talkpolitics | Let's Talk About Bahrain

Entry tags:

middle east

Let's Talk About Bahrain

I admit I have limited time with which to pay attention to the news, as I work a lot of hours, but I do try to listen to NPR and catch the news online as much as I can.

When the Middle East went aflame, it seemed to me that all the countries were getting more or less equal coverage. Then things in Libya got really nasty and then disasters struck Japan and suddenly it seems like what's been happening in Bahrain isn't really in the news anymore.

Meanwhile the Saudis are stomping over Bahrain like it's native territory.

I heard an interview on NPR this week with a doctor at, I believe, Salmaniya hospital, which Saudi troops and Bahrain police were (and probably still are - I can't find any updates past March 17!) holding hostage. No one was allowed in or out. And no food was permitted to through.

A wounded person was denied entry and died as a result.

The doctor was living on biscuits and tea because food was running out even then.

So we're doing air strikes in Libya, sending aid to Japan. What are we doing to help Bahrain except waving a pointed finger at the Saudis?

And I know, I know, Saudis got the oil and we can't piss off the oil and the incident with Japan's reactors has probably taken nuclear development in the US back by like another fifty years (frakking nuclear hysteria!) but even if we support the legitimacy of Bahrain's government, that doesn't mean that we can support starving sick people in hospitals.

I'm not entirely sure actually what the proper course of action is. I don't know that we can afford to threaten the Saudis with cutting off trade relations or anything like that. Not without hastily constructing about a hundred nuclear reactors on US soil and cutting our oil dependence sharply (which I'm honestly all for, cause say what you will, but all that oil will eventually run out since we can't go back in time and make more dinosaur carcasses).

But let's not forget that the Bahrain government is not an innocent party here either. There was a point where this could have been brought to the table before people died. And instead, they sent in the police.

So I guess what I'm stumbling towards is I think that something should be done but I'm not sure what. Thoughts? (And if I got any facts wrong, please enlighten me.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The UN should have sent observers to see what is going on. They should be talking about imposing sanctions and also they should be looking to host talks to mediate between the two(or more) sides.

To be honest, I am amazed the UN actually managed to agree to help Libya. The UN has been an organization with no teeth and little use for a very long time, which is quite sad since in a world so small and interconnected, we need international governance to some degree. I doubt the UN has enough juice to do another turn.

UN has responded with teeth occasionally. Remember Korea, Kuwait, and the current mission in Afghanistan?

A forever war pitting an extremely modern military against one of the most evil dictatorships on the planet also with one of the largest armies on the planet, the second of the three Gulf Wars that would lead directly to the third, and the third stretch of the forever war in Afghanistan. All very much reasons to avoid making a fourth such instance.

But is there a causative element in there? Does the UN approval somehow encourage "forever war" when it approves of a conflict? Because otherwise it's just correlation.

I didn't say there was a causative element. I was simply pointing out that the UN when intervening does not have a good record, which is hardly a reason to make this particular case the fourth time in hopes that we'll get it right *somehow.*

at first you don't succeed...

There's also the failed intervention in Somalia in the early 90s.

Might have had something to do with 3 permanent members of the security council pushing it.

This is what my morning paper had as the political cartoon today - http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/opinion/cartoons/alan-moir/20090907-fdxk.html

Aww it's funny cause it's true. Or is that sad because it's true? I'm going with tragicomedic.

What should be done is to reduce oil consumption. Otherwise, forget about trying to moderate the behaviour of governments in countries with large supplies of cheap oil.

I don't disagree about oil consumption but does that mean we should let the the Bahrain situation do as it will because we're going to just roll over for any oil producing country?

Should we? No. Will we? Probably.
There will be hand wringing, posturing, expressions of concern and muted criticism, but realistically, in my opinion, meaningful action against what is happening in Bahrain is extremely unlikely. It's all about oil, and Saudi Arabia is the gas station of the world.

Can't disagree with you there. The events in Japan have been a tragedy in so many ways, including what they have done to the possibility of meaningful progress in nuclear development. The nuclear hysteria is gone into a frenzy. And at this point nuclear power is the most viable option I think.

Got much to say, and i'm sorry for being so verbose. I'll split it into 3 parts.

See, its not just starving sick people in hospitals. Its an all-out crackdown on Shia protesters with military support from Suni KSA and UAE. And no one says a word about it because the latter two are "our buddies".

The uprising in Manama differs from the recent mass protests that toppled long-time rulers across North Africa. I think sectarianism and the security forces' complete loyalty to the monarchy seriously diminishes the likelihood of a peaceful regime change in Bahrain like the ones in Tunisia and Egypt. While these two are relatively homogeneous countries (Sunni Muslims make for more than 90% of their inhabitants) Bahrain's Sunnis, including the royal family and the country's political and economic elite, comprise only about 1/3 of the population. The rest are Shia. Each of these groups is making different, if not contradictory, demands. The Shia are focused on political reforms that would reflect their majority status. Those of the Sunnis who protest want socio-economic changes, such as affordable housing. And, while Egyptian protesters of all types found common ground in insisting that Mubarak should resign, Bahrainis might find it almost impossible to agree on a common goal.

The ruling al-Khalifa family will not relinquish its power willingly. To preserve itself, the regime relies on imported security forces that serve only the royal family. Drawn from Jordan, Pakistan and Yemen, they arent reluctant to beat and kill protesters, because they know that any change at the top would mean defeat not only for the al-Khalifas, but for themselves as well. And indeed, Bahraini security forces have been ruthless in their attacks against demonstrators. Given this alignment of forces, and the bloodshed that has already occurred on the Pearl Square, the scenes from Cairo of protesters arm-in-arm with soldiers and hugging tank crews are unlikely to be replayed in Bahrain. Moreover, while in Egypt, historically a relatively stable country, 3 weeks of chaos were enough to convince the military to restore order by ousting Mubarak, Bahrainis have greater experience with social unrest than Egyptians or Tunisians do. Political instability is a way of life in Bahrain. From the turmoil in the 20s, following administrative reforms, to labour protests in the 50s, the country is used to such things. As a result, factional strife is unlikely to panic the rulers and is even less likely to persuade them that the king must abdicate to save the country.
...

The role and influence of the legislature in these different countries is also very different. In Tunisia and Egypt, authoritarian regimes have allowed no political space for dissenting voices. When Mubarak felt his power was slipping away and reached out to his enemies, he found disorganised opposition parties with little political experience and no support in society. They could not formulate coherent positions and practical demands. Instead, they clung to hard-line positions, leaving Mubarak unable to find a solution to the impasse. But in Bahrain, the situation is different. Opposition parties have been active for almost a decade, and have significant representation in the legislature. The leading opposition group, Al-Wifaq, has 18 seats in the 40-member parliament. In possible talks with the opposition, the monarchy will find seasoned politicians ready to bargain over long-held demands. And, with widespread support among its constituents, Al-Wifaq can do a lot to reduce the tensions.

King Hamad also has a number of other options available to him. Because citizens have so many grievances, he can do a lot to appease them - if he really wanted to. He could address Shia claims of discrimination by offering them more jobs in government ministries. He can promise to invest state funds in their run-down communities. He can appease both Shia and Sunnis by granting them affordable housing. He can appease both factions by ending his long naturalisation policy that easily gives citizenship to foreign-born Sunnis, eroding the Shia majority. And he can dismiss the prime minister, Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa, who has exhausted many on both sides of the sectarian divide during his 40 years in power.
...

In short, Bahrain's rulers have many cards to play. And the international response to the uprising seems likely to strengthen the regime further. Bahrain is, after all, a key American ally, hosting the US navy's 5th Fleet, which patrols the Persian Gulf and keeps Iran in check. While the US has urged the Bahraini government to rein in its security forces, its evidently unwilling to press for regime change. Keeping its naval bases will be a top US priority - one that'll ultimately shape its response to the situation in Bahrain.

Saudi Arabia can also be expected to do everything in its power to prevent the al-Khalifas' fall. Bahrain is KSA's most loyal ally in the region, and the Saudis fear that sectarian unrest could spread to the country's eastern region, where a Shia-minority is holding long-held grievances. For years, the Saudis have propped up the Bahraini regime by providing free oil and funding its budget. When the unrest erupted, KSA almost immediately dispatched military units to bolster Bahrain's own weak forces.

Sure, change may be coming to much of the Middle East, but with Bahrain's social fault lines too wide to bridge, the regime thats willing to resort to brutal violence to crush any uprising, and the international community ready to look the other way, the protesters in Manama should be prepared for defeat. I'm afraid i may've been sounding too gloomy (http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/918494.html) as of late, but there's that.

Fascinating.

He who stands firmest, stands last. Supposedly.

If everyone stand firm it could be a very long war indeed.

Like Yemen, Bahrain has many groups to appease. Perhaps the solution lies in dissolving the present border, like Yugoslavia, and draw fresh lines in the sand.

But perhaps there is an even more difficult but eventually more rewarding road ahead. One where nobody wins but where nobody looses either. As a Canadian I quite familiar with the cultural split in my own country. We are not only bilingual and bicultural, but we have two legal systems and two of just about everything. I'm not sure why this couldn't work elsewhere.

draw fresh lines in the sand

Not possible, i'm afraid. They're a tiny island nation :)

It would be easier to just deport all the Shia people there. It'd probably be better for them in the long run anyways. I don't know why they bother to stay anyways, the policies there are obviously geared to try and convince them to leave.

The Shia are the majority of the Bahraini population. You're saying that most of a country's population should be deported.

Eh, okay then.

Should? No, I don't personally think so. But I wonder why they haven't done that or worked harder to get them to leave, because it seems the simplest answer for them.

Simply put, because they need workers to do the dirty work for them.

They can get Sunni workers.

They'd expect more rights and higher salaries.

Also you cant just remove 3/4 of your population without a major turmoil and KSA wants anything but turmoil with unpredictable results at its borders. Not a realistic scenario.

If resolution is possible then couldn't we at least press behind the scenes to push through SOMETHING? I find myself nauseated by how much helpless we are before oil interests and truthfully I don't think I see it turning out well either. But I just can't help but find myself tired of kowtowing before mighty dinosaur remains.

Well theoretically, it has happened before - grassroots pressure giving major results, i mean. I'm talking about South Africa. But it requires lots and lots of coordinated pressure. And no oil interests. They're just too powerful.

Or maybe not?...

The Saudis are our allies. We certainly are theirs, and have been helping to prop them up since the 1940s. We would be unable with a straight face to say boo about it when they use the weaponry we give 'em to start gunning down pro-democracy protesters. And I believe that if the Obama Administration did threaten to get involved the Republicans would discover the democratic virtues of the House of Saud in short order.

Well I am in favour of the UN sending in observers and then reporting back, but what is the International Community gonna do when the detaiils get undeniably bad?

Can we kick them out of the UN and stop foriegn Aid if they don't behave?
Are trade sanctions, and blockading their ports going to work ?

Could the people who their biggest trading patners make any impact on their POV?

Ok, there is a moral case for hitting the the way we hit libya - but is there an opposition group inside who are ready to take over governing if the bad guys bug out and leave the nation to itself?

If things come down good side up in Libya, we may see more confidence in UN interevention, but any UN action in the past has meant big time Us backing.
i mean , who led the war in Korea, Kuwait and any other place that the UN went into?

This is not like the Falklands - the Uk could legitimately claim it was winning back its own turf back then. Not so here. it is not that Barain ought to be forgotten , or that the situation in barain should serve as an excuse to do nothing about Libya- but let's get serious, Libya seemed like an open and shut case to me when the shooting started, and now it's a crazy as a box of foxes. We don't know if wew can win, and if we do, it isn't clear who will be iin charge or what they are like. And this is Libya, where the fighting is on and the rebels were winning.

If I was the british PM , I would want all available info on this place and the people next door in front of me before short listing any options. Something ought to be done, but i think the most important thing is to conduct proper reconnaisance first, and see what the cost of any action is likely to be.

Some costs may make action prohibitive, but some costs must be looked at as the price we have to pay for a more democratic and fairer world.

Nobody gets kicked out of the UN. Nobody. Pol Pot didn't get kicked out, even after the Khmer Rouge had been deposed (they had a seat up til 1993). It's contrary to the point of the UN. Theoretically, if you want a country to stop doing something, the UN provides diplomatic structures in which you can bring pressure as an international community.

Highly theoretically.

I think the U.S. should handle one thing at a time, and possible not kick ourselves (and each other) with "well, why don't we help A, and B, and C countries".

Let the UN, NATO, and the EU do the multi-tasking.

Well when we already have two things at a time, this comment sort of falls flat.

we're doing four now, right? Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Libya.

Afghanistan is a lost cause.

Maybe, but we're still in it.

Oh I know. I just can't stop fuming about what the so called non Taliban government is trying to do to the women's shelters.

Hell of it is that they *are* both non-Taliban and anti-Taliban. That just makes them not the Taliban, not good guys.

I dunno, if we were willing to use something like Manifest Destiny/Generalplan Ost we might make a desert and call it peace. Of course that would rightfully lead to US generals swinging from gallows and would be far too high a price to pay for such "victory."

More than two things.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=usgovinfo&cdn=newsissues&tm=38&f=10&su=p284.9.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda04-11.cfm

The comparisons with Libya fall kind of flat. In Bahrain, protests are still possible and there is a good chance that they will sort things out. The security forces are certainly not behaving, but then they didn't in Egypt but things seem to be working out there. Things in Libya were definitely not headed towards a peaceful end.

At this point, public finger waving and hopefully some less public arm twisting seem like a better approach than Libya style air strikes. We let this run its course in Libya, last week the complaints were that we were being too slow to act against Libya.

Of course, if the deaths in Bahrain start to be measured in the hundreds rather than by ones, twos, and threes, a new approach will be warranted.

Why is it our responsibility to right all wrongs? Who gave us that job?

As a human being I don't want to be a person who watches people suffer and thinks it's okay to want to do nothing.

Yes, but if my neighbors are fighting, I don't personally step in. I am not a cop. I call 911.

Expecting the USA to unilaterally step in and police the world is wrong on many levels, not the least of which is we get blamed and vilified no matter what we do, and then people feel justified in killing us. No thanks.

I don't mind supporting a UN peacekeeping force, but I can't condone the USA stepping in to every crisis, especially if we don't have a dog in the hunt.

I'm unsure about US involvement in all the other conflicts.

But I'm leaning over to intervention here. It's not a civil war; It's occupation.

Too bad the US has decided that oil and military bases = good people no matter what.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Let's Talk About Bahrain

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

(1)

(2)

(3)

Re: (3)

Re: (3)

Re: (3)

Re: (3)

Re: (3)

Re: (3)

Re: (3)

Re: (3)

Re: (3)

Re: (3)

Re: (3)

no subject

no subject

Just as an aside

Re: Just as an aside

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject