Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

US Faces New Test Over State Violence

The Obama administration now must add Bahrain to its political balancing act as it copes with unprecedented turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Thursday expressed "deep concerns" about the deadly attack on hundreds of sleeping anti-government protestors carried out by Bahrain's security forces at a central square in the capital, Manama, Wednesday night.

The incident, in which at least five civilians were killed and many more seriously injured, was certain to sharply raise longstanding political tensions in the tiny, strategically located Gulf kingdom, which is home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet and adjoins oil colossus, Saudi Arabia.

Analysts here said the attack was likely to escalate the demands of the opposition – a coalition of liberal Sunnis and leaders of the majority Shi'a population – for a major overhaul of the monarchy headed by King Hamad bin Isa al- Khalifa.

"If you'd ask me Monday, I would have said the opposition would have been happy with the resignation of the prime minister or some constitutional or political reforms and accepted as a sign of seriousness by the royal family," said Toby Jones, a Gulf expert at Rutgers University.

"But instead they were met with violence, and I'm not sure those steps will be enough now," he added.

Increased polarization and the risk of further violence in Bahrain comes at a particularly bad time for Washington, which is struggling to cope with the unprecedented turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East that has already resulted in the ouster of two long-time autocratic U.S. allies – in Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak – in just the past month.

The popular unrest set off by Tunisia's "Jasmine Revolution" has spread across the region – from Algeria to Iran – with major clashes between security forces and anti-government demonstrators reported Thursday in Libya and Yemen, another key ally which has received tens of millions of dollars in U.S. military and security assistance intended to defeat Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

The region's unrest has posed a very difficult challenge to Obama who, according to the New York Times, ordered his advisers last August to produce a secret report on the prospects for popular revolt against autocratic governments throughout the Middle East, including Bahrain, Yemen, and other key countries, and how to encourage those regimes to implement reforms in time to avoid any explosions.

The report, according to the Times, was intended to grapple with the key question of how to balance U.S. strategic interests in the region against demands by opposition forces for power-sharing and democratization.

In Bahrain's case, those demands have been of long standing.

While generally more liberal and tolerant than its Gulf Arab neighbors, and boasting an elected parliament (albeit with quite limited powers), the country remains under the control of the Khalifa royal family that, in its nearly 300-year reign, has consistently marginalized and discriminated against its Shiite population.

Shiites make up some 70 percent of Bahrain's roughly 540,000 citizens. More than 600,000 non-nationals also live on the island, which is connected by a causeway to Saudi Arabia.

Tensions began rising in August, two months before parliamentary elections, when the government began arresting scores of mainly Shi'a activists. The indictments in September of 23 prominent Shi'a politicians and clerics on charges of destabilising the country through violence and sabotage further inflamed the situation.

After the election, Clinton visited Bahrain, praising it as a "model" for the region. "I see the glass as half full," she said when asked about the arrests and reports of torture. "I think the changes that are happening in Bahrain are much greater than what I see in many other countries in the region and beyond."

As the popular turmoil swept through the region earlier this month, the political temperature in Bahrain rose again, however. In an apparent attempt to pre-empt a new outbreak of unrest, the king announced that each Bahraini household would receive the equivalent of nearly 2,700 U.S. dollars. But the gesture seemed to fall short.

Two people were killed by security forces during a protest and a subsequent funeral earlier this week. After Thursday's attack, the government banned all public gatherings, while most opposition MPs resigned their seats.

Both Clinton and Pentagon chief Robert Gates called their Bahraini counterparts Thursday to urge restraint on the part of the government's security forces.

"I called my counterpart in Bahrain this morning and directly conveyed our deep concerns about the actions of the security forces, and I emphasized how important it was that, given there will be both funerals and prayers tomorrow, that that not be marred by violence," Clinton told reporters. Describing Bahrain as a "friend and an ally," she stressed that "all people have universal rights, including the right to peaceful assembly."

The administration is now trying to walk a tightrope, much as it has been doing with Egypt over the past four weeks.

"Washington is now faced again with another hard choice," wrote Graham Fuller, a former senior CIA Mideast analyst who teaches at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, in the International Herald Tribune on the eve of Thursday's attack. He warned that the naval base could be lost if the regime falls.

"Continue to go with local repressive regimes out of a misguided sense of 'American interests'? Hold on to unpopular military bases at all costs – thereby deepening local anger and perhaps giving Iran ultimately a greater voice in events?" he asked. "Or should it quietly drop support for this repressive regime, allow events to take their course and accept that long-overdue change is coming?"

"We should speak out more strongly in support of change and democratic process and stop clinging to traditional dictators even if they're pro-American," Fuller told IPS in a telephone interview Thursday.

"That is the way history is moving in the region, and we have to acknowledge that, rather than resist it," he noted, adding that, to protect its geo-strategic interests in the region, Washington should adopt more of an "off-shore" strategy and maintain "fewer boots on the ground".

Chas Freeman, a highly decorated retired diplomat who served as ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, agreed with the dilemma faced by Washington but came to a somewhat different conclusion.

"If you come out in favor of change, then you are at considerable risk of damaging your political-military equities. If you bow openly to expedience of military interests, then you are discrediting yourself morally and ideologically," he told IPS. "There are moments when silence and respect for the ability of others to straighten out their own politics may be the best course."

Freeman noted that much more besides the naval base could be at stake given Saudi Arabia's strong interest in the outcome of the current crisis.

"My guess is that the Saudis will not tolerate excessive unrest in Bahrain, not least because the Bahraini Shiites are closely related by kinship to Saudi Arabia's Shiite minority; that is, the portion of it that sits atop the oil fields in the Eastern Province," he said. "So what happens in Bahrain has considerable implications for what could happen in the Eastern Province."

Between 10 and 15 percent of Saudi Arabia's population are Shi'a Muslims, a large majority of whom live in the Eastern Province, which produces most of the country's oil.

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to IPS Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/). He blogs at http://www.lobelog.com/.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), former chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is a leading ”pro-Israel” hawk in Congress.


Brigette Gabriel, an anti-Islamic author and activist, is the founder of the right-wing group ACT! for America.


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Frank Gaffney, director of the hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy, is a longtime advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policies, bloated military budgets, and confrontation with the Islamic world.


Shmuley Boteach is a “celebrity rabbi” known for his controversial “pro-Israel” advocacy.


United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.


Huntsman, the millionaire scion of the Huntsman chemical empire, is a former Utah governor who served as President Obama’s first ambassador to China and was a candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

AIPAC has done more than just tolerate the U.S. tilt toward extreme and often xenophobic views. Newly released tax filings show that the country’s biggest pro-Israel group financially contributed to the Center for Security Policy, the think-tank that played a pivotal role in engineering the Trump administration’s efforts to impose a ban on Muslim immigration.


Print Friendly

It would have been hard for Trump to find someone with more extreme positions than David Friedman for U.S. ambassador to Israel.


Print Friendly

Just as the “bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer is used to justify the Wall and mass immigration detention, the specter of Muslim terrorists is being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia.


Print Friendly

Although the mainstream media narrative about Trump’s Russia ties has been fairly linear, in reality the situation appears to be anything but.


Print Friendly

Reagan’s military buildup had little justification, though the military was rebuilding after the Vietnam disaster. Today, there is almost no case at all for a defense budget increase as big as the $54 billion that the Trump administration wants.


Print Friendly

The very idea of any U.S. president putting his personal financial interests ahead of the U.S. national interest is sufficient reason for the public to be outraged. That such a conflict of interest may affect real U.S. foreign policy decisions is an outrage.


Print Friendly

The new US administration is continuing a state of war that has existed for 16 years.


RightWeb
share