A match made in heaven? "Revelations" from the Raif Badawi case and a challenge for Wester
Barack Obama with King Abdullah, July 2014
The recent Raif Badawi case reveals not only the brutality of the Saudi Arabian legal system but also the hypocrisy of the West, and the limitations of its pressure. Raif Badawi, is a Saudi liberal blogger and creator of Free Saudi Liberals website, a website which aims to advance more open discussion on religion and politics in Saudi Arabia. To some the sentence of 1,000 lashes may not come as a drastic shock, in a country where human rights have been consistently abused and ignored throughout recent history. Badawi has been held since the middle of 2012 with his sentence set in May 2014 of ten years in prison, 1,000 lashes to be spread out over twenty weeks, and a one million Saudi riyals fine.
The growing disgust in this instance however comes in the form of punishment of a freethinking, peaceful individual, being punished merely for voicing his opinion. In light of the recent Charlie Hebdo attack and the widespread attention it received, it is no wonder that this case has garnered so much sympathy towards Badawi and condemnation towards the Saudi government; condemnation that has turned to mounting pressure to reverse the sentence. After receiving his first punishment on the 9th of January a continued sentence was postponed a week later, over growing health concerns and strong international pressure.
However, if a relatively positive result comes from this specific case, with the lashings and punishment being relinquished, will we turn to direct such outrage against other human rights abuses in one of the most brutal states in the world? An Amnesty report last year outlined the horrific brutality of the legal system, with 79 reported beheadings taking place in 2013; a pattern that was not dissimilar to previous years and a pattern that looks unlikely to change any time soon. Crimes include, and are not limited to, adultery and drug offences, with many of the sentences carried out without fair trial, with often confessions achieved by various forms of torture, a practice well embedded and unregulated in the Saudi prison system. In addition, relatively less severe forms of punishment such as flogging are carried out for less heinous “crimes” such as homosexuality. One case in 2007 was reported of two men being sentenced to 7,000 lashes for such an offence, illegal under strict Shariah law.
Raif Badawi’s case was also only one in a string of many similar sentences carried out against activists and against those whose political beliefs are a threat to the regime. In fact Raif’s own lawyer, and vocal human rights activist, Waleed Abu al-Khair, was jailed for fifteen years by the special Saudi terrorist courts, charged with undermining the regime and disturbing the public order. Another human rights activist, Fadhil al-Manisif, was sentenced to a fifteen-year prison sentence, a fifteen-year travel ban and a large monetary fine under similar charges. While these cases did not include the punishment of flogging, the severity of these punishments against free speech should not be underestimated. Reportedly there are around 30,000 political prisoners held in Riyadh, many it seems held for their political beliefs rather than for inciting terrorism. In prison, detainees are subjected to horrific conditions including sustained torture and beatings.
Saudi Arabia has consistently demonstrated that it will take extreme measures against any who dare to suggest political reform of the regime or protest against human rights violations. Yet despite such documented and obvious abuses it remains a member of the UN Human Rights Council, almost making a mockery of the entire system. Recent Saudi law includes a broad classification of “terrorism” including challenging Islam or encouraging atheist thought, loyalty to any organisation or person other than the Kingdom, correspondence with groups hostile to the Kingdom, inciting public disorder with protests, statements or meetings that do not demonstrate unity with the Kingdom and encouraging any international antagonism towards the Kingdom. Basically, the new law covers any form of expression that may be disparaging towards the regime, and criminalises even the slightest of critical thought. Vague language used and subjective statements allows prosecutors to convict anyone they may simply find to be a nuisance. The law further undermines its own commitments to the Arab Charter of Human Rights, which is supposed to guarantee freedom of expression and opinion and the right to peaceful assembly. Clearly these commitments are far from being met.
We have already seen that international pressure seems to have slowed or postponed the process of the flogging of Raif Badawi, yet there is no guarantee that the punishment will not continue at a later date. Yet we also have a responsibility to continuously challenge the Saudi Arabian system and question allegiance with such a brutal, repressive and authoritarian regime. With the renewed attention drawn with Raif Badawi’s case, the potential for action is increased, and many are now questioning commitments and support of Saudi Arabia as an ally in the Middle East. It is easy for states like the US and the UK to condemn the actions of the Kingdom, yet condemnation is useless when it is surrounded by hypocrisy. The picture of Saudi Arabian ambassador to France alongside other world leaders at the Charlie Hebdo marches was an insult to the entire purpose of the march, not to mention the various other leaders who joined the group from countries with sustained human rights abuses and a record of punishment for those who speak out against them; Qatar, Jordan, UAE, Turkey, Israel, Egypt to name a few.
On Obama’s recent trip to Saudi Arabia to meet with new King Salman, following the death of King Abdullah, the issue of Raif Badawi’s sentence was not raised in their meeting. It appeared simply to be a “business as usual” discussion regarding security, trade and to pay his respects to the late King Abdullah. Yet perhaps Michelle Obama choosing to forgo a headscarf on the recent visit to the country, prompting a string of criticism in Saudi Arabia was perhaps a statement against Saudi’s appalling women rights, even if only a symbolic one suggests that relations are not as respectful as one would imagine, and hints towards change. While the relationship has endured various other tests over recent history such as the rise of Al Qaeda, the predominance of Saudi nationals in 9/11 attacks, various corruption scandals, oil crises, Saudi funding of extremist religious violence and links to terrorism, it seems the justification for such a relationship is increasingly strained and almost non-existent. Perhaps if the US access to oil becomes more secure from other sources, the relationship will diminish, as they lose patience with the powerful Gulf monarchy in light of continued human rights abuses, extremism and a souring of relations from domestic and international pressure. The Saudi situation is becoming embarrassing to the West, and once it becomes clear that Saudi Arabia is no longer the key economic ally it used to be, the relationship is not guaranteed, especially if the Kingdom continues with its unrelenting ‘bad publicity’.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
