Trump’s Response to Khashoggi murder: A Troubling Signal to the World
President Trump’s handling of the meeting with Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman raised significant concerns, stemming from his response to the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.The situation alarmed observers for three key reasons: a dismissal of intelligence findings, a perceived cover-up of a brutal human rights violation, adn a blatant disregard for press freedom.
firstly, Trump appeared to prioritize diplomatic relations over the pursuit of truth regarding Khashoggi’s death. Despite investigations by multiple sources indicating potential involvement of individuals within Prince Mohammed’s inner circle,Trump downplayed the importance of establishing facts. He suggested the truth was irrelevant, dismissing the efforts of American intelligence agencies attempting to determine the circumstances surrounding the murder. This behavior aligned with a broader pattern, described as a tendency to “lie when it suits their interests.”
Secondly, Trump’s response was criticized for minimizing the severity of a horrific crime. khashoggi was murdered by strangulation, and his body was subsequently dismembered and disposed of by a team of Saudi agents. While acknowledging the brutality of the act, Trump’s statements implied a willingness to overlook such violations of human rights. He suggested that “foreign despots can eliminate critics who bother them without worrying about American disapproval,” a departure from the historical U.S. approach of encouraging allies to improve their human rights records.
the President demonstrated what manny saw as a clear disrespect for the principles of a free press, a cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution. During the meeting, ABC News correspondent bruce sprung a two-part question on Trump regarding the Trump family’s business dealings in Saudi Arabia and Prince Mohammed’s role in the Khashoggi murder.Trump responded by sidestepping questions about conflicts of interest, downplaying Khashoggi’s significance (“a lot of people didn’t like that gentleman you talk about”), and defending Prince Mohammed with the assertion, “He didn’t know anything about it, and we can leave it at that.” He further stated, “you don’t have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that.”
This reaction was met with criticism, as the media’s role is to ask challenging questions and report facts, not to ”flatter” leaders. Trump’s subsequent attacks on reporters – calling one a “terrible person” and another “Silence, little pig!” – further underscored his contempt for a free press, leading some to suggest he would prefer a media landscape similar to Saudi Arabia’s heavily controlled surroundings.
While acknowledging Prince Mohammed’s efforts to modernize aspects of Saudi society, such as expanding women’s rights and diversifying the economy, the article emphasizes that he remains an authoritarian leader responsible for the imprisonment of critics and a rise in executions. The author concludes that the appropriate U.S. policy should be to hold him accountable for abuses and advocate for a more open future for Saudi Arabia.
