on strategic interests, not shared values. Saudi had the oil America needed; both countries opposed Iran, and Saudi is a large market for arms and ammunition that the United States wants to sell. For those and other reasons, the United States has, for many years, been willing to pander to the Saudi government, turning a blind eye to human rights abuses and the kingdom’s reputation for funding religious extremism. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman and President Trump have made the relationship between the two countries closer. Since taking office, Trump has shown tremendous support for the kingdom. On his campaign trail, he insisted he “liked them very much” since they spend 40 to 50 million dollars buying his apartments, and when MBS visited the white house, President Trump was happy to detail the $110 billion Saudi Arabia intended to spend on arms from the US.
For decades, Saudi has been the biggest buyer of American weaponry; the Obama administration continued to sell them arms even as they started the civil war in Yemen. A bomb that killed 40 school children in Yemen in August was supplied by the States. US Secretary of Defence insisted that the Saudis were doing everything they could to reduce civilian casualties, and Saudi continued to receive American support.
In response to the Khashoggi case, while Trump condemned the possible murder of a permanent resident of the United States, he was emphatic that ditching the $110 billion arms deal over Khashoggi would be “very foolish”. His statements that Khashoggi may have been killed by a “rogue killer” came shortly after.
Assessment
Our assessment is that if boundaries are not set on an arguably oppressive regime, they will be tempted to push the limits of what they can be easily exonerated from. We believe that there are two aspects of statesmanship that must be considered. First, that paying lip service to progress and stability while failing to practice those principles in all situations is detrimental to public perception. The second is that in the case of heads of state, it is important to ask which is more important to the nation: moral high ground, or monetary benefit.
Leave a Reply