This might sound insensitive but I don't get what the big deal is. Even if the Saudis had the journalist killed, how is that different than all the other (more) horrible things other governments have been engaging in?
However, there are good things going on in Saudi Arabia right now and the West would be futile to derail this. The Saudis need to answer for their actions, but not at the price of stopping the modernization they are undergoing.
It seems to even be the opposite : while former rulers were sharing power with their counselors, MBS looks like he wants to rule alone and unopposed.
They know the oil run won't last for another 50 years.
It's clearly only for PR so they can make more money and continue to commit atrocities. There won't be real progress.
When I hear "anti-corruption purge" I think "get rid of my political enemies".
Many people will find it offensive, but the Middle East has its own rules. Saudi Arabia is nothing like a Western state in terms of its power structure and population. Things that we find barbaric are contributing to long term stability. In this area, when you lose control over the population you get things like the Syrian civil war.
But that's not at odds with modernization. Singapore is a very modern nation, as is China in parts and you could count some Gulf states on some aspects. Modernization does not have to include democracy and human rights in the way they are perceived in the West.
Whatever happens, it's a long process and has inertia.
Put hard limits on MBS and his ilk, but be wary of turning SA into a pariah state over this. They are turning their back to Whabbism and radical Islam, it won't be good for anyone if things are rolled back.
I'm not usually the person to bring up past comments, but I do think your opinion on what I extrapolate to be cancelling the arms deal:
"> and when countries can’t rely on Western political, technological and military support, it is very likely they will attempt to pursue WMDs to make up for it (as done by all three)"
It's a commonly brought up argument, but North Korea never pursued WMDs because of fear of a Western threat, or to defend themselves from anyone. They did it because they want to use it as leverage to get the US to pull out of South Korea (which is also why they want the peace treaty declared so badly). This is working quite well so far.
Again, I only bring that comment up because I think it's relevant here, and the North Korea statement as a counter-example. I'm more concerned by what Saudi Arabia is going to do with those arms we sell them.
It's possible that a moderate Western democracy could eventually work if you didn't kill members of a free press, which would be the first step.
What is not given prominent coverage at the moment is MbS is the latest in the House of Saud attempting to prune back the Wahhabist power base [1]. There are whispers that Jamal Kashoggi might possibly be nefariously related to 9/11, and is at the least a "person of interest" [2]. It is extremely unlikely we will ever know the realpolitik behind-the-scenes story now, and going back to status quo ante becomes increasingly possible for the KSA the more days this drags on (it would be interesting to find out if the KSA has procured crisis management and/or PR expertise for this incident).
[1] https://www.albawaba.com/news/saudi-arabia-turning-against-w...
[2] https://washingtonsblog.com/2018/10/jamal-khashoggi-where-th...
Is it fair that the murder of just one columnist gets this sort of attention?
The fact that countries don't normally do stuff like this is what keeps diplomatic channels open, and wars from starting.
> Torture. Assassination of political dissidents. Financing terrorism. Civilian airstrikes. Oppression of women and religious minorities. Saudi Arabia’s record on human rights ranks among the world’s worst.
Not unlike CIA and military actions in South America, Southeast Asia, the Middle East (e.g. Iran Contra), and Guantanamo & Thailand, over the past 150 years.
As far as I am aware, the Saudi establishment is only out for themselves.