human rights trial in saudi arabia

Two leading human rights activists have been sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment in Saudi Arabia this past weekend in what is the conclusion of a seven month trial and a further stain on the country’s human rights record. Mohammad al-Qahtani and Abdullah al-Hamed are co-founders of the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA), which gives aid to the families of those detained by the country that lacks a formal penal code. The sentencing occurred in the midst of two high profile diplomatic visits from the United States, yet neither Secretary of State John Kerry nor Attorney General Eric Holder offered criticism of the country’s abuses. The United States’s silence marks the preservation of a harmful Saudi exception embedded in its attitude towards human rights.

The verdict which al-Qahtani and al-Hamed received on Saturday came hardly as a surprise. Al-Hamed in fact informed the presiding judge in December that two of them were “ready for jail,” a gesture which served to reflect the generally arbitrary nature of Saudi justice. The two men appeared in court charged with undermining national unity, disobeying the ruler, and questioning the integrity of officials - grave accusations in a country where political dissent is seldom tolerated. Nevertheless, the ten year sentence was perceived nationally as severe. Speaking with CNN, Tamara al-Rifai, a spokeswoman for Human Rights Watch, condemned the sentencing as part of “a systematic approach by the authorities in Saudi Arabia” designed to carry out “the targeting and harassing of activists across the country." Furthermore, al-Rifai insisted that the trial itself has undermined “the Arab Charter of Human Rights to which Saudi Arabia has adhered."

Despite ardent criticisms, the voices of human rights agencies fell on deaf ears - Kerry and Holder remained conspicuously mute. This American silence exposes an ungrounded fear within US foreign policy that placing importance upon issues of human rights is a distraction from greater concerns within bilateral relations. As Mark Lagon, an Adjunct Senior Fellow on the Council of Foreign Relations, persuasively argues “it is important not to assume that human rights always intrinsically contradict U.S. interests,” and that in reality a lack of human rights turns allies “into pressure cookers ready to blow.” Saudi Arabia is a valuable asset for negotiating the nuclear aspirations of Iran. Regardless, justifying a deafness to injustice through political utility could prove costly in the long run. The liberal voice within Saudi Arabia reflects America’s own political and social standards, and this ought to be recognized. 

President George W. Bush rightly affirmed - though his rhetoric did not cohere with action - that it is a “bigotry of low expectations” to dismiss the governments of the Middle East as incapable of extending human rights to their citizens. If Barack Obama is to act upon his rhetoric of a global upholding of human rights, there can no longer be a Saudi exception. Expressing concerns about the prosecution of liberal reformists would send a needed message of support to Saudi Arabia’s emerging liberal movement.

an expope and personal choice

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s personal decision to renounce the papal role has given the world outside of the Vatican walls a fleeting glimpse of the person beneath the weight of the triple-tiara and the burden of papal duty. A first in 600 years, Joseph Ratzinger’s resignation demonstrates an expression of personal liberty within a church afflicted by sexual abuse scandals and increasing secularism. This radical conclusion of Ratzinger’s tenancy as the bishop of Rome and leader of the Roman Catholic Church has given rise to questions of individualism and personal choice in specific doctrines of the church where such convictions lack. Ratzinger has built a stage on which the future trajectory of the world’s largest faith will be played out.

The late John Paul II’s acclaimed papacy demonstrates a love for theater within the papal role. Where Benedict was a quiet academic and theologian, his predecessor was something of a diplomatic celebrity — images of the late pope kissing the earth of more than a hundred countries are sure to decorate the memories of devoted Catholics more lavishly than Benedict’s more muted gestures. Doubtlessly, John Paul II enjoyed immense popularity during his papacy — his funeral was attended by over four million people and was the largest gathering of any statesman in history. This popularity, however, was merely superficial — and as this appearance faded, the church and the pope who followed John Paul II were haunted by the re-emerged ghosts of sexual abuse and corruption.

Despite the contrast that are often drawn between the last two popes, these two men were far more similar than different. In the absence of an engaging persona or unusual appearance, the reactionary politics that the two men shared became all too obvious — and ardent criticism quickly replaced popularity. Not at all a spectacle of theatrics, Ratzinger’s papacy laid bare the different doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, and in doing so exposed them to popular criticism. The denial of personal choice in matters of contraception, abortion, divorce, marriage, suicide and sex portrayed a church that had become increasingly at odds with a world concerned with the liberty of individuals. This contention has exposed a need to recognize the utility of personal choice within the teachings of the church — a need that church leaders in the United States and elsewhere are beginning to recognize.

Upon electing Ratzinger as the new pope, the cardinals praised him as an intellectual and claimed he had shown the compatibility of reason and faith. By resigning, Ratzinger came close to making this claim true. In seeing no reason to remain in office while his health and strength receded, and making the personal decision to act upon this realization, he did much more for the faith than his glamorous predecessor could have hoped to do.

Understanding the importance of personal choice for the individual beneath the triple-tiara could lead to recognition of its importance elsewhere within the Roman Catholic Church.

A version of this article appeared on the Opinion Page of Washington Square News, March 7 2013