Image of Jamal Khashoggi Trail courtesy of Flickr
By Corrine Celupica-Liu ’23
Staff Writer
In October 2018, Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered while inside the Saudi consulate in Turkey. Khashoggi, who had been critical of Saudi Arabia’s leadership and who went into self-imposed exile in the United States the year prior, entered the consulate to get the necessary documents to marry his fiancee. The journalist never came back out.
Throughout the investigation, much uncertainty and contrast arose surrounding what Saudi, Turkish and United Nations’ investigations concluded regarding the journalist’s death. U.N. Special Rapporteur Agnès Callamard concluded that Khashoggi was the “victim of a deliberate, premeditated execution,” while the Saudi public prosecution concluded that the murder was not premeditated.
Professor of International Relations and Politics Sohail Hashmi noted how it was “very hard to imagine [the] murder would have taken place without the knowledge and acquiescence of [Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia] Mohammed bin Salman.”
This sentiment was shared by Assistant Professor of Politics Ali Aslam, who felt that there is “no question that Saudi Arabia’s crown prince ordered and knew about the mission to kill Jamal Khashoggi.”
Another issue surrounding the murder of Khashoggi involves the lack of transparency and fairness in the subsequent trials of his murderers.
As Callamard noted to Middle Eastern news source Al-Jazeera, “We know that the trial failed to meet the most basic international fair trial standards. Most importantly, the high-level officials who were named by the prosecutor were never included in the trial. … Also, all the hearings were held behind closed doors.”
Carrie Lewis ’23, a student interested in international affairs, noted that “just the fact that it was not a public trial usually indicates that it was involved in obstructing justice.”
During the trials in 2019, five people found to be directly involved in the murder were given death sentences. However, under Saudi law, the five individuals convicted were allowed legal reprieve after Khashoggi’s family pardoned them. Because one of Khashoggi’s sons, Salah, announced his family’s forgiveness for Khashoggi’s killers, the five death sentences were reduced to 20-year terms.
Given that many of Khashoggi’s family members, including his sons, still live in Saudi Arabia, this announcement brings up questions about whether or not the Khashoggi family was pressured into the pardoning.
Hashmi explained how it is “very hard to believe that no pressure was put on the family to forgive the killers. Even if they were not directly pressured, the mere suggestion would be enough for them to realize they had no other choice.”
An additional matter of concern is the amount of time that has passed since Khashoggi’s murder and the subsequent trials. Hashmi noted that “so much time has passed now that in general I think the issue has been put in the past by the states involved.” Because of this, the prospect of getting a fair trial and justice for Khashoggi is dwindling.
Regardless of what future possibilities exist for a fairer trial for Khashoggi, there is now a rising concern about the implications of this trial on the safety of journalists around the world.
Lewis noted how events like this “limit people from exposing injustices that their government is trying to hide and discourage them from pursuing journalism because it sends the message that partaking in it is risking their life.”
“We should care about this because the press is a right that is not always protected,” Lewis continued. “It is important to be informed about events that could be limiting this right for people around the world.”