Registered user login:

The executioner's sword

Kate Allen

Published 15 October 2008

Despite executing an average of two or three prisoners each week, Saudi Arabia’s grotesque love affair with the executioner’s sword barely raises a murmur of protest from the international community, including our own government

It was around this time last year that Britain’s red carpet was rolled out for the high-pomp state visit of King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia’s monarch and head of government.

The visit was characterised by the inevitable splendour of these occasions - royals meeting royals, lavish banquets, gold-encrusted carriages, bafflingly complex dining arrangements, and a good deal of controversy. Especially about arms deals and human rights.

Gordon Brown and government ministers kept to tight lines about “shared values” and “fighting terrorism”, but the two-day visit saw a welter of criticism from some backbench politicians, from human rights organisations and from commentators of various stripes.

Amnesty, for one, didn’t “oppose” the visit, but sought to talk about human rights in relation to a country that refuses to even allow Amnesty researchers to go to visit to meet Saudi people face to face.

Others added their voices and King Abdullah and his officials were reportedly “shocked” that they had been so much criticised during their time here.

But should they have been shocked? And were the Saudis actually listening to any of what their critics were saying?

It’s healthy and necessary for world leaders to listen to their critics. Rather than recoiling from these views - were we guilty of some unpardonable lèse majesté breach of etiquette? - Riyadh’s royals really ought to start listening to what people are actually complaining about.

It’s pretty simple. The Saudi authorities display an almost complete disregard for even the most basic human rights. Peaceful critics of the government are often subjected to prolonged detention without charge or trial. There are widespread allegations of the use of horrible torture against detainees. Floggings are imposed by the courts (11 Nigerian men were recently sentenced to 1,000 lashes each). Violence and discrimination against women is common, and migrant workers frequently labour under second-class status and suffer physical abuse from their employers.

Many of these gross abuses are piled one on top of another when it comes to Saudi Arabia’s implementation of capital punishment.

Here’s a typical scenario. A Pakistani migrant worker is accused of a murder or of being a drug dealer. Police arrive, the accused is taken to police cells. They are subjected to relentless questioning, denied sleep or food, kept in solitary confinement and tortured if they refuse to “confess” to their crime.

Fearing for their lives, scared and exhausted, the detainee signs a “confession” in Arabic that they can’t read or understood. They cling to a hope that they can sort out the mess when they can get a lawyer or come to trial.

They never get to sort it out. They’re taken before a court without a lawyer and the judge pronounces them guilty entirely on the basis of their false confession. Even then they may be in the dark. Without even the assistance of an interpreter, they probably won’t know what the outcome actually is. What is the sentence? Is there an appeal? A few months later they go to their deaths with no mercy from the Saudi system and no help from their home country, itself a “death penalty state” and one reliant on remittances from oil-rich Saudi Arabia.

In April 2005, for example, six young Somali men were publicly beheaded one morning after being taken out of their prisons where they had been serving what they thought were five-year sentences (plus flogging) for robbery. In fact, unbeknownst to them or their families, they had also been sentenced to death and the men only discovered the fact they were to be killed on the very morning of their executions.

In the last two years alone, according to Amnesty records (incomplete because Saudi Arabia refrains from publishing capital punishment statistics), at least 253 people have been executed. Of these, at least 127 were foreign nationals from poor and developing countries in Asia and Africa, notably Pakistan. Some 125 of them were poor Saudi Arabians (it’s been impossible to even identify the nationality of the remainder); the richer, better-connected Saudis, meanwhile, tend to barter “blood money” pay-offs to victims’ families and escape execution altogether.

Bucking the international trend toward abolition or reduced usage of the death penalty, and behind only China and Iran in terms of raw numbers, Saudi Arabia is executing more and more prisoners, including many for non-lethal crimes. A Turkish man living in Jeddah, for example, a barber called Sabri Bogday, is facing execution after being convicted (without a lawyer or interpreter) on “apostasy” charges for supposedly insulting Islam. Last November an Egyptian, Mustafa Ibrahim, was executed in Riyadh following what the Saudi Ministry of the Interior described as his conviction for “sorcery” and “witchcraft”.

Despite executing two or three prisoners every single week on average, Saudi Arabia’s grotesque love affair with the executioner’s sword is raising barely a murmur of protest from the international community, including our own government.

As William Sampson, one of the “Saudi Brits” who was himself sentenced to death in Riyadh in 2001 recently told Amnesty, what really appalled him in his own case was the almost “mute observance” of the UK government at what was happening in Saudi Arabia.

And still it goes on. Apparently when it comes to the Saudi royals we are keen to roll out the welcome carpet and blow the ceremonial trumpets of state, but altogether less keen to break the code of silence around Saudi Arabia’s diabolical human rights record.

Read Amnesty International’s new report on executions in Saudi Arabia

Kate Allen is UK director of Amnesty International

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

9 comments from readers

Cybertiger
15 October 2008 at 13:19

I guess the US has some Saudi citizens cooped up at Gitmo awaiting a capital sentence. Could the Americans not do a reciprocal deal with the Saudi justice authorities to swiftly dispatch some of America's more heinous felons?

Take Dick S Fuld for example, late CEO of Lehman Brothers who wept bitter tears at an unforthcoming taxpayer bailout to cover the crime of grand larceny. Apparently, the guy was unhappy with thought of trying to make ends meet after milking the system of $300 million in pay and bonuses in the last eight years. Let's be off with his head .... Saudi style.

ikotubo
15 October 2008 at 14:31

A murmur of protest? Dream on! Wasn't it a minister in this government who recently claimed that Britain and the Saudis have "common values - presumably including those that inform the regular executions?

taghioff.info
15 October 2008 at 20:59

I believe it was Bin Laden's family that were flown out of America after 9-11, because they were staying with the Bushes. And most of the 9-11 attackers were Saudi.

And so it was perfectly logical to invade and bring about regime change...

... In Iraq and Afghanistan.

But it was about democracy, no really, it was.

Ali Husseini
16 October 2008 at 01:22

An entire article about public execution in Saudi Arabia, and not one reference to Islam and Shari'ah law...

Islamic dogma commands such inhumanity and bequeathes an ad infinitum rejection of universally accepted human rights: when will more journalists join the dots?

St. Augustine/David Craig
16 October 2008 at 02:36

This islam folks, just get used to at some point it will come to our green and pleasant land!

Reginald
16 October 2008 at 08:03

There seems to be a fine line between human rights and preventing crime via fear. When my manservant stole some of my belongings, i would have like to see his thefting hands chop off. On the over hand, i do think they should lay down their swords and invest in ASBO orders or a hungry black panther! Or they could try chucking potatoes or mangos at the criminals!

Sharif
16 October 2008 at 14:20

Saudi Arabia has apartheid system for the following

category of people:

1. women. treated like cows and kept inside home tied

and secure. She cannot drive, can have other women

as wives for her husband, who can go abroad and

have sexual pleasures with other women.

2. Non Muslims. they are treated like 2nd rate and

have rights equivalent to Muslims

3. Children. they must obey the parents and their

region. leaving it means shortening of life.

And why do UK and USDA and other 'democratic'

countries support this apartheid regime? It has a lot of

oil.

sweety
21 October 2008 at 05:07

apartheid regime?........... What fantasy worlds do these people live in? I guess this word like racism has become one of those valueless words, people with a limited education throw at issues for effect.

gnuneo
31 October 2008 at 02:11

democracy and human rights are only brought out when our 'elites' want to justify attacking some helpless 3rd world country that might have dared to go against their wishes.

i thought we all knew that?

glad that somebody doesn't accept it though, well written Kate.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Should the third runway at Heathrow go ahead?