A gruesome murder bares world powers’ flawed policies
By James M. Dorsey
Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s gruesome murder raises
fundamental questions that go far beyond Middle Eastern geopolitics.
They go to the risks of support for autocratic regimes by
democratic and authoritarian world powers, the rise of illiberal democracy in
the West, increasing authoritarianism in Russia, and absolute power in China in
which checks and balances are weakened or non-existent.
Mr. Khashoggi’s killing is but the latest incident of hubris
that stems from the abandonment of notions of civility, tolerance and
plurality; and the ability of leaders to get away with murder, literally and
figuratively. It also is the product of political systems with no provisions to
ensure that the power of men like Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman is
restrained and checked.
Mr. Khashoggi was an advocate of the necessary checks and
balances.
In his last
column published in The Washington Post posthumously, Mr. Khashoggi
argued that “the Arab world needs a modern version of the old transnational
media so citizens can be informed about global events. More important, we need
to provide a platform for Arab voices. We suffer from poverty, mismanagement
and poor education. Through the creation of an independent international forum,
isolated from the influence of nationalist governments spreading hate through
propaganda, ordinary people in the Arab world would be able to address the
structural problems their societies face.”
Mr. Khashoggi’s words were echoed by prominent journalist
and political analyst Rami Khouri. “We are heading to the law of the jungle
if big power and Mideast state autocracy is not held accountable,” Mr. Khouri
said.
In a similar vein, a survey by the Arab Barometer survey
concluded that public
institutions in the Arab world, including the judiciary enjoyed little, if any,
public trust.
“Part of the lack of trust comes from the disenfranchisement
felt by many, especially youth and women… The
lack of alternative political forces is adding to the fatigue and lack of trust
in institutions. Citizens in the region struggle to find an alternative
to the ruling elite that might help address the issues of ineffective
governance and corruption,” said a report by the Carnegie for Endowment of
Peace.
“Citizens are increasingly turning toward informal
mechanisms such as protests and boycotts, and focusing more on specific issues
of governance, such as service provision, particularly at the local level.
Furthermore, with democracy under threat across the globe, calls for broad
democratic reform have been replaced by more basic demands,” the report went on
to say.
What puts the price Mr. Khashoggi paid for advocating
controls of absolute power in a class of its own, is the brutality of his
killing, the fact that he was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul
rather than, for example, by an unknown killer on a motorbike; and the
increasingly difficult effort to resolve politically the crisis his death
sparked.
Beyond the support by world powers of often brutal autocrats
facilitated by a lack of checks and balances that in the past three decades has
destroyed countries and costs the lives of millions, Mr. Khashoggi’s murder is
also the product of the failure of Western leaders to seriously address the breakdown
in confidence in leadership and political systems at home and abroad.
The breakdown peaked with the 2011 popular Arab revolts; simultaneous
widespread protests in Latin America, the United States and Europe; and the
increased popularity of anti-system, nationalist and populist politicians on
both the right and the left.
Mr. Khashoggi joins the victims of extrajudicial poisoning
in Britain by Russian operatives of people who like him may have been a thorn
in the side of their leaders but did not pose an existential threat – not that
that would justify murder or attempted murder.
He also joins the millions of casualties of failed policy and
hubris caused by Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s gassing of Kurds in the 1980s
and reckless 1990 invasion of Kuwait, support for Syrian president Bashar
al-Assad’s determination to cling to power irrespective of the human cost, the
Saudi-UAE-led war in Yemen that has produced the worst humanitarian crisis
since World War Two, and China’s attempt to brainwash and socially engineer
what the country’s leaders see as the model Chinese citizen.
And those are just some of the most egregious instances.
No better are the multiple ways in which autocratic leaders
try to ensure conformity not only through repression and suppression of a free
press but also, for example, by deciding who deserves citizenship based upon
whether they like their political, economic or social views rather than on
birth right.
Take Bahrain whose minority Sunni Muslim regime has stripped
hundreds of its nationals of their citizenship simply because it did
not like their views or Turkey with its mass
arrests of anyone critical of the government.
The irony is that if elections in democracies are producing
illiberal leaders like US President Donald J. Trump, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip
Erdogan and Hungary’s Victor Orban, in Asia and Africa they are bring forth
governments mandated to reverse Belt and Road-related, Chinese funding of
projects that primarily benefit China rather than the recipient economically
and pave the way for greater Chinese influencing of domestic politics as well
as the export of systems that enhance unchecked state power.
In some cases, like Malaysia, they produce leaders willing
to take on China’s creation of a 21st century Orwellian surveillance
state in its north-western province of Xinjiang.
It matters little what label world powers put on their
support for autocrats and illiberals. The United States has long justified its
policy with the need for regional stability in the greater Middle East. Russia
calls it international legality while China packages is it as non-interference
in the domestic affairs of others.
Said Middle East expert and former US official Charles
Kestenbaum building on Mr. Khashoggi’s words: “If they (Middle Eastern states) want
to compete with the globe in IT (information technology) and tech more broadly,
they must encourage risk, innovation and freedom to fail. Such social and
political freedom does not exist adequately in the region. The opposite in
fact, authoritarian regimes repress such initiative and openness. So what do
they have to compete and globally engage in the 2020’s? Nothing.”
Dr.
James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International
Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture,
and co-host of the New Books in Middle Eastern Studies podcast.
James is the author of The Turbulent World
of Middle East Soccer blog, a book with the same title and a co-authored
volume, Comparative Political Transitions between Southeast Asia and
the Middle East and North Africa as well as Shifting
Sands, Essays on Sports and Politics in the Middle East and North Africa
and just published China
and the Middle East: Venturing into the Maelstrom
Comments
Post a Comment