The Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and the International System

The most basic aspect of the international system is the fact that it lacks a centralized overarching authority. This is the sort of thing one learns on the first day of a basic intro course on international relations, but it makes it no less significant because given this characteristic, any positive international outcome that occurs in the world must come from either the acts of some type of hegemon (e. g. a pax brittanica), cooperation between countries, or self-restraint on the part of states. Scholars have long debated as to the precise nature of this and whether it happens because of state’s interests, economic ties, a state’s perception of the world, norms or some combination thereof. Whatever the reason, it is easy to take the state of the international system for granted and assume its benefits may continue more or less uninterrupted indefinitely. In reality, there is no such guarantee, and it is extraordinary that the system with all its flaws works as well as it does. After all, inter-state war has never been as rare as it is right now, nor has trade helped as many people as it does at the moment. Worryingly, however, the current international order seems to be fraying putting some of this at risk.

The incident that crystallized this for me was the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident who was murdered on October 2, 2018 at the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul. Details are still trickling out, but from what we know, a 15-member death squad brought from Saudi Arabia tortured and killed Khashoggi, and then proceeded to behead and dismember him inside the consulate. His crime was his criticism of the gulf kingdom and its crown prince, Mohammed Bin Salman, particularly over the Saudi-led War in Yemen which has already cost the lives of tens of thousands including nearly 3000 children and brought millions to the brink of starvation. Mr. Khashoggi went on exile last year and found prominent venues, such the Washington Post, to express his views on the need for a more democratic Middle East especially Saudi Arabia.

It is true, of course, that this is not the first time a state has violated another state’s sovereignty in pursuit of dissidents. Chile did so aggressively under Pinochet even managing to kill one of its critics in American soil. The Russians and the Chinese have been doing it systematically in recent years and the Saudis themselves have been kidnapping people in Europe; tricking them to come back to the kingdom where they end up in prison or worse. What makes this particular incident so troubling is the sheer brazenness of it. Chile then, China and Russia now have always had plausible deniability in their covert actions, not to mention that Russia has nuclear weapons and China the second largest economy in the world. In contrast, Saudi Arabia is at best a regional power—perhaps a key one in the Middle East—but not one that can do this sort of thing expecting to pay no price whatsoever.

In fact, the more one considers the specifics, the more it bewilders that such an operation could be ordered at all. Did the Prince really think no one would notice Khashoggi would be gone? Did he really not think Saudi Arabia would be the immediate and obvious suspect after Khashoggi disappeared in their own consulate? Did he truly expect Turkey to act as if nothing had happened? If Bin Salman wanted to silence his critic, did he not see that by murdering a Washington Post journalist he would only make his words more visible? The charade that came afterwards with the Saudi government vehemently denying reports of the murder only to admit a “botched operation” 17 days after the fact only proves how unprepared for the reactions they were. The only way this makes any sense at all is that the Prince truly does not care about world opinion or does not fear any potential reaction, particularly from the United States.

Sadly, he might be right. The President seems entirely unmoved by the incident, giving contradictory messages downplaying Khoshaggi’s importance as “not one of our citizens”, claiming Saudi Arabia would have to answer for the coverup but following up saying that the ridiculous Saudi explanation made sense. He insists the murder is unacceptable and the Saudis must pay for it, but he’s not about to risk arms sales because of it. Without the US it is not clear what the rest of the world might do. Russia and China do not care. Canada is already in a diplomatic row with the Saudis. France and the UK have demanded a clearer explanation, but it is unclear what steps they might take as a result. Germany is the only one that seems to be making a stand now by planning to not keep selling arms to them, while civil society and private efforts try to make up the gap.

So Saudi Arabia waits for all of this to blow over and sends a clear message to all dissidents anywhere in the world. You are not safe no matter where you live. But what is the message to other states that might want to emulate Saudi Arabia? From North Korea to Venezuela, Iran to Nicaragua, Honduras to the Philippines they might feel even less constrained than they already do. And it’s not just the killing of dissidents, but any state behavior that might violate international norms. The world is complicated, and it is full of problems that require cooperation. This, however, is hard work and often fails. So most of the time for the world to not get into unnecessary conflict one has to rely on the self-restraint of states. Having a world in which even this tenuous restraint has disappeared will make for a much more dangerous world for all of us.