4 ms·

Jamal Khashoggi: What the Arab world needs most is free expression

65 points by IBM 8y ago

manfredo 8y ago
I'd like to ask, to what degree is immoral state violence acceptable to produce social progress?[1] While I'm appalled by seems to be the assassination of a political opponent, Bin Salman's plans to move towards secularization, loosen the country's dependence on fossil fuels, etc. seem promising. If allowing certain freedoms means halting Saudi Arabia's progress towards these goals is it a worthwhile tradeoff? Consider the US Civil war as an analogue. It wasn't an act of totalitarianism - forcibly subduing the south was legal, while totalitarianism has the connotation of extralegal use of force. And it wasn't undemocratic - Lincoln won the election. However it was certainly an instance of the government forcing its will on a segment of the population through immense violence. My belief is that immense violence was justified, to allow slavery (and slavery was the keystone reason for the Civil War) to be perpetuated would have been a greater evil. At face value many, including myself, would state that killing 2-2.5% of the total population in suppression of a rebellion is a bad thing. But ending slavery constitutes sufficient social progress to make it worth it. A more morally gray area would be the overthrow of Egypt's elected government. I don't want to sign praises of the military junta, but some family relatives that are religious minorities (Coptic Christians) praised the military regime. And they made no premise of trying to portray their rule as democratic: they essentially said, "yes, it is a dictatorship. And in spite of that I fully believe it is better than rule by the Muslim Brotherhood. Similarly, while many (including myself) were optimistic about Syrian rebels fighting against Assad, it's tough to say that a peace under Assad would have been worse than the fate Syria got. Another good example is Singapore's dictatorship. On one hand, silencing dissidents is something I consider bad. The fact that a party that receives ~60% of the vote gets to control ~90% of leadership roles is unjust. But by most other metrics of success, it's difficult to find fault in the country. High incomes, low rates of crime, and extensive services provided to the populace are the envy of most other countries. It's tempting to say that these could all be possible without dictatorial intervention, but the kind of long-term policy (and sometimes heavy-handed policies like relocating residents to eliminate de-facto racial segregation) that created Singapore's success are difficult to pull off in democracies. I hope this doesn't come off as an attempt to justify Saudi Arabia's apparent actions, or read as an apologia of dictatorship. I still wouldn't choose any other countries' system over my own - at least none other than similar Western democracies. If it turns out Khashoggi was assassinated, it would definitely be a permanent mark against MBS (or whoever made this decision). Rather I just want to prompt reflection of what often seems to be the unqualified assumption that forceful governments results in a bad outcome, and democracy and liberty results in good ones. I certainly agree that assassinating a journalist, dismembering him, and subsequently denying it is unjustified even if it was eliminating a roadblock to social change in Saudi Arabia. But I do want to ask HN: where is that line? [1] Judging by the responses, this was not an effective way to ask the question I want to ask. A better question is "to what degree does social progress made by foreign leaders offset their moral ills?" Edit: I realize this was a potentially controversial question to pose, but it's something I've started to reflect on after talking to people that have experienced recent events in the Middle East. A lot of them expressed frustration with the tendency to view foreign policy through a simple, moralistic lens. The result of such a perspective often has negative consequences (e.g. the Iraq war. Hussein carried out atrocities orders of magnitude worse than the assassination of a journalist, but our moralistic response was orders of magnitude again more devastating).
- pm90 8y ago
  Ends do not justify the means. And it’s not just a moral faith: the savage way in which you grab power and silence dissidents creates an environment where bad ideas are allowed to not fail and fester until they destroy everything.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    > Ends do not justify the means. So was Egypt better under the Muslim Brotherhood than the military junta? The "means" of their overthrow were certainly bad (a military coup), so does that automatically mean it would have been better for Egypt to have continued to be ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood. Is Singapore a morally bad country? We don't know for sure if they would have achieved the same results with a democracy, but in our mental image of "shitty, immoral countires" does Singapore pop into mind? It's easy to make moralistic claims like this, but to a certain extent we all agree that certain ends to justify certain means. Police shouldn't kill a criminal for stealing an orange. But they probably should kill a criminal if they're holding someone hostage at knifepoint (Purely speaking in terms of the morality of killing people in commission of a crime, I don't know if shooting at a someone holding a hostage is good policing)
    - pm90 8y ago
      It isn’t helpful to apply the same moral principles that you use in specific situations to generalize over the entire space of morality. We know for a fact that systems with unchecked political power have a way of devolving into autocracies/oligarchies, which I don’t believe is a system that most people would want to live under.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - prophesi 8y ago
      I think you're missing the point of the article (if your original comment was actually a comment on the content of the article in the first place). The Arab world is in a dangerous place because you can be -dismembered- for your ideas. Not for holding someone hostage at knifepoint. If you allow no room for criticism, you're allowed free reign.
orsenthil 8y ago
Very well written piece. It shows care for his society. Free information and well being for his community. RIP, Jamal Khashoggi.

65 points by IBM 8y ago

I'd like to ask, to what degree is immoral state violence acceptable to produce social progress?[1] While I'm appalled by seems to be the assassination of a political opponent, Bin Salman's plans to move towards secularization, loosen the country's dependence on fossil fuels, etc. seem promising. If allowing certain freedoms means halting Saudi Arabia's progress towards these goals is it a worthwhile tradeoff? Consider the US Civil war as an analogue. It wasn't an act of totalitarianism - forcibly subduing the south was legal, while totalitarianism has the connotation of extralegal use of force. And it wasn't undemocratic - Lincoln won the election. However it was certainly an instance of the government forcing its will on a segment of the population through immense violence. My belief is that immense violence was justified, to allow slavery (and slavery was the keystone reason for the Civil War) to be perpetuated would have been a greater evil. At face value many, including myself, would state that killing 2-2.5% of the total population in suppression of a rebellion is a bad thing. But ending slavery constitutes sufficient social progress to make it worth it. A more morally gray area would be the overthrow of Egypt's elected government. I don't want to sign praises of the military junta, but some family relatives that are religious minorities (Coptic Christians) praised the military regime. And they made no premise of trying to portray their rule as democratic: they essentially said, "yes, it is a dictatorship. And in spite of that I fully believe it is better than rule by the Muslim Brotherhood. Similarly, while many (including myself) were optimistic about Syrian rebels fighting against Assad, it's tough to say that a peace under Assad would have been worse than the fate Syria got. Another good example is Singapore's dictatorship. On one hand, silencing dissidents is something I consider bad. The fact that a party that receives ~60% of the vote gets to control ~90% of leadership roles is unjust. But by most other metrics of success, it's difficult to find fault in the country. High incomes, low rates of crime, and extensive services provided to the populace are the envy of most other countries. It's tempting to say that these could all be possible without dictatorial intervention, but the kind of long-term policy (and sometimes heavy-handed policies like relocating residents to eliminate de-facto racial segregation) that created Singapore's success are difficult to pull off in democracies. I hope this doesn't come off as an attempt to justify Saudi Arabia's apparent actions, or read as an apologia of dictatorship. I still wouldn't choose any other countries' system over my own - at least none other than similar Western democracies. If it turns out Khashoggi was assassinated, it would definitely be a permanent mark against MBS (or whoever made this decision). Rather I just want to prompt reflection of what often seems to be the unqualified assumption that forceful governments results in a bad outcome, and democracy and liberty results in good ones. I certainly agree that assassinating a journalist, dismembering him, and subsequently denying it is unjustified even if it was eliminating a roadblock to social change in Saudi Arabia. But I do want to ask HN: where is that line? [1] Judging by the responses, this was not an effective way to ask the question I want to ask. A better question is "to what degree does social progress made by foreign leaders offset their moral ills?" Edit: I realize this was a potentially controversial question to pose, but it's something I've started to reflect on after talking to people that have experienced recent events in the Middle East. A lot of them expressed frustration with the tendency to view foreign policy through a simple, moralistic lens. The result of such a perspective often has negative consequences (e.g. the Iraq war. Hussein carried out atrocities orders of magnitude worse than the assassination of a journalist, but our moralistic response was orders of magnitude again more devastating).

pm90 8y ago
Ends do not justify the means. And it’s not just a moral faith: the savage way in which you grab power and silence dissidents creates an environment where bad ideas are allowed to not fail and fester until they destroy everything.
- manfredo 8y ago
  > Ends do not justify the means. So was Egypt better under the Muslim Brotherhood than the military junta? The "means" of their overthrow were certainly bad (a military coup), so does that automatically mean it would have been better for Egypt to have continued to be ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood. Is Singapore a morally bad country? We don't know for sure if they would have achieved the same results with a democracy, but in our mental image of "shitty, immoral countires" does Singapore pop into mind? It's easy to make moralistic claims like this, but to a certain extent we all agree that certain ends to justify certain means. Police shouldn't kill a criminal for stealing an orange. But they probably should kill a criminal if they're holding someone hostage at knifepoint (Purely speaking in terms of the morality of killing people in commission of a crime, I don't know if shooting at a someone holding a hostage is good policing)
  - pm90 8y ago
    It isn’t helpful to apply the same moral principles that you use in specific situations to generalize over the entire space of morality. We know for a fact that systems with unchecked political power have a way of devolving into autocracies/oligarchies, which I don’t believe is a system that most people would want to live under.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - prophesi 8y ago
    I think you're missing the point of the article (if your original comment was actually a comment on the content of the article in the first place). The Arab world is in a dangerous place because you can be -dismembered- for your ideas. Not for holding someone hostage at knifepoint. If you allow no room for criticism, you're allowed free reign.

orsenthil 8y ago

Very well written piece. It shows care for his society. Free information and well being for his community. RIP, Jamal Khashoggi.