Saudi Journalist Murder: Ethical Degradation
O
n October 2nd, Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. The truth of what happened afterwards is clouded by many reports that offer markedly different perspectives.
In the days following Khashoggi’s disappearance, an unnamed Saudi official claimed that Khashoggi was “not in the consulate nor in Saudi custody.” Then, another conflicting Saudi statement was released, saying that Khashoggi was unintentionally killed while at the consulate. The global response has been one of extreme skepticism, with many suspecting Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s involvement. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan vocally challenged the Saudi government’s account of the murder.
At first, the White House chose to remain neutral in the matter, saying that Saudi Arabia had already “taken action against the suspects.” This reaction made sense, as Saudi Arabia and the U.S. are strategic allies, and the U.S. sells billions of dollars in weapons to Saudi Arabia. President Trump has since referred to the killing as “the worst cover up in history,” which will surely trigger retaliation of some sort from the Saudi government.
At this point, the U.S. faces a moral dilemma. Although the United State’s reputation as a human rights defender is already beginning to fade—from leaving the UN Human Rights Council earlier this year to the Trump administration’s exclusion of transgender people through narrow governmental definitions of sex and gender—the U.S. has self-branded itself as a global champion of human rights and free speech. If governmental involvement is proven in Khashoggi’s murder, U.S. should at least be imposing economic sanctions on Saudi Arabia. Although Trump has publicly criticized the murder, his administration has yet to announce any concrete consequences other than blacklisting the Saudi nationals who were identified as suspects. However, an escalation in response would irreparably tarnish U.S.-Saudi relations.
All governments have a moral duty to show that journalists cannot and should not be targeted by governments, just because they express views that oppose the national narrative. Journalists serve one of the most important roles in a country—they risk their lives in pursuit of the truth. The jobs of journalists often entail enormous consequences, from threats to their personhood to substantial physical attacks, which is precisely what happened to Jamal Khashoggi.
Motivations behind his murder remain uncertain. However, a compelling interpretation of this situation is that a political dissident was targeted by the people in power he criticized. If that is true, Khashoggi’s murder is not an isolated incident. In the current global political climate, moderate democracy is on the decline while many nationalistic countries with populist governments are gaining immense influence. Take China, for example: it is undeniably growing in economic and political power, yet it shows no signs of switching from authoritarianism to democracy anytime soon. On the contrary, the Chinese government has actually tightened its grasp on the country’s media, with President Xi Jinping initiating frequent crackdowns against journalists, lawyers, and activists. In the best case scenarios, the journalists are questioned by police and then returned to their homes. In the worst case scenarios, they are brutally beaten, kidnapped, sentenced to years in prison under an unfair justice system, and even killed.
Without the work journalists do to keep officials in check, transparency from governments would be much harder to come by. Regardless of whether Khashoggi’s political beliefs were the primary motive behind the murder, the U.S. should be taking active steps to find out the truth and then reacting with an appropriate and unbiased evaluation of the situation. Our values as a country are at stake.