Bahrain’s Courageous Doctors ……

http://original.antiwar.com

.

by Adil E. Shamoo, November 11, 2011 ,

.

The United States continues to ignore the thwarted Arab Spring in Bahrain. Recently, a quasi-military court in the small Gulf state sentenced 20 doctors and nurses to up to 15 years in jail. The charge against them? Treating injured demonstrators opposing the regime.

Doctors and nurses in the Middle East have a long and proud tradition of treating the ill, regardless of the situation. In ninth-century Baghdad, for example, Hunayn ibn Ishaq was the Caliph’s physician. The Caliph asked this physician to prepare a poison to kill his enemies. The physician refused, risking his life, and was eventually jailed for one year. After serving his sentence, the Caliph inquired as to why he refused. The physician replied, “My profession is instituted for the benefit of humanity and limited to their relief and cure.”

So the doctors and other healthcare providers in Bahrain who treated the injured demonstrators were acting not only in the noblest tradition of the Hippocratic Oath but also in keeping with centuries-old Arab tradition. Medical ethics requires all physicians to be medically neutral toward those they treat.

Last February, Bahrain’s citizens joined the Arab Spring by holding massive demonstrations against the country’s corrupt, minority royal government. Bahrain’s security forces, assisted by Saudi-led troops sent by the Gulf Cooperation Council, brutally suppressed the peaceful demonstrations by force, resulting in the deaths of around 30 people, as well as hundreds of others wounded and arrested. At least 1,200 people were dismissed from their jobs. Opposition leaders were arrested, quickly tried, and sent to jail. Many detainees were tortured, and some women were sexually abused.

The government of Bahrain soon turned its attention to doctors and other healthcare providers, arresting, jailing, and torturing those accused of treating protesters. One female doctor told NPR that she was tortured and threatened with rape. In the same story, a man claimed that he was beaten unconscious. The authorities threatened the arrested individuals, saying that the security forces would arrest and torture members of their families if they didn’t sign a confession.

The doctors and nurses in Bahrain have called for support from the international community, especially from the United States. But the U.S. State Department has been muted in its comments about Bahrain’s abuse of hospital staff. This has led some medical professionals and other observers to lament that if such abuses had occurred in Syria or Iran, the United States would have condemned them vocally and emphatically.

U.S. policy toward the Arab Spring has been two-faced and unprincipled since its outbreak. When a hostile regime – in Syria or Iran, for example – has abused human rights, the administration has taken the moral high ground. However, in the case of friendly regimes – like those in Bahrain, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia – the administration has toned down its criticism or remained silent altogether. In the case of Bahrain, the United States still maintains a naval base there with 15,000 personnel.

The British Medical Association (BMA) issued a statement strongly condemning Bahrain’s behavior, stating, “BMA is shocked that these doctors are being persecuted for acting in accordance with their code of ethics.” The World Medical Association issued a similar statement. However, the American Medical Association merely invited physicians, if they wish, to write directly to Bahrain’s rulers to voice their opinion. The U.S. bioethics associations are silent.

Over the course of history, humanity has carved out zones of ethical conduct, whether in the conduct of war or the treatment of the sick and wounded. Medical ethics has a long and honorable history that U.S. officials and medical professionals must uphold for the doctors and nurses in Bahrain. Otherwise, the Arab Spring won’t bloom for long.

.

The kings and princes: The agents of the West to preach democracy!

http://www.voltairenet.org Media fabrications collapse before Syrian facts / Tensions between Israel and Washington / The Wikileaks documents and many facts confirming Al-Hariri’s predicament. 19 April 2011From Beirut (Lebanon) All the versions of this article: français Countries Lebanon International affairs Editorial: The kings and princes: The agents of the West to preach democracy! Following the recent protests, the American and European preaching of democracy in the Arab countries has turned into a blunt moral and political scandal, after the developments revealed the extent of Western interference in Arab affairs and reflected the nature of the colonial calculations governed by the control of the oil resources and the permanent protection of Israel and its hegemony over the Arab East. The United States and the European countries interfered to crush the democratic popular revolution in Bahrain, as soon as the royal autocratic regime in it reached a lethal dead end and almost succumbed to a wide popular action which proposed the move toward a constitutional monarchy. This action was characterized by its peacefulness and the fact that it included a multifaceted national fabric on the social, sectarian and doctrinal levels. Indeed, the Bahraini opposition includes Sunnis and Shiites, as well as Marxists, Islamists and nationalists who were able to gather a wide crowd which exceeded 80% of the population on Pearl Square and in the streets of Bahrain. This constituted a rare phenomenon around the world and in the history of popular actions. The interests of Israel, the United States and the European West reside in the revival of the so-called moderation group that is willing to liquidate the Palestinian cause and establish a partnership with Israel under Washington’s sponsorship. This situation was crowned with the caricature scene witnessed at the White House when President Barack Obama received the Prince of Qatar, a state in which there is not even an elected municipal council and which constitutes the archetype of autocratic regimes where families control the wealth. The Prince of Qatar struck a deal with the American administration in the context of a counterattack plan which started by crushing the Bahraini uprising, but also in the context of giving him a financial and political role at the level of the Libyan file. For that purpose, the prince of Qatar offered his two efficient tools: Al-Jazeera channel and Sheikh Youssef al-Qardawi – one of the leaders of the international organization of the Muslim Brotherhood – to undermine Syrian stability and protect the Saudi regime. This was done through the exploitation of the good reputation which Al-Jazeera channel, Sheikh Qardawi and the Prince of Qatar from behind them acquired in the ranks of the Syrian people during the last few years. Arab affairs Editorial: Media fabrications collapse before Syrian facts Last Friday witnessed peaceful and calm protests in Syria, following a series of meetings held by President Bashar al-Assad, the announcement of the new Syrian government, and Al-Assad’s decision to release all the arrestees who were not involved in criminal acts during the recent events. Some correspondents of foreign agencies in Beirut quoted some whom they referred to as being “activists” and who usually convey information about the developments in Syria to the media outlets, as saying they were frustrated because they were seeking any report regarding shootings in whichever Syrian town or village. Some of them even expressed their discontent toward the nature of this calm day, instead of welcoming the breakthrough achieved by the measures of the Syrian command and the instructions of President Al-Assad who ordered the security forces since day one not to shoot at the demonstrators. In the meantime, President Al-Assad’s meetings with the popular leaderships and the dignitaries in the province and cities, were enough to isolate the gangs of sabotage, as the citizens gathered on Friday in the squares and the streets made sure not to allow the infiltration of any armed elements who had turned their rifles towards the population and the security men alike. Syria is heading toward a new stage which was detected during the peaceful day of demonstrations and the condemnation by many oppositionists of the actions undertaken by the armed gangs of sabotage during the protests. In this context, it turned out there was an alliance between Abdul Halim Khaddam, the Muslim Brotherhood and Bandar Ben Sultan’s group which came from Iraq and Jordan via the Syrian border. On Saturday, the Syrian security forces had announced the confiscation of important stocks of arms being smuggled from Iraq, thus proving the latter claims. The Arab file Syria • Many dead and wounded fell his week in the ranks of the Syrian Arab armed forces, after an army unit was led into an ambush set up by armed groups as it was moving on the highway between Latakia and Tartous. This resulted in the death of two officers and in the wounding of thirty soldiers. • The Syrian television aired confessions by a terrorist cell which was provided with money and arms from foreign sides to carry out plans and acts of sabotage in the country. • Syrian President Bashar al-Assad issued a decree to form the new government headed by Doctor Adel Safar. It is worth mentioning in this context that half the members of this Cabinet were new, especially in the economic and services sectors. Thus, confirming President Al-Assad’s interest in tending to the economic and livelihood affairs of the citizens. It is clear at this level that priority was given to the economic conditions and especially the fighting of corruption. • President Al-Assad held a series of meetings with religious and popular dignitaries from several provinces, during which he listened to the opinions of the citizens and to their suggestions to develop national action. These meetings were tackled by President Al-Assad during his first address before the new government, as he put forward many proposals which had been presented to him by these dignitaries and the citizens. • Al-Assad also issued a decision to release all the detainees arrested against the backdrop of the recent incidents among those who did not commit any criminal acts targeting the citizens and the country. • At this point, it would be worth pointing to the speech delivered by President Al-Assad before the new government, as it reflected real intentions and a truthful wish to introduce drastic reforms. He said: “All those who fell from the police, the army and he civilians are martyrs,” indicating: “Our internal immunity is linked to the reforms we will introduce to meet the needs of the citizens. The success of reforms will protect Syria and allow it to confront the international and regional powerful winds.” He also stressed the necessity for the new government to ratify all the laws that would pave the way before the lifting of the state of emergency next week, assuring: “Lifting the state of emergency will lead to the enhancement of security in Syria, while upholding the dignity of the citizens.” He insisted in this context that the new parties’ law should be subjected to “national dialogue” because it affects Syria’s future. Yemen • The confrontations escalated in a number of Yemeni cities between thousands of demonstrators demanding the toppling of the regime and the departure of President Ali Abdullah Saleh, and the security forces supported by military forces from the Peninsula Shield, leading to the fall of many dead and wounded. • Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh reiterated his insistence on ending the crisis witnessed in his country due to the protests staged against him “through dialogue between the political parties and within the context of the constitution.” • The foreign ministers of the GCC member states decided – following the extraordinary meeting held in Riyadh to look into the Yemeni crisis – to call on the Yemeni government and the opposition to meet in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia under the umbrella of the GCC. • The opposition parties in the Joint Meeting invited the Yemeni people to deploy “additional steadfastness in the face of the violence and the stalling shown towards all the peaceful initiatives to ensure power transition and end the current crisis in the country, at the head of which is the Gulf initiative.” They thus stressed their insistence on the “articles of the Gulf initiative and the rejection of any attempt to elude them by the ruling regime.” Libya • The presidential African delegation met with Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi in Tripoli. The African mediation had suggested the inauguration of a transitory phase through the ratification of political reforms, in parallel to its calls for the implementation of the roadmap it had reached last month. The mediation also called for a “political solution” based on “comprehensive dialogue between the sides involved in the conflict, in order to reach a ceasefire between the two sides.” • On the field, the battles continued between Gaddafi’s brigades and the rebels, reaching their peak in the strategic cities of Missratah and Ajdabia, in order to control them. Dozens of victims fell from both sides in various clashes, in parallel to the strikes launched by the NATO alliance. • The head of the Libyan Provisional Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, announced the revolutionaries’ rejection of the initiative of the African Union to resolve the crisis in the country, as well as that of any mediation which does not include the departure of Muammar al-Gaddafi and his sons. Abdul Jalil explained: “The people’s demand is to see the departure of Gaddafi and his sons. Therefore, any initiative that does not feature this demand is not worthy of consideration.” Egypt • Egyptian General Prosecutor Abdul Majid Mahmud decided to imprison former President Hosni Mubarak and his sons Gamal and Alaa for fifteen days in the context of the investigations into the attacks on the demonstrators during the January 24 Revolution. It was reported that the trial of Mubarak and his sons will be held on Tuesday April 19 in Cairo, while the prosecution is investigating Suzanne Mubarak against the backdrop of corruption cases. Moreover, many symbols from Mubarak’s regime were arrested on several charges. • In light of the decision to imprison Mubarak, the representatives of the Egyptian political forces and protest movements decided to suspend the activities which they were planning on organizing on Friday, whether in terms of the demonstrations or the sit-ins. Palestine • Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that if the criminal attacks against the Israeli military men or civilians were to continue, Israel’s response will be even harsher. • The Hamas movement said it was willing to ensure calm if “Israel stops its aggression.” • According to Palestinian medical sources, eighteen Palestinians were martyred and around seventy wounded –mostly civilians- in addition to two prominent militants in the Palestinian factions. • In the meantime, Salafi groups operating in the Gaza Strip kidnapped and killed in a brutal way Italian peace activist Vittorio Arrigoni, thus raising wide scale discontent around the Strip which has been under Hamas’s control since 2007. Hamas pledged to hold those responsible for this act accountable, considering that they harmed the Palestinian cause and undermined the work of foreign peace activists in Palestine. It consequently succeeded in arresting two elements involved in the crime. It is worth mentioning that these Salafi groups are known for their ties with Gulf sides, which clearly reveals the existence of attempts to ruin the resistance’s reputation. The Israeli file Tensions between Israel and Washington The editorial of Yediot Aharanot tackled the widening gap between American President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu despite the efforts deployed by the latter. Indeed, Obama is pushing toward the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 border, while Israeli political forces were quoted as saying they were concerned about the expansion of the dispute due to Obama’s insistence on his position. They indicated that the turmoil sweeping the Arab world enhanced President Obama’s support of the idea to establish a Palestinian state, as well as his dissatisfaction with the Israeli policy. The paper assured that the international Quartet will issue a statement next Friday featuring the recognition by the member states, including the United States, of the ability of the Palestinian authority to achieve economic independence. The Lebanese file • Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah indicated that a quasi final outcome was reached in regard to the number of ministers, the representation of the political forces and the nature of the government. He said: “We are now discussing the portfolios, and if this issue is settled, the selection of the names will be very easy.” He then assured: “It is in our interests to see the formation of the government as soon as possible under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Najib Mikati, so that this government can assume its responsibilities during this difficult stage.” In his speech, Nasrallah noted that some attempted to exploit the published Wikileaks documents during the last few days, in order to undermine the relations between Hezbollah and Amal. He then tackled the content of the meetings between the American ambassador and leaders in the March 14 forces, saying that since 2005, the main and probably only goal of the March 14 team has been to strike the resistance, to disarm it, to isolate it and eliminate it, indicating that a deal was struck between the March 14 forces and the US based on the following: We give you power in Lebanon in exchange for the head of the resistance. • The operations to evacuate the Lebanese nationals from the Ivory Coast are proceeding in accordance with the adopted mechanism. Indeed, a Middle Airlines airplane is heading to Abidjan on a daily basis and transporting around 230 Lebanese nationals, while two charter planes –the first leased by the Foreign Ministry and can carry 75 passengers and the second leased by the premiership and can carry fifty passengers- are also heading from Accra to Abidjan and vice versa on a daily basis. Moreover, an Iranian airplane is participating in the evacuation efforts and transporting the Lebanese nationals from Abidjan to Beirut, which confirms Iran’s sustained support of Lebanon. • In the meantime, the Bahraini authorities issued a decision to gradually oust groups of Lebanese citizens, as some of the returnees from Bahrain told As-Safir newspaper that they were summoned by the immigration and passports authority at the Bahraini Interior Ministry where they were informed they had to leave the country. They were also asked to sign pledges saying that they will leave Bahrain within 48 hours, without being given any explanation or justification for this measure. For their part, the Bahraini officials settled for saying: “We are implementing a decision form a higher authority.” • In his weekly position to Al-Anbaa newspaper, Deputy Walid Jumblatt wondered about “the point behind entering in a daily dispute with the Islamic Republic in light of the current regional situation, instead of distancing the controversial issues from the domestic arena to alleviate the tensions and limit the division that has reached advanced levels.” • Head of the Lebanese Forces Samir Geagea considered that “the formation or non-formation of the government will not change anything at the level of the political reality, in light of the continuation of a key problem in the country that is obstructing the progress of political life and is represented by the illegitimate arms.” • Head of the Change and Reform bloc in parliament, Deputy Michel Aoun, said there was nothing new at the level of the government formation and denied he was informed about any veto over his bloc’s assumption of the security ministries. • On the other hand, the Syrian television aired confessions by arrestees in the Daraa incidents, saying that they received funds and weapons from Deputy Jamal al-Jarrah who is part of the Future bloc. • The Future parliamentary bloc denied the accusations made by the Syrian television against Deputy Jamal al-Jarrah, saying these were false accusations which aimed at undermining the brotherly Lebanese-Syrian relations and at implicating the Future Movement in fabricated accusations. • Syrian Ambassador to Lebanon Ali Abdul Karim Ali assured that the confessions of the terrorist groups which were aired by the Syrian television required the Lebanese authorities to act and place their hands over this file, in order to uphold the exceptional relations between the two countries. • At the level of the Wikileaks documents, it is worth mentioning that they carried statements by President of the Republic Michel Suleiman back when he was the army commander, saying to American officials that he was against Syria and the resistance. One of Feltman’s cables also indicated that Suleiman spoke about his predecessor Emile Lahoud in a highly insulting way. Suleiman also pointed out it was necessary for Elias al-Murr to be appointed as minister of defense due to his hostile position toward Hezbollah, at a time when no official comments or denials were issued by the presidential palace in regard to these leaks. News analysis: The Wikileaks documents and many facts confirming Al-Hariri’s predicament The denial on which Deputy Jamal al-Jarrah from the Future bloc insisted in regard to the confessions made by three Syrian saboteurs who were arrested while carrying arms and funds, along with equipment and communication devices which they said were provided by Jarrah in person, luckily coincided with the Wikileaks documents that featured dangerous facts about Saad al-Hariri’s involvement in the American plot to undermine Syria under the headline of toppling the regime and replacing it with an alliance including the group of Abdul Halim Khaddam and the Muslim Brotherhood organization. The Wikileaks information contradicted Al-Jarrah’s denial because it pointed to Al-Hariri’s ties with the action inside Syria, one which was previously confirmed through the presence of an official office for the MB-Khaddam alliance in Beirut, and the visit of Al-Bayanouni to Lebanon back when he was the MB guide and his presence for several days in the Lebanese North to establish dens and coordinate acts of sabotage inside Syria. This was also proven by the protection provided by the Future command to Ribal al-Assad and his gangs, in addition to the mobilization of Al-Hariri’s massive media empire – at the time and in the present – to promote the rhetoric of the Khaddam-MB alliance. For its part, Wikileaks showed that Saad al-Hariri deployed special and extensive efforts to convince the Americans to adopt and support this alliance, in order to allow it to govern Syria. This is the tip of the iceberg in terms of Al-Hariri’s involvement in a plan to sabotage Syria, knowing that all the pieces of information reveal that the Future movement is now in a state of mobilization to partake in that pan. This gives credibility to the accusations related to arms smuggling and funding to allow some groups affiliated with Khaddam and the Muslim Brotherhood to fuel the turmoil in Syria. Al-Hariri’s scandal is massive and his predicament is even greater, while the required judicial investigations in Syria and Lebanon ought to lead to facts and documents that are as important and dangerous as the ones linked to the false witnesses’ file, which was led and funded by Al-Hariri to attack Syria. Share this Source New Orient News (Lebanon) This author’s articles .

Video: Highlighting The Importance Of Agility When Avoiding Bahrain SUVs Trying To Kill You

http://dailybail.com

Video – Bahrain police trying to run over protesters

—

From the >http://dailybail.com< archives…

The Satellite Photos That Caused Revolution In Bahrain

Raw Video Bahrain: State police pushed back by protesters

GRAPHIC VIDEO: Bahrain Police Killing Protesters In Drive By Shootings

RAW VIDEO: The Massacred Entering Bahrain Hospital

Protester Shot At Point Blank Range By Bahrain Police

Bahrain Army Uses Automatic Weapons To Gun Down Peaceful Protesters

Exposed: The US-Saudi Libya deal

http://www.commondreams.org

Published on Friday, April 1, 2011 by Asia Times

by Pepe Escobar

You invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This, in short, is the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration and the House of Saud. Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a “yes” vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya – the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973.

U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates (front L) is greeted by Saudi field marshal Saleh al-Muhaya (C), the Chief of Generals staff of the Saudi Arabian Army, upon his arrival at King Khalid International Airport on March 10, 2010 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Days later, the Saudi military entered Bahrain. (PHOTO BY Jim Watson-Pool/Getty Images) The revelation came from two different diplomats, a European and a member of the BRIC group, and was made separately to a US scholar and Asia Times Online. According to diplomatic protocol, their names cannot be disclosed. One of the diplomats said, “This is the reason why we could not support resolution 1973. We were arguing that Libya, Bahrain and Yemen were similar cases, and calling for a fact-finding mission. We maintain our official position that the resolution is not clear, and may be interpreted in a belligerent manner.”

As Asia Times Online has reported, a full Arab League endorsement of a no-fly zone is a myth. Of the 22 full members, only 11 were present at the voting. Six of them were Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, the US-supported club of Gulf kingdoms/sheikhdoms, of which Saudi Arabia is the top dog. Syria and Algeria were against it. Saudi Arabia only had to “seduce” three other members to get the vote.

Translation: only nine out of 22 members of the Arab League voted for the no-fly zone. The vote was essentially a House of Saud-led operation, with Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa keen to polish his CV with Washington with an eye to become the next Egyptian President.

Thus, in the beginning, there was the great 2011 Arab revolt. Then, inexorably, came the US-Saudi counter-revolution.

Profiteers rejoice
Humanitarian imperialists will spin en masse this is a “conspiracy”, as they have been spinning the bombing of Libya prevented a hypothetical massacre in Benghazi. They will be defending the House of Saud – saying it acted to squash Iranian subversion in the Gulf; obviously R2P – “responsibility to protect” does not apply to people in Bahrain. They will be heavily promoting post-Gaddafi Libya as a new – oily – human rights Mecca, complete with US intelligence assets, black ops, special forces and dodgy contractors.

Whatever they say won’t alter the facts on the ground – the graphic results of the US-Saudi dirty dancing. Asia Times Online has already reported on who profits from the foreign intervention in Libya (see There’s no business like war business, March 30). Players include the Pentagon (via Africom), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Saudi Arabia, the Arab League’s Moussa, and Qatar. Add to the list the al-Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, assorted weapons contractors, and the usual neo-liberal suspects eager to privatize everything in sight in the new Libya – even the water. And we’re not even talking about the Western vultures hovering over the Libyan oil and gas industry.

Exposed, above all, is the astonishing hypocrisy of the Obama administration, selling a crass geopolitical coup involving northern Africa and the Persian Gulf as a humanitarian operation. As for the fact of another US war on a Muslim nation, that’s just a “kinetic military action”.

There’s been wide speculation in both the US and across the Middle East that considering the military stalemate – and short of the “coalition of the willing” bombing the Gaddafi family to oblivion – Washington, London and Paris might settle for the control of eastern Libya; a northern African version of an oil-rich Gulf Emirate. Gaddafi would be left with a starving North Korea-style Tripolitania.

But considering the latest high-value defections from the regime, plus the desired endgame (“Gaddafi must go”, in President Obama’s own words), Washington, London, Paris and Riyadh won’t settle for nothing but the whole kebab. Including a strategic base for both Africom and NATO.

Round up the unusual suspects
One of the side effects of the dirty US-Saudi deal is that the White House is doing all it can to make sure the Bahrain drama is buried by US media. BBC America news anchor Katty Kay at least had the decency to stress, “they would like that one [Bahrain] to go away because there’s no real upside for them in supporting the rebellion by the Shi’ites.”

For his part the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani, showed up on al-Jazeera and said that action was needed because the Libyan people were attacked by Gaddafi. The otherwise excellent al-Jazeera journalists could have politely asked the emir whether he would send his Mirages to protect the people of Palestine from Israel, or his neighbors in Bahrain from Saudi Arabia.

The al-Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain is essentially a bunch of Sunni settlers who took over 230 years ago. For a great deal of the 20th century they were obliging slaves of the British empire. Modern Bahrain does not live under the specter of a push from Iran; that’s an al-Khalifa (and House of Saud) myth.

Bahrainis, historically, have always rejected being part of a sort of Shi’ite nation led by Iran. The protests come a long way, and are part of a true national movement – way beyond sectarianism. No wonder the slogan in the iconic Pearl roundabout – smashed by the fearful al-Khalifa police state – was “neither Sunni nor Shi’ite; Bahraini”.

What the protesters wanted was essentially a constitutional monarchy; a legitimate parliament; free and fair elections; and no more corruption. What they got instead was “bullet-friendly Bahrain” replacing “business-friendly Bahrain”, and an invasion sponsored by the House of Saud.

And the repression goes on – invisible to US corporate media. Tweeters scream that everybody and his neighbor are being arrested. According to Nabeel Rajab, president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, over 400 people are either missing or in custody, some of them “arrested at checkpoints controlled by thugs brought in from other Arab and Asian countries – they wear black masks in the streets.” Even blogger Mahmood Al Yousif was arrested at 3 am, leading to fears that the same will happen to any Bahraini who has blogged, tweeted, or posted Facebook messages in favor of reform.

Globocop is on a roll
Odyssey Dawn is now over. Enter Unified Protector – led by Canadian Charles Bouchard. Translation: the Pentagon (as in Africom) transfers the “kinetic military action ” to itself (as in NATO, which is nothing but the Pentagon ruling over Europe). Africom and NATO are now one.

The NATO show will include air and cruise missile strikes; a naval blockade of Libyia; and shady, unspecified ground operations to help the “rebels”. Hardcore helicopter gunship raids a la AfPak – with attached “collateral damage” – should be expected.

A curious development is already visible. NATO is deliberately allowing Gaddafi forces to advance along the Mediterranean coast and repel the “rebels”. There have been no surgical air strikes for quite a while.

The objective is possibly to extract political and economic concessions from the defector and Libyan exile-infested Interim National Council (INC) – a dodgy cast of characters including former Justice minister Mustafa Abdel Jalil, US-educated former secretary of planning Mahmoud Jibril, and former Virginia resident, new “military commander” and CIA asset Khalifa Hifter. The laudable, indigenous February 17 Youth movement – which was in the forefront of the Benghazi uprising – has been completely sidelined.

This is NATO’s first African war, as Afghanistan is NATO’s first Central/South Asian war. Now firmly configured as the UN’s weaponized arm, Globocop NATO is on a roll implementing its “strategic concept” approved at the Lisbon summit last November (see Welcome to NATOstan, Asia Times Online, November 20, 2010).

Gaddafi’s Libya must be taken out so the Mediterranean – the mare nostrum of ancient Rome – becomes a NATO lake. Libya is the only nation in northern Africa not subordinated to Africom or Centcom or any one of the myriad NATO “partnerships”. The other non-NATO-related African nations are Eritrea, Sawahiri Arab Democratic Republic, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

Moreover, two members of NATO’s “Istanbul Cooperation Initiative” – Qatar and the United Arab Emirates – are now fighting alongside Africom/NATO for the fist time. Translation: NATO and Persian Gulf partners are fighting a war in Africa. Europe? That’s too provincial. Globocop is the way to go.

According to the Obama administration’s own official doublespeak, dictators who are eligible for “US outreach” – such as in Bahrain and Yemen – may relax, and get away with virtually anything. As for those eligible for “regime alteration”, from Africa to the Middle East and Asia, watch out. Globocop NATO is coming to get you. With or without dirty deals.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

.

The Pentagon and murder in Bahrain

related Update :

ALERT!!!!! BLOODBATH PREPARED IN BAHRAIN TOMORROW ,click here

Comment : AND WHERE IS THE UN AND NATO ?

…………………………………………………………org.  Post starts here :

from : http://www.voltairenet.org

How the tiny kingdom of Bahrain strong-armed the President of the United States

by Nick Turse*  U.S. Defense Departments documents, scrutinized by TomDispatch, reveal that as far back as the 1990s the United States has been supplying vast quantities of military equipment to Bahraini security forces, which have currently unleashed a bloody repression against peaceful mass demonstrations demanding an end to the corrupt Al-Khalifa dynasty.

24 March 2011   All the versions of this article: Español

Protesters hold a Bahraini flag in front of riot-police in Hamad Town, south of Manama, March 3, 2011. Photo: Reuters The men walking down the street looked ordinary enough. Ordinary, at least, for these days of tumult and protest in the Middle East. They wore sneakers and jeans and long-sleeved T-shirts. Some waved the national flag. Many held their hands up high. Some flashed peace signs. A number were chanting, “Peaceful, peaceful.” Up ahead, video footage shows, armored personnel carriers sat in the street waiting. In a deadly raid the previous day, security forces had cleared pro-democracy protesters from the Pearl Roundabout in Bahrain’s capital, Manama. This evening, the men were headed back to make their voices heard. The unmistakable crack-crack-crack of gunfire then erupted, and most of the men scattered. Most, but not all. Video footage shows three who never made it off the blacktop. One in an aqua shirt and dark track pants was unmistakably shot in the head. In the time it takes for the camera to pan from his body to the armored vehicles and back, he’s visibly lost a large amount of blood. Human Rights Watch would later report that Redha Bu Hameed died of a gunshot wound to the head. Bahrein’s king’s army massacre of unarmed peacefull protestors That incident, which occurred on February 18th, was one of a series of violent actions by Bahrain’s security forces that left seven dead and more than 200 injured last month. Reports noted that peaceful protesters had been hit not only by rubber bullets and shotgun pellets, but — as in the case of Bu Hameed — by live rounds. The bullet that took Bu Hameed’s life may have been paid for by U.S. taxpayers and given to the Bahrain Defense Force by the U.S. military. The relationship represented by that bullet (or so many others like it) between Bahrain, a tiny country of mostly Shia Muslim citizens ruled by a Sunni king, and the Pentagon has recently proven more powerful than American democratic ideals, more powerful even than the president of the United States. Just how American bullets make their way into Bahraini guns, into weapons used by troops suppressing pro-democracy protesters, opens a wider window into the shadowy relationships between the Pentagon and a number of autocratic states in the Arab world. Look closely and outlines emerge of the ways in which the Pentagon and those oil-rich nations have pressured the White House to help subvert the popular democratic will sweeping across the greater Middle East. Bullets and Blackhawks A TomDispatch analysis of Defense Department documents indicates that, since the 1990s, the United States has transferred large quantities of military materiel, ranging from trucks and aircraft to machine-gun parts and millions of rounds of live ammunition, to Bahrain’s security forces. According to data from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the branch of the government that coordinates sales and transfers of military equipment to allies, the U.S. has sent Bahrain dozens of “excess” American tanks, armored personnel carriers, and helicopter gunships. The U.S. has also given the Bahrain Defense Force thousands of .38 caliber pistols and millions of rounds of ammunition, from large-caliber cannon shells to bullets for handguns. To take one example, the U.S. supplied Bahrain with enough .50 caliber rounds — used in sniper rifles and machine guns — to kill every Bahraini in the kingdom four times over. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency did not respond to repeated requests for information and clarification. In addition to all these gifts of weaponry, ammunition, and fighting vehicles, the Pentagon in coordination with the State Department oversaw Bahrain’s purchase of more than $386 million in defense items and services from 2007 to 2009, the last three years on record. These deals included the purchase of a wide range of items from vehicles to weapons systems. Just this past summer, to cite one example, the Pentagon announced a multimillion-dollar contract with Sikorsky Aircraft to customize nine Black Hawk helicopters for Bahrain’s Defense Force. About Face On February 14th, reacting to a growing protest movement with violence, Bahrain’s security forces killed one demonstrator and wounded 25 others. In the days of continued unrest that followed, reports reached the White House that Bahraini troops had fired on pro-democracy protesters from helicopters. (Bahraini officials responded that witnesses had mistaken a telephoto lens on a camera for a weapon.) Bahrain’s army also reportedly opened fire on ambulances that came to tend to the wounded and mourners who had dropped to their knees to pray. “We call on restraint from the government,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in the wake of Bahrain’s crackdown. “We urge a return to a process that will result in real, meaningful changes for the people there.” President Obama was even more forceful in remarks addressing state violence in Bahrain, Libya, and Yemen: “The United States condemns the use of violence by governments against peaceful protesters in those countries, and wherever else it may occur.” Word then emerged that, under the provisions of a law known as the Leahy Amendment, the administration was actively reviewing whether military aid to various units or branches of Bahrain’s security forces should be cut off due to human-rights violations. “There’s evidence now that abuses have occurred,” a senior congressional aide told the Wall Street Journal in response to video footage of police and military violence in Bahrain. “The question is specifically which units committed those abuses and whether or not any of our assistance was used by them.” In the weeks since, Washington has markedly softened its tone. According to a recent report by Julian Barnes and Adam Entous in the Wall Street Journal, this resulted from a lobbying campaign directed at top officials at the Pentagon and the less powerful State Department by emissaries of Bahraini King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa and his allies in the Middle East. In the end, the Arab lobby ensured that, when it came to Bahrain, the White House wouldn’t support “regime change,” as in Egypt or Tunisia, but a strategy of theoretical future reform some diplomats are now calling “regime alteration.” The six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council include (in addition to Bahrain) Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, all of which have extensive ties to the Pentagon. The organization reportedly strong-armed the White House by playing on fears that Iran might benefit if Bahrain embraced democracy and that, as a result, the entire region might become destabilized in ways inimical to U.S. power-projection policies. “Starting with Bahrain, the administration has moved a few notches toward emphasizing stability over majority rule,” according to a U.S. official quoted by the Journal. “Everybody realized that Bahrain was just too important to fail.” It’s an oddly familiar phrase, so close to “too big to fail,” last used before the government bailed out the giant insurance firm AIG and major financial firms like Citigroup after the global economic meltdown of 2008. Bahrain is, of course, a small island in the Persian Gulf, but it is also the home of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, which the Pentagon counts as a crucial asset in the region. It is widely considered a stand-in for neighboring Saudi Arabia, America’s gas station in the Gulf, and for Washington, a nation much too important ever to fail. The Pentagon’s relationship with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries has been cemented in several key ways seldom emphasized in American reporting on the region. Military aid is one key factor. Bahrain alone took home $20 million in U.S. military assistance last year. In an allied area, there is the rarely discussed triangular marriage between defense contractors, the Gulf states, and the Pentagon. The six Gulf nations (along with regional partner Jordan) are set to spend $70 billion on weaponry and equipment this year, and as much as $80 billion per year by 2015. As the Pentagon looks for ways to shore up the financial viability of weapons makers in tough economic times, the deep pockets of the Gulf States have taken on special importance. Beginning last October, the Pentagon started secretly lobbying financial analysts and large institutional investors, talking up weapons makers and other military contractors it buys from to bolster their long-term financial viability in the face of a possible future drop in Defense Department spending. The Gulf States represent another avenue toward the same goal. It’s often said that the Pentagon is a “monopsony,” the only buyer in town for its many giant contractors, but that isn’t entirely true. The Pentagon is also the sole conduit through which its Arab partners in the Gulf can buy the most advanced weaponry on Earth. By acting as a go-between, the Pentagon can ensure that the weapons manufacturers it relies on will be financially sound well into the future. A $60 billion deal with Saudi Arabia this past fall, for example, ensured that Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and other mega-defense contractors would remain healthy and profitable even if Pentagon spending goes slack or begins to shrink in the years to come. Pentagon reliance on Gulf money, however, has a price. It couldn’t have taken the Arab lobby long to explain how quickly their spending spree might come to an end if a cascade of revolutions suddenly turned the region democratic. An even more significant aspect of the relationship between the Gulf states and the Department of Defense is the Pentagon’s shadowy archipelago of bases across the Middle East. While the Pentagon hides or downplays the existence of many of them, and while Gulf countries often conceal their existence from their own populations as much as possible, the U.S. military maintains sites in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, and of course Bahrain — homeport for the Fifth Fleet, whose 30 ships, including two aircraft carriers, patrol the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, and the Red Sea. Doughnuts Not Democracy Last week, peaceful protesters aligned against Bahrain’s monarchy gathered outside the U.S. embassy in Manama carrying signs reading “Stop Supporting Dictators,” “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death,” and “The People Want Democracy.” Many of them were women. Ludovic Hood, a U.S. embassy official, reportedly brought a box of doughnuts out to the protesters. “These sweets are a good gesture, but we hope it is translated into practical actions,” said Mohammed Hassan, who wore the white turban of a cleric. Zeinab al-Khawaja, a protest leader, told Al Jazeera that she hoped the U.S. wouldn’t be drawn into Bahrain’s uprising. “We want America not to get involved, we can overthrow this regime,” she said. The United States is, however, already deeply involved. To one side it’s given a box of doughnuts; to the other, helicopter gunships, armored personnel carriers, and millions of bullets — equipment that played a significant role in the recent violent crackdowns. In the midst of the violence, Human Rights Watch called upon the United States and other international donors to immediately suspend military assistance to Bahrain. The British government announced that it had begun a review of its military exports, while France suspended exports of any military equipment to the kingdom. Though the Obama administration, too, has begun a review, money talks as loudly in foreign policy as it does in domestic politics. The lobbying campaign by the Pentagon and its Middle Eastern partners is likely to sideline any serious move toward an arms export cut-off, leaving the U.S. once again in familiar territory — supporting an anti-democratic ruler against his people. “Without revisiting all the events over the last three weeks, I think history will end up recording that at every juncture in the situation in Egypt that we were on the right side of history,” President Obama explained after the fall of Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak — an overstatement, to say the least, given the administration’s mixed messages until Mubarak’s departure was a fait accompli. But when it comes to Bahrain, even such half-hearted support for change seems increasingly out of bounds. The Bahraini people rallying in Pearl Square around the document which became the symbol of their uprising. The Royal ruling class ordered its demolition on 18 March 2011 (see photos below). Last year, the U.S. Navy and the government of Bahrain hosted a groundbreaking ceremony for a construction project slated to develop 70 acres of prime waterfront property in Manama. Scheduled for completion in 2015, the complex is slated to include new port facilities, barracks for troops, administrative buildings, a dining facility, and a recreation center, among other amenities, at a price tag of $580 million. “The investment in the waterfront construction project will provide a better quality of life for our Sailors and coalition partners, well into the future,” said Lieutenant Commander Keith Benson of the Navy’s Bahrain contingent at the time. “This project signifies a continuing relationship and the trust, friendship and camaraderie that exists between the U.S. and Bahraini naval forces.” As it happens, that type of “camaraderie” seems to be more powerful than the President of the United States’ commitment to support peaceful, democratic change in the oil-rich region. After Mubarak’s ouster, Obama noted that “it was the moral force of nonviolence, not terrorism, not mindless killing, but nonviolence, moral force, that bent the arc of history toward justice once more.” The Pentagon, according to the Wall Street Journal, has joined the effort to bend the arc of history in a different direction — against Bahrain’s pro-democracy protesters. Its cozy relationships with arms dealers and autocratic Arab states, cemented by big defense contracts and shadowy military bases, explain why. White House officials claim that their support for Bahrain’s monarchy isn’t unconditional and that they expect rapid progress on real reforms. What that means, however, is evidently up to the Pentagon. It’s notable that late last week one top U.S. official traveled to Bahrain. He wasn’t a diplomat. And he didn’t meet with the opposition. (Not even for a doughnut-drop photo op.) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates arrived for talks with King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa and Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa to convey, said Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell, “reassurance of our support.” “I’m convinced that they both are serious about real reform and about moving forward,” Gates said afterward. At the same time, he raised the specter of Iran. While granting that the regime there had yet to foment protests across the region, Gates asserted, “there is clear evidence that as the process is protracted — particularly in Bahrain — that the Iranians are looking for ways to exploit it and create problems.” The Secretary of Defense expressed sympathy for Bahrain’s rulers being “between a rock and hard place” and other officials have asserted that the aspirations of the pro-democracy protesters in the street were inhibiting substantive talks with more moderate opposition groups. “I think what the government needs is for everybody to take a deep breath and provide a little space for this dialogue to go forward,” he said. In the end, he told reporters, U.S. prospects for continued military basing in Bahrain were solid. “I don’t see any evidence that our presence will be affected in the near- or middle-term,” Gates added. In the immediate wake of Gates’ visit, the Gulf Cooperation Council has conspicuously sent a contingent of Saudi troops into Bahrain to help put down the protests. Cowed by the Pentagon and its partners in the Arab lobby, the Obama administration has seemingly cast its lot with Bahrain’s anti-democratic forces and left little ambiguity as to which side of history it’s actually on. Share this Attached documents Bahraini Arab Shiites protesting against the corrupt monarchy of their country, in the capital city of Manama.  (JPEG – 36.9 kb) Nick Turse Nick Turse is an historian, essayist, investigative journalist, the associate editor of TomDispatch.com, and currently a fellow at Harvard University’s Radcliffe Institute. His latest book is The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan (Verso Books). He is also the author of The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives. His website is NickTurse.com  .

Arab Deaths and US Hypocrisy

http://original.antiwar.com

by John V. Walsh, March 22, 2011

The stench of death hanging over protest centers in the Arab world is more than matched by the rank hypocrisy befouling Washington and the lesser capitals of Western Empire. There is, however, not the slightest allusion to “hypocrisy,” in the imperial media. The “H” word is not to be used with respect to Obama or the other lords of Empire, even though it is as obvious as the proverbial nose on one’s face; the censorship in the mass media is holding.

Consider it. The Western powers have now launched a full-scale military assault on Moammar Qaddafi’s Libya, never a reliable “partner” of the West. First there were denunciations and demonization of Qaddafi following the Libyan uprising in the East, then sanctions, then the attack. Ostensibly, the attack is to “protect” the Libyan people from the hand of Qaddafi. But is such a rationale even remotely credible?

Look at other events happening on the very same weekend the attacks began. In Bahrain Shia protesters by the score are being gunned down by the Sunni police of the Al Khalifa “royal family,” sometimes killing the protesters like animals with hunting rifles. They are joined by the tanks of the Saudi “royals,” the same Saudi Arabia whence came the majority of the perpetrators of 9/11. There are no American cruise missiles aimed at the Saudi tanks and no threats from the Western powers to stop the carnage of the thugs ruling Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. What comes from the U.S.? No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

In Saudi Arabia itself Al-Jazeera tells us: “The ban on public demonstrations (throughout the country) comes amid media reports of a huge mobilization of Saudi troops in Shia-dominated provinces in order to quell any possible uprising…. 10,000 security personnel are being sent to the region by road, clogging highways into Dammam and other cities.” And in Riyadh: “Several protesters were arrested in Saudi Arabia on Sunday at a demonstration demanding the release of thousands of prisoners, held captive for years without trial. They were among dozens of men and women who tried to push their way into Riyadh’s interior ministry building, which was fortified with up to 2,000 special forces and 200 police vehicles, according to the Associated Press news agency. ‘We have seen at least three or four police vehicles taking people away,” said an activist there who declined to be named. ‘Security forces have arrested around 15 people. They tried to go into the ministry to go and ask for the freedom of their loved ones.’” But the US sponsors no UN resolutions about the “Right to Protect” in Saudi Arabia. No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

Then there is Yemen, another U.S. ally, where today the Ali Abdullah Saleh, the country’s “president” for 32 years, is massacring his people by the score. In response there is nothing more than a muffled call for “maximal restraint” by Obama and company. No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

Or regard the spectacle of Gaza where Apartheid Israel is again launching a bombing campaign on a besieged and helpless population. Not a peep of protest from the U.S. No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

All that is just this weekend. But behold the events of recent weeks Let us not forget Egypt where hundreds or thousands of unarmed protesters were slaughtered while the U.S. in the person of Joe Biden and others cautioned that “president” for 41 years and U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak, was not a dictator. Hillary Clinton defended him as a personal friend of hers and her family. This is the same Mubarak, whose police tormented the entire Egyptian population to the point that virtually everyone knew someone beaten or tortured. This is the same Mubarak, whose prisons always had room to torture CIA victims transported there from around the world, an endless cargo of “extraordinary renditions. Mubarak killed and killed with guns, goons and helicopters before he fell. And from the U.S.? No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

The failure of the Egyptian army to join in the slaughter, apparently for fear of being on the losing side, was the sole reason the slaughter ended. And now the same army, consulting interminably with the US, is working a counter-revolution in that hapless country. Whether it will prevail against the people is anyone’s guess, but there is no doubt that the US is working overtime to turn back the clock and shackle Egypt to a new model of the old imperial harness.

This is a small sample. Jordan, Iraq, Tunisia and other U.S. allies could be added to the list of those perpetrating endless atrocities against their people for many decades. And from the U.S.? No denunciation, no demonization, no sanctions, no attack.

I conclude with the caveat that I am not holding up Gadhafi as a model. What goes on in Libya I cannot tell at a distance. But as Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com, drawing on the testimony of Dartmouth professor Diederik Vandewalle, an expert on Libya, has noted, the rebellion in Libya seems to be one of the east versus west of the country, a return to old tribal boundaries. That is quite different from Egypt where the demand is for development and democracy. Is there anything unique about Libya other than its disloyalty to the West? I can think of only one other thing which distinguishes it from Egypt or various other African dictatorships. Libya has a Human Development Index which is the highest in all of Africa. In fact it puts Libya in the same league as the developed nations of Europe. Certainly man does not live by bread alone although a bit helps. But it would seem that Libyans need less protection than the many U.S. Arab allies, which not only brutally oppress their people but also impoverish them.

Read more by John V. Walsh

• The Book Has Been Written on the Right/Left Antiwar Alliance – February 22nd, 2011
• Jimmy Carter’s Gift of ‘Apartheid’ – February 13th, 2011
• Obama’s Chokehold on Left Antiwar Activists – January 27th, 2011
• An Anti-Interventionist Looks at China – January 17th, 2011
• Sarah Palin’s Cross Hairs – and Obama’s – January 11th, 2011
• .

The Invasion of Bahrain

http://www.voltairenet.org by Craig Murray*   In the Western press, the Saudi invasion of Bahrain is politely called a “troop movement” or an “arrival” – and the reaction from Washington and other Western capitals is similarly muted, even as pro-democracy demonstrators from the Shiite majority are getting slaughtered. In this essay – published one day before the adoption of UNSC resolution 1973 against Libya – former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray comments on the double standards being applied to rebellions in the Arab world.

18 March 2011  From London (United Kingdom) Tools Print Send Countries Bahrein

Saudi Forces entered Bahrain under an agreement according to which one Gulf state will help other in any Security need … “But that does not mean attacked by its own, incidentally unarmed, people.” The hideous King of Bahrain has called in troops from Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait to attack pro-democracy protesters in Bahrain. Can you imagine the outrage if Libya’s strongman Muammar Gaddafi called in the armies of Chad. Mali and Burkina Faso to attack the rebels in Benghazi? But do you think that those in power in the West, who rightly condemn Gaddafi’s apparent use of foreign mercenaries, will condemn this use of foreign military power by oil sheiks to crush majority protesters in Bahrain? Of course they won’t. A senior diplomat in a Western mission to the United Nations in New York, who I have known over ten years and trust, has told me for sure that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agreed to the cross-border use of troops to crush democracy in the Gulf, as a quid pro quo for the Arab League calling for Western intervention in Libya. We also had the Murdoch family’s Sky News rationalizing the Saudi invasion of Bahrain by telling us that the Gulf Cooperation Council has a military alliance agreement under which a state can call in help if attacked. But that does not mean attacked by its own, incidentally unarmed, people. NATO is a military alliance. It does not mean British Prime Minister David Cameron could call in U.S. troops to gun down tuition-fee protesters in Parliament Square. But this dreadful outrage by the Arab sheikhs will be swallowed silently by the West because they are “our” bastards, they host “our” troops; they buy “our” weapons — and they sell “us” oil. I do hope this latest development will open the eyes of those duped into supporting Western intervention in Libya, who believe that those who control the Western armies are motivated by humanitarian concerns. Bahrain already had foreign forces in it – notably the U.S. Fifth Fleet. Do you think that Secretary Clinton and President Barack Obama will threaten to intervene on behalf of pro-democracy demonstrators if armies from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf sheikdoms are let loose on them? I don’t think so. Whether the military invasion of Bahrain will have any effect on the railroading of public opinion behind military intervention in Libya remains to be seen. I will be fascinated to hear, for example, whether Menzies Campbell and Phillippe Sands, who wrote an op-ed for The Guardian entitled “Our Duty To Protect The Libyan People,” also believe the West has a duty to pro-democracy demonstrators in Bahrain – to protect them from attacks by the military forces of the king and his foreign allies. We know from Iraq and Afghanistan, Serbia, Lebanon and Gaza that the “collateral damage” from the initial bombing of Libyan air defenses would kill more people than are dying already in the terrible situation in Libya. While a no-fly zone would bolster rebel morale, most of the actual damage rebels are sustaining is from heavy artillery; so, without a no-tank, no-artillery and no-gunboat zone, a no-fly zone will not in itself tip the military balance. It appears that getting rid of Gaddafi may be a longer slog than the West would like, but an attempt at a quick fix will lead to another Iraq and give Gaddafi an undeserved patriotic mantle. It was former UK Ambassador to Libya, Oliver Miles, who said Western military intervention in Libya should be avoided above all because of the law of unintended consequences. One consequence has happened already, unintended by the liberals who fell in behind the calls for military attacks on Gaddafi. That campaign created cover for the foreign military suppression of democracy in Bahrain. For Clinton and Obama, it is a win-win: advancing U.S. foreign policy both on Libya, where Gaddafi has been a longtime American nemesis, and on the oil-rich Gulf, where democracy is still viewed as a threat to stability. People of good heart should weep. Share this Craig Murray Craig Murray was British ambassador to Uzbekistan (2002-2004), a post he had to quit after denouncing – against the opinion of his government – the human rights violations committed in that country.  .

America Blows It on Bahrain

http://www.alternet.org

Thanks to its U.S.-friendly dictator, the Bahraini government even threw a big Christmas party for American military personnel, bringing in Santa Claus riding on a camel.

March 15, 2011 |

 

An image grab taken from Bahrain TV shows “vanguard” of a contingent of Gulf troops arriving in the unrest-wracked Kingdom of Bahrain across a causeway from Saudi Arabia. The United States warned Gulf states on Monday to respect the rights of the people of Bahrain, after troops from nations including Saudi Arabia crossed into the violence-wracked kingdom.

Editor’s note: On March 15, Bahraini King Hamad, declared a state of emergency and imposed martial law to quell weeks of protests. Meanwhile, over the objections of Washington, forces from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates entered Bahrain to help prop up the beleaguered ruling al-Khalifa family.

The Obama administration’s continued support of the autocratic monarchy in Bahrain, in the face of massive pro-democracy demonstrators, once again puts the United States behind the curve of the new political realities in the Middle East. For more than two weeks, a nonviolent sit-in and encampment by tens of thousands of pro-democracy protesters has occupied the Pearl Roundabout. This traffic circle in Bahrain’s capital city of Manama — like Tahrir Square in Cairo — has long been the symbolic center of the city and, by extension, the center of the country. Though these demonstrations and scores of others across the country have been overwhelmingly nonviolent, they have been met by severe repression by the U.S.-backed monarchy.

Understanding the pro-democracy struggle unfolding in this tiny island nation requires putting into context the country’s unique history, demographics, and its historically close relations to the United States.

Though Bahrain has a long and rich history, the modern state did not receive full independence from Great Britain until 1971. This is the same year the British withdrew their security commitments from the area and the United States stepped in as the major foreign power. Bahrain is the smallest country in the Middle East, located on an island of only 290 square miles (smaller in area than New York City) in the Persian Gulf between Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Its population is only 1.2 million (smaller than San Antonio, Texas). More than half of that total consists of foreign guest workers, primarily from India and other South Asian countries. The small size of the country belies its perceived importance by the U.S. government.

The Ties that Bind

The fortress-like U.S. embassy in Manama is probably the largest embassy relative to the population of the host country of any in the world. The U.S. military in Bahrain, which directs the Fifth Fleet and the U.S. Naval Central Command, controls roughly one-fifth of this small nation, making the southern part of the island essentially off-limits to Bahrainis. For more than 20 years, approximately 1,500 Americans have been stationed at the base (which the U.S. government refers to as a “forward operations center”), supporting operations and serving as homeport for an additional 15,000 sailors. As University of California–Irvine Professor Mark LeVine describes it, “If the United States is Egypt’s primary patron, in Bahrain it is among the ruling family’s biggest tenants.” Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral William Crowe once told me in an interview that Bahrain was “pound for pound, man for man, the best ally the United States has anywhere in the world.”

Unlike in other Gulf states, where Americans have traditionally kept a low profile, the U.S. presence is quite visible in Bahrain as a major port of call for sailors on leave. Just prior to my last visit, the government threw a big Christmas party for American military personnel, even bringing in Santa Claus riding on a camel. This is made possible thanks to its U.S.-friendly dictator, King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa. The prime minister is Prince Khalifa ibn Salman Al Khalifa, the king’s uncle and reputedly the richest man in the Bahrain, who has governed for nearly 40 years. Both are firmly committed to a close strategic alliance with the United States. And close economic ties as well.

Indeed, economic interests also draw the two nations together. Bahrain was the first Arab country to produce oil back in 1932. Standard Oil of California (now Chevron), later joined by Texaco, succeeded in controlling the country’s oil industry through ownership of the Bahrain Petroleum Company, until the Bahraini government purchased the company in 1980. In 2005, Bahrain became the first Persian Gulf state to sign a free trade agreement with the United States. The government has embarked upon a massive privatization program in recent years–selling banks, financial services, telecommunication, and other public assets to private interests. The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom ranks Bahrain as having the “freest” economy in the Middle East and the tenth “freest” in the world.

Repression

Most Bahrainis are not happy with such policies. But Bahrain’s political system doesn’t allow them to do much about it. Even the State Department acknowledges that the Bahraini government “restricts civil liberties, freedoms of press, speech, assembly, association, and some religious practices.”

As far back as the 1990s, Bahraini officials with whom I met were beginning to sense that greater attention needed to be paid to human rights and economic justice. At that time, the United States did not appear to push them in that direction. “An overemphasis on profitability for corporations at the expense of other more basic concerns could lead to political instability,” said Mohammed Ali Fakhro, Bahrain’s minister of education, in all-too prescient remarks. “If there is going to be stability, there needs to be greater fairness in the distribution of wealth, both between the North and the South, but also within countries, including the United States.” He, and other Bahraini officials I interviewed at that time, stressed that the United States needed to be more consistent with its professed concerns about human rights, that American policymakers often compromised on these principles when they conflicted with short-term interests. Democratization is sweeping the world, they observed, including in the Middle East. In their view, it would be in the interest of regional stability for the United States to play a role as catalyst of change rather than simply as an armed power.

The 1990s saw periodic and widespread protests throughout Bahrain, including scattered acts of violence, against the authoritarian Sheik Issa. When Issa died in 1999, his son and successor King Hamad announced a series of major reforms. Approval of the National Action Charter of Bahrain, codified in a 2001 referendum, ended more than seven years of protests against the regime. While Bahrainis did enjoy a somewhat more liberal social and political environment under their new ruler, most promised reforms never materialized. For example, the charter allowed for the establishment of an elected lower house of parliament, but it has remained largely powerless. The upper house — appointed by the king – must approve any legislation passed by the lower house. Furthermore, the king can still veto any legislation with no option of override and can abolish the entire parliament at will. All of the important cabinet posts — and majority of the cabinet posts overall — are filled by members of the royal family.

While Bahrain permits greater freedom of speech than in many neighboring countries, criticism of the royal family — which applies to the government and most of its ministries — is significantly restricted. Similarly, laws against fomenting “sectarianism” have been broadly applied. This comes as no surprise, given that the royal family is Sunni and most opposition groups are based in the majority Shia community.

Several political forces boycotted the October 2010 parliamentary elections, including the main opposition party Haq Movement for Liberty and Democracy (which includes both Shia and Sunni leadership) as well as the Wafa Party, the Bahrain Freedom Movement, the Khalas Movement, and the Islamic Action Society. Just prior to the vote, the authorities arrested a number of opposition leaders after they raised concerns about human rights abuses.

A Popular Progressive Tradition

The authoritarianism of the Bahraini government contrasts with the island’s relatively progressive and pluralistic tradition. Despite many years under monarchies and empires, Bahrainis have long embraced a tradition of freedom and social justice. During most of the 10th and 11th centuries, an Islamic sect known as the Qarmatians governed the island and created a radically egalitarian society based on reason and the equal distribution of all wealth and property among the adherents. In the 19^th century, Bahrain was the largest trading center in the entire Gulf region — with Arab, Persian, Indian, and other influences — reinforcing traditions of cosmopolitanism, tolerance, and pluralism.

A visit to Manama today reveals not only Sunni and Shia mosques, but Christian churches, Hindu and Sikh temples, and a Jewish synagogue. Bahrain was the first Arab country in the Gulf to provide formal modern education to women. With an economy traditionally based on fishing, pearl diving, and trade — and with too little land for much grazing or fresh water for farming — Bahrain has been a largely urban society for centuries, even prior to the discovery of oil. Thus, it has never been subjected to the kind of parochial tribalism of other Arabian countries. Furthermore, unlike the other oil-rich sheikdoms of the Gulf region, the diverse sources of its wealth have led to the establishment of an indigenous middle class.

Though an island, Bahrain is accessible by road. A 16-mile causeway connects it to Saudi Arabia. Indeed, Bahrain’s relatively liberal social mores have made it a residence of choice for Saudis who wish to live in a less restrictive environment. It’s also become a popular weekend destination for Saudis who want to party.

Although Bahrain’s oil supplies are running out, it still serves as a major refinery center. It still has plenty of natural gas reserves and has become a major financial center. Ship repair, aluminum refining, and light manufacturing have also helped diversify the economy. With an annual per capita income of $26,000 (similar to Greece), low unemployment, a literacy rate over 90 percent, and an average life expectancy and infant mortality rate comparable to some European countries, it is one of the better-off nations in the Middle East. Still, impressive social and economic statistics are no substitute for political freedom, particularly when combined with ongoing discrimination against the Shia majority.

The Nonviolent Struggle

Inspired by pro-democracy uprisings in Tunisia and Iran, pro-democracy activists called for nationwide pro-democracy protests on February 14, the tenth anniversary of the National Action Charter referendum. The mostly young organizers called on Bahrainis “to take to the streets on Monday 14 February in a peaceful and orderly manner” in order to rewrite the constitution and establish a body with a “full popular mandate to investigate and hold to account economic, political and social violations, including stolen public wealth, political naturalisation, arrests, torture, and other oppressive security measures, [and] institutional and economic corruption.”

According to the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR), the government’s response was “a state of confusion, apprehension and anticipation,” including an attempt to placate the opposition with money. The king ordered that 1000 Bahrani dinars (approximately $2,600) be distributed to each family in celebration of the referendum’s tenth anniversary.

On February 12, the BCHR sent an open letter to the king to “ease tensions” and “avoid the use of force” by releasing 450 detainees, dissolving the security apparatus, and prosecuting officials guilty of human rights violations, and beginning “serious dialogue with civil society and opposition groups on disputed issues.” BCHR President Nabeel Rajab stated, “The dissolving of the security apparatus and the prosecution of its officials will not only distance the King from the crimes committed by this apparatus especially since 2005, such as systemic torture and the use of excessive force against peaceful protests, but will avoid the fatal mistake committed by similar apparatuses in Tunisia and Egypt which led to the loss of lives and hundreds of casualties and eventually resulted in the fall of the regimes who created these ‘double edged swords.’”

When protests did break out across the country on February 14, the government responded with mass arrests and beatings, killing one young man and injuring dozens of others. At his funeral, police shot into the crowd. One person was killed and 25 injured. Al Wefaq, a predominantly Shia party that had won a plurality of seats in the recent parliamentary elections, announced a suspension of their participation in the parliament and formally joined the demonstrations. Tens of thousands of protesters occupied the Pearl Roundabout, setting up tents in a manner similar to the mass sit-ins in Cairo’s Tahrir Square.

At around 3:00 AM on February 17, without warning, riot police attacked the sleeping encampment of thousands with tear gas, batons, and bullets. Four more people were killed, including a two-year old girl shot multiple times. Al Jazeera reported that hospitals in Manama were filled with hundreds of wounded protesters and described “doctors and emergency personnel who were overrun by the police while trying to attend to the wounded.” Directly contradicting eyewitness accounts and video footage, the regime insisted the protesters had attacked the police and that security forces had used only minimal force in self-defense. Bahrain’s government, like the dictatorial regimes in Egypt and Libya, tried to blame outsiders. It insisted, for instance, that it had found weapons and flags from the radical Lebanese group Hezbollah.

Despite such provocations, the opposition’s response was largely peaceful. Pro-democracy activists gathered to pray and hold vigil outside hospitals. They engaged in more peaceful protests in the capital the following day. When confronted by security forces, protesters held their hands up high and shouted, “Peaceful! Peaceful!” Police and army units again attacked the demonstrators — along with mourners, journalists, and medics — resulting in one additional death and scores of injuries.

As has often occurred elsewhere, when a government uses illegitimate force against peaceful protesters, the protests increased in intensity rather than diminished. Recognizing this, the regime withdrew the military and police from the capital. Thousands of protesters returned to the Pearl Roundabout to resume their peaceful sit-in.

On February 22, more than 100,000 anti-government protesters took to the street. This time, the government allowed the demonstrators to march. Smaller protests continued over subsequent days. The government attempted to back down from its hard line stance–declaring a national day of mourning for those killed, freeing hundreds of political prisoners, dismissing four unpopular cabinet officials, allowing an exiled opposition leader to return, and making a series of economic concessions. On February 25, more than 200,000 people marched, a number constituting a full 40 percent of the indigenous Bahraini population. In recent days, they have escalated their protests by blockading the state television headquarters and the parliament building

Most of these protesters have called for a transition from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy, rather than the overthrow of the monarchy. They want the prime minister to resign, greater civil liberties, and a popularly elected parliament with real power.

The Iranian Bogeyman

Nearly three-quarters of the indigenous Bahraini population are Shia, even though Shias constitute barely 10 percent of the Islamic community worldwide (they are also the majority in neighboring Iran and Iraq). The Sunni-controlled Bahraini government has long discriminated against Shias in employment, housing, and infrastructure projects. The military, particularly the top elite, is mostly Sunni. The secret police are almost exclusively Sunni, and reportedly include Pakistanis and other foreign elements. Only a handful of cabinet posts, restricted to the less important ministries, have been granted to Shias. In an effort to bolster the number of Sunnis, the government has taken the unusual step of granting citizenship to some foreign Sunni workers, virtually unprecedented in other Gulf countries with large foreign worker populations. As a result, there is a sectarian element to the ongoing struggle, even if the majority of the pro-democracy protesters are not seeking a Shia-dominated state per se.

When disenfranchised Shia populations in the Middle East have organized for their rights, the regimes often label them as Iranian agents. In some cases, Iranian intelligence has supported these movements, although the vast majority are popular indigenous struggles with legitimate grievances. The Iranian connection, however false or exaggerated, introduces the fear of an Iranian plot to assert their influence and establish an Iranian-style theocracy. Thus, the specter of Iran is raised to bolster the argument that it is in the U.S. interest to support repressive regimes to suppress such movements.

However, most Bahraini Shias, unlike their counterparts in Iran and other countries, do not follow ayatollahs. Having been conquered by the Persian Empire for periods of their history, they cherish their independence and reject calls by some Persian ultra-nationalists to reincorporate Bahrain into Iran. While many Bahraini Shias were initially enthusiastic about the Islamic revolution in the immediate aftermath of the Shah’s overthrow in 1979, they — like most Iranians themselves — have since soured on the revolution as a result of its reactionary and repressive turn. Despite some fear-mongering from some pro-authoritarian elements in the United States and elsewhere who seek to depict the Bahraini uprising as a fundamentalist Shiite revolution, the protests in Bahrain have the support of both the progressive Sunni and secular populations. This pro-democracy movement is as legitimate as the popular struggles in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. Signs and chants at the demonstrations indicate that they eschew sectarianism, emphasizing Shia-Sunni unity in the cause of democracy.

At the same time, because the Shia majority has the most to gain from democratic change, the protesters have been overwhelmingly Shia. The U.S.-backed regime, in a divide-and-rule strategy, has raised the specter of a Shiite fundamentalist takeover in an effort to enlist the sizable Sunni minority in protecting their privileged status, thereby creating the potential for a self-fulfilling prophecy of a polarization of Bahraini society along sectarian lines. Indeed, it was no accident that a pro-government rally organized by the regime took place in the plaza near the grand Sunni mosque–a rally thousands of Indian and Pakistani Sunnis were encouraged to join. The government is also feeling the pressure from the Saudi regime to crack down. The Saudis fear that a successful Shia-led pro-democracy struggle in Bahrain might not only encourage pro-democracy elements in their kingdom, but might encourage the restive and oppressed Shia minority in Saudi Arabia — which is concentrated in the oil-rich northeastern part of the country — to rebel as well.

International Accountability

In the aftermath of the nonviolent overthrow of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, President Obama warned other Middle Eastern leaders that they should “get ahead of the wave of protest” by quickly moving toward democracy. Even though his February 15 press conference took place during some of the worst repression in Bahrain, he chose not to mention the country by name. In the face of Bahraini security forces unleashing violence on peaceful protesters, Obama insisted that “each country is different, each country has its own traditions; America can’t dictate how they run their societies.” Although certainly a valid statement in itself, in this case it appears to have been little more than a rationalization for silence in the face of extreme violence by an autocratic ally. Indeed, the United States has hardly been silent in the face of the ongoing repression by the authoritarian regime in Libya, even though elements of the pro-democracy movement in that country, unlike in Bahrain, have taken up arms.

Meanwhile, on February 23, U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, came to Bahrain to meet King Hamad and Crown Prince Salman, who serves as commander-in-chief for the Bahraini armed forces. According to Mullen’s spokesman, Navy Captain John Kirby, the admiral “reaffirmed our strong commitment to our military relationship with the Bahraini defense forces.” And, despite the massacres of the previous week, he thanked the Bahraini leaders “for the very measured way they have been handling the popular crisis here.”

Indeed, the February 25 The New York Times reported how the Obama administration “has sent out senior diplomats in recent days to offer the monarchs reassurance and advice — even those who lead the most stifling governments.” The article stressed that the administration is not averse to encouraging reforms, noting however that “American officials have sought to keep the focus on what they insist have been concessions made by Bahrain, where the Navy’s Fifth Fleet is stationed, as a sign that the protests can prod the king, and the crown prince who will head the dialogue with the protesters, in the right direction.”

A more democratic Bahrain would probably be friendlier to the Iranian regime than the current Bahraini government, but it would certainly not be an Iranian puppet. Similarly, a more democratic Bahrain would likely scale back the U.S. military presence on their small island, though it would not be stridently anti-American. Questions remain as to how much democracy the United States will encourage, even if led by a popular mass nonviolent movement. Putting the normative arguments aside, anything short of support for full democratization would be extremely short-sighted. As Professor Levine puts it, “What is more essential to American security today, convenient bases for its ships, planes and troops across the Middle East, or a full transition to democracy throughout the region?”

In both Tunisia and Egypt, the United States had to play catch up in its policy toward these allied regimes in the face of popular struggles against authoritarianism, only belatedly coming out in support of the massive nonviolent pro-democracy struggles in those countries. It would be nice if, when it comes to Bahrain, the United States would not wait until the last minute to be on the right side of history.

Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco and serves as a senior policy analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus.

source

.

Violent crackdown in Bahrain condemned

update : Evidence of Bahraini security forces’ brutality revealed

http://www.amnesty.org

There was an influx into Bahrain yesterday of troops from Saudi Arabia

© Demotix / mtradwan

15 March 2011

Amnesty International has called on the governments of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to immediately restrain their security forces after an anti-government protester was shot dead in Bahrain today and many others sustained gunshot injuries.

Eye-witnesses told Amnesty International that Bahraini riot police and plain-clothed security forces used shotguns, rubber bullets and teargas against demonstrators in Sitra and Ma’ameer. Several ambulance drivers were attacked by riot police with batons as they tried to reach the wounded.

An eyewitness told Amnesty International that riot police blocked access to the Sitra Health Centre where many of the injured were taken, while leaving other injured people lying unassisted in the streets. The electricity supply to the centre was cut.

“The Bahraini authorities must immediately rein in their security forces and end their use of excessive force, and the Saudi Arabian authorities should demand this too if they are not to appear complicit,” said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Director. “All those involved must act with restraint to prevent further loss of life.”

The shootings came as the King of Bahrain declared a three-month state of emergency, as anti-government protesters continue to demand reform.

“Today’s shootings and the reports we are receiving about denial of medical care to the injured are a desperately worrying development and indicate a truly alarming escalation following the police killings of protesters in February and the influx yesterday of Saudi Arabian troops and Emirati police to buttress the Bahraini government,” said Malcolm Smart.

Amnesty International has confirmed that one man died in Sitra Health Centre after being shot, but has not yet been able to verify other reported deaths.

Hospital sources and other eye-witnesses have told Amnesty International that hundreds of people have been admitted with injuries but it is unclear whether these were caused by excessive force or in violent clashes.

According to media reports earlier in the day, a Saudi Arabian soldier was killed after clashes with protesters.

“The King’s declaration of a state of emergency must not be used as a cover for repression and abuses of human rights, as has happened in so many other countries,” said Malcolm Smart. “Those responsible for excessive force, unlawful killings and other serious abuses must be held to account and the King and his government have an obligation to ensure it.”

.

Former Pakistani General: CIA, Mossad behind WikiLeaks Reports

http://www.infowars.com

FARS News Agency
December 1, 2010

A former Pakistani army commander said that the disclosure of classified documents by the whistleblower site of Wikileaks is a US plot to create rift among friendly and neighboring states.

“The US has a hand in this plot, and these reports (posted by the WikiLeaks website) are part of the US psychological warfare,” former Chief of the Staff of the Pakistani Army General Mirza Aslam Beg told FNA in Islamabad on Tuesday.

He stated that the US could prevent the leak of information if it wanted to do so, and warned that the real plot and conspiracy pursued by these reports will be unraveled in future.

Aslam Beg further reiterated that the CIA and Israel’s spy agency Mossad have launched efforts to weaken and destabilize Pakistan, and WikiLeaks reports are part of these efforts.

The remarks by the Pakistani figure came after US embassy cables posted by WikiLeaks website sparked hot reactions in the region.

In one cable, the WikiLeaks claimed, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, a close ally of Pakistan, reportedly called Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari the main cause of his country’s woes.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Pakistani President’s office responded on Monday that the leaks were “no more than an attempt to create misperceptions between two important and brotherly Muslim countries”.

 

.