The Khashoggi murder: Riyadh put on notice

CRITICAL followers of Saudi affairs could not help but be a little bemused by the strong international reaction to the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. It is not that they do not take what happened seriously; it is regarded as something appalling, but many feel that their voices went largely ignored while the Saudi state did much worse things in the past.

Saudi Arabia has consistently opposed trends towards more democratic and open societies in the Arab world. During and after the 2011 Arab Spring revolts, it put its influence and money behind the suppression of popular protest, sending troops to Bahrain and supporting the military coup in Egypt that overthrew the Morsi government.

It is engaged in a war in Yemen that has so far killed well over 10,000 people directly and condemned some 50,000 to death by starvation. Many of the deaths have resulted from Saudi bombing of areas where there are high concentrations of civilians. The most notorious attack was on Aug 9 this year, when 24 children and 11 adults were killed in an air strike on a school bus. Aid agencies warn of 10 million people being threatened by famine in one of the worst humanitarian emergencies since World War II.

Saudi Arabia conducts around 150 public executions every year. Among the offences that carry the death penalty are sorcery and witchcraft, of which some foreign workers have been convicted. The mistreatment of domestic workers in the country led India to ban women from going to Saudi Arabia to work in that role.

Human rights organisations and a few other observers have condemned such Saudi actions, and media coverage has also often been critical, but action in response has been practically non-existent at state level. The reason is plain: money talked. The Saudi government could use its enormous spending power to buy support and deter dissent. It never hesitated to do so.

US President Donald Trump's remark early on in the Khashoggi case was representative of the attitude taken by most political leaders before him when challenged to take meaningful action in response to Saudi human rights violations. He said: "I don't want to lose all of that investment that's being made in our country. I don't want to lose a million jobs. I don't want to lose US$110 billion in terms of investment." Similar arguments have been expressed publicly or privately in many countries in the past, and they were reinforced by powerful interests in the business world. Saudi spending incentivised companies with contracts or hoping to secure deals to be forceful lobbyists for selective morality and appeasement.

So the question arises: Why has the murder of one journalist led to a storm of protest and condemnation such as the Saudi regime never faced before?

Certainly, factors particular to Mr Khashoggi's murder play a big part: He was a US-based journalist, well-known to many colleagues in the West and among the many Arab journalists who are based in Western countries (unlike the 41 journalists killed in Brazil since 1992, for example). Turkey's partial revelation of the extreme brutality of the murder and highlighting of the indications that it was premeditated have reinforced a sense of outrage at what happened. It was put in the spotlight, and that spotlight was focused on one identifiable individual, unlike in the cases of the previous relatively anonymous and poorly connected victims of the Saudi regime.

But it may also be that the Saudi regime and, in particular, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, had finally overreached themselves. So confident had they grown of their ability to have their way, whatever they did, with impunity, that they assumed that this assassination could be planned and executed without any anticipation of negative consequences.

In truth, disquiet at Saudi actions had been growing in many countries that had strong business and political ties with Saudi Arabia, particularly since the rise to prominence of Crown Prince Mohammad, and despite praise for the modernising reforms that he has initiated.

UNDERCURRENT OF CONDEMNATION

While most governments are ready to accept Saudi Arabia's rationalisations for its intervention in Yemen (supposedly, an attempt to restore a legitimate government threatened by Iranian expansionism), its disastrous consequences for the civilian population have provoked criticism and generated an undercurrent of public condemnation. In 2017, the confinement of 30 wealthy individuals to the Riyadh Ritz Carlton until they coughed up money that the Crown Prince thought that they had obtained improperly was seen as an example of lawless autocratic behaviour.

Even more extraordinary was the detention of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri in Saudi Arabia, where he was induced to denounce Hizbollah, Lebanon's strongest political party, based in the country's Shi'ite community that makes up 40 per cent of Lebanon's population. The move had the potential to pitch Lebanon into another bout of violent conflict, but all parties kept their cool -and the whole episode was smoothed over on Mr Hariri's release.

High-handed actions such as these may have eroded the international toleration long extended to Saudi Arabian misdeeds, so that when the Khashoggi murder occurred, a red line was finally crossed that led to the unleashing of an unprecedented wave of criticism and condemnation.

The big question now is whether this signals a fundamental change in international attitudes towards Saudi Arabia or will everything revert to "business as usual" once a few amends have been made over the Khashoggi murder.

A narrow focus on finding and punishing the perpetrators of the murder can leave the established order in Saudi Arabia unchallenged. Judging by the number of companies that signed deals at the investment conference in Riyadh held at the height of international criticism of Saudi Arabia over the Khashoggi affair, there is no shortage of people willing to continue doing business with the country and ignore grave violations of human rights, just as in the past.

However, something may have changed for good. Saudi Arabia has been put on notice that there are limits to the international community's readiness to look the other way and mute criticism out of fear of losing Saudi business. Money may still talk, but it cannot necessarily be counted upon to win an argument.