Full justice for Khashoggi’s murder may never happen

I wanted the White House to sanction Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman this week for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

I was delighted when the Biden administration released an unclassified intelligence report which confirmed that MBS (as the prince is popularly known) had “approved” the operation that killed the dissident in October 2018. Khashoggi, a U.S. resident, and Washington Post columnist, was chopped up by a Saudi hit team with a bone saw inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

So when the Biden team pulled its punches, only sanctioning MBS’ underlings, my first reaction echoed that of Agnes Callamard, the special rapporteur who led a U.N. investigation into Khashoggi’s murder. “It is extremely problematic, if not dangerous,” she said, “to acknowledge someone’s culpability and then to tell that someone ‘but we won’t do anything.’ ”

Yet, I could almost understand the Biden team’s halfway approach. The pros and cons over whether and how to punish MBS reflect our confusing times, when U.S. power is waning, and authoritarians like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping believe they can not only crush dissidents at home but kill or kidnap them abroad — with impunity.

So it’s worthwhile laying out the pros and cons of how the United States should respond to the heinous killing of Khashoggi. And then I’ll tell you where I came out.

The Biden team rightly argues they took some serious steps toward “recalibrating” the relationship with Saudi Arabia.

For one thing, former president Donald Trump had refused to release the report or blame the reckless MBS for the murder, only sanctioning a few of his aides after congressional outrage grew heated.

For another, Biden immediately announced the end to U.S. support for the Saudi-fueled civil warinYemen—anMBS project that caused massive humanitarian suffering and pushed Yemen’s Houthi rebels closer to Iran. Sales of “offensive” weapons to Saudi Arabia were halted, and other arms sales frozen.

And the White House made clear that President Biden won’t be treating MBS as the de facto ruler, as did Trump and his adviser and son-inlaw Jared Kushner. Instead, he will speak only with the ailing 85-year-old King Salman, the prince’s father. No invitations to MBS to visit the U.S. will be forthcoming.

Meantime, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced a new visa policy called the “Khashoggi ban” which will deny visas to individuals who harass or harm dissidents outside their home countries on behalf of their rulers. But that didn’t include MBS himself. Why?

The Biden team claims the U.S. doesn’t sanction foreign leaders (although it has done so in the past to a handful of leaders it considers hostile). But the White House clearly concluded it needs a continued relationship with the Saudi kingdom, whose king may die soon, leaving the 35-year-old MBS to rule for decades. U.S. dealings with Riyadh are vital to ending the war in Yemen and stabilizing the region in the event of a new nuclear treaty with Tehran as well as for the future of any wider peace accord with Israel-Palestine.

I lean toward taking the risk of sanctioning the crown prince, as a signal to the world that Biden is serious on human rights. Saudi Arabia needs us and relations would continue, regardless. But I’d feel comfortable with not sanctioning MBS if the administration is committed to revisiting the issue should he continue bad behavior, and is ready to use the Khashoggi ban globally to protect dissidents from other countries.

That, at least would pay tribute to Khashoggi, even if justice will never fully be served.