[ad_1]
The assassination of dissident writer Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul has had exceptional repercussions on the international scene. In the weeks following his death, his case became a hot topic and a focus for the scandal.
All this attention has raised questions as to why the killing of a man triggered a heavier tumult than other Saudi actions – such as the war in Yemen and the humanitarian crisis that It provoked in this country or the roundup of hundreds of political rivals.
The answer seems to lie partly in the nature of Mr. Khashoggi's death and in his revelation, magnified by its importance. The controversy also reflects growing uneasiness at Saudi Arabia's heightened aggression under the leadership of its impetuous young heir apparent.
Here are some of the reasons why the assassination sparked such fascination and scandal, and why it could have political ramifications for Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Khashoggi was a prominent writer with powerful friends.
He was not only a known journalist, but a man the habit of rubbing shoulders with political elites. He became friends with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and was close to Saudi royalty. He spent years in the Saudi media and later served as an unofficial spokesperson and advisor to the royal family.
But his career in Saudi Arabia was interrupted when Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman forbade him to write in the kingdom as part of a widespread crackdown on dissent.
Mr. Khashoggi exiled to the United States and became a prominent critic of the Saudi monarchy in the Washington Post's regular columns. The Crown Prince has often been at the center of his criticism, with recent articles criticizing him for "peddling revisionist history", for imprisoning prominent women's rights activists, and for suppressing freedom of speech.
Assassinations of all kinds attract attention and arouse fear. But when the victim is as well known as Mr. Khashoggi, it gives a face to fear, said Michael J. Glennon, professor of international law at Tufts University. "They are specific people with names and faces that are prominent, and in many cases well connected," he said.
The location of Mr. Khashoggi's murder only added to the plot.
Turkish officials identified 15 men, some of whom had proven connections to the Saudi Crown Prince, who allegedly participated in the killing. Saudi officials have said that Khashoggi's death was a rogue murder and denied any connection to the royal family.
The brutality of a targeted assassination committed by Saudi agents on Turkish soil not only constitutes a violation of international law, but can also be seen by Turks as a challenge to their authority.
The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 – which Turkey and Saudi Arabia have signed – sets out the international law governing consulates and embassies and provides for the protection of officials and diplomatic installations.
"They escape somehow the jurisdictional grip of the host state," said Jan Wouters, professor of international law at K.U. Leuven in Belgium. "But this is based on a kind of understanding that these people will adhere to the law and will not abuse the freedom and space accorded to them under international law."
The consulate of Saudi Arabia in Istanbul is a protected area under international law. Although being on Turkish territory, local officials can not enter without the consent of Saudi Arabia.
Embassies and consulates around the world are considered political refuges and, subject to certain local laws, local and diplomatic staff working indoors are protected from Law enforcement in some cases.
But in cases of serious crimes, such as the murder of Khashoggi, this immunity can be waived.
"The fact that it happened in a consulate is all about that," said Glennon. "Embassies and consulates are supposed to be safe areas. These are places where you seek refuge, it is all the more daring. "
Leaks in the Turkish media have kept the story in the headlines.
After Khashoggi disappeared inside the consulate on 2 October, the Turkish authorities began to strategically disclose information to the country's pro-government media. The calculated strategy ensured that his case made headlines day after day, as Saudi officials initially denied any knowledge of his fate.
The leaks offered a gruesome description of audio recordings revealing that Mr. Khashoggi had been dismembered, his head and fingers cut off, scandalizing the international community. The stories of a double body, the search for remains and reports of private jets hiding, Saudi officials have only added to the drama.
The leaks, some of which were confirmed by President Erdogan in a speech Tuesday, lobbied the Saudi government to provide an explanation of where Mr. Khashoggi is.
The Saudi Crown Prince had already prepared the ground for tense geopolitics.
Prince Mohammed was ruthless in his quest for regional dominance and this made him an enemy. Many have questioned the the war in Yemen, its apparent constraint to resign from the Lebanese prime minister and his clash with Qatar.
The Turkish and US intelligence agencies claimed that the men responsible for the murder of Mr. Khashoggi were linked to the Crown Prince. While Saudi Arabia denies this, the apparent links have questioned the actions of the Crown Prince in general.
The death of an unmarried man – Mr. Khashoggi – has come to summarize Prince Mohammed's troubling vision of Saudi Arabia as a nation in which the leader can act with impunity, targeting at will dissidents and political opponents.
Now, President Erdogan could see in the Khashoggi case an opportunity to control the power of the prince and limit the scope of a regional rival.
Divergent accounts of Mr. Khashoggi's death left the United States stuck between two allies. President Trump sent contradictory signals, ranging from Saudi Arabia's defense to seeking answers.
Beyond the geopolitical repercussions and international implications, it is clear that the death of Mr. Khashoggi has hit many people emotionally.
Madawi Al-Rasheed, an expert in Saudi Arabia and a professor at the Middle East Center of the London School of Economics, wrote in a recent column that the assassination had seemed to capture the attention of the West in a deep way. Taken alone, she said, the circumstances surrounding her death are sufficient to constitute "a legitimate source of indignation".
"It would be the murder committed by a state – or the organs of a state – of an unarmed journalist, without judicial proceedings, for diplomatic motives outside the territory of the country of the perpetrators" , wrote Dr. Rasheed. "It's this appalling cocktail of circumstances that explains the general outrage that it has caused."
