'No turning back' democracy protest, Bahrain 2013
The US and
Britain claim to support secular democracy and civil rights in countries such
as Libya and Syria while in alliance with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain
and UAE.
The
British decision to spend £15m establishing a naval base at Mina Salman Port in
Bahrain is being presented as a "symbolic" deal to increase stability
in the region, guard against unnamed threats and strengthen Britain's
partnership with the states of the Gulf.
The
agreement will identify Britain as an old colonial power strongly supporting
the Sunni monarchy in Bahrain that mercilessly crushed demands for democracy
and civil rights from the island's Shia majority during the Arab Spring in
2011.
Even by
the standards of the time, repression was excessive. Shia mosques and holy
places were bulldozed. Doctors at the main hospital in Bahrain that treated
injured protesters were tortured by being forced to stand without sleep for
days on end. Other prisoners were told that unless they sang the praises of the
king their interrogators would urinate into their mouths.
At the
heart of the crisis convulsing this part of the Middle East is a struggle
between Sunni and Shia, and Britain has openly taken the side of the former. It
may not necessarily be a good long-term investment.
The total
population of states bordering on the Gulf is about 145 million of whom at
least 110 million are Shia. It is a mistake to think that the Shia in the rest
of the Middle East do not notice or care what happens to their co-religionists
in Bahrain. The Islamic State (Isis) fighters have become the shock troops of
the Sunni communities in Iraq and Syria but their extremism and international
isolation may lead to a defeat for the Sunni in both countries.
There is
no question about Bahrain's toxic human rights record. An independent inquiry
in 2011 catalogued abuses and, despite promises of reform, torture and
mistreatment continue.
Last year
even the United States State Department, normally cautious when it comes to
highlighting the failings of the Sunni monarchies of the Gulf, said that the
abuses in Bahrain included "citizens' inability to change their government
peacefully; arrest and detention of protesters on vague charges, in some cases
leading to their torture in detention; and lack of due process in trials of
political and human rights."
Only last
week Bahraini human rights activist Zainab al-Khawaja was sentenced to three
years in prison for "insulting the king" by tearing up his
photograph. She had just given birth to her second child, and is free on bail
pending appeal. Her father, Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, is already in jail serving a
life term for his role in encouraging the Arab Spring protests.
Nabeel
Rajab, one of Bahrain's leading human rights activists, was arrested on 1
October because he "offended national institutions" by his comments
on social media. Mr Rajab had criticised the government for using counterterrorism
laws to prosecute human rights defenders, and had accused the Bahraini security
forces of encouraging violent beliefs similar to those of IS.
He pointed
out that a former Bahraini interior ministry officer, Mohamed Isa al-Binali,
had joined Isis and was calling on other interior ministry employees to do
likewise. Among Mr Rajab's tweets was one saying: "Many Bahrain men who
joined terrorism & Isis came from security institutions and those
institutions were the first ideological incubator." The Bahraini security
forces often draw their personnel from other Sunni states such as Pakistan and
Jordan and they then become naturalised Bahraini citizens. The Bahraini Shia
say there is a continuing campaign to deny them jobs in all sectors and to
change the demographic balance on the island in favour of the Sunni.
There has
always been a strong strain of hypocrisy in the claims of the US and Britain to
support secular democracy and civil rights in countries such as Libya and
Syria. They do so in alliance with Sunni theocratic absolute monarchies such as
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and UAE which understandably have no
interest in spreading secular democracy anywhere. In 2011, UAE said it would
refuse to join the coalition against the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi if there
was any criticism of Bahraini repression.
The most
powerful figure in Bahrain is widely regarded as being not King Hamad bin Isa
al-Khalifa but the Prime Minister, Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa who has held
his office since 1970. Calls for his resignation were one of the main demands
of demonstrators three years ago, but he has steadfastly refused to step down.
Bahrain
was a British protectorate from the 19th century until independence in 1971,
ruled by the al-Khalifa dynasty that has long looked to Britain to shield it
from international reaction against domestic repression. From the mid-1960s the
head of security on the island was Ian Henderson who had played a role in the
suppressing the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya in the 1950s. Successive periods of
protest were harshly dealt with.
Since 2011
Britain has played a role in muting the international reaction to the
suppression of the protests by emphasising that a dialogue is under way and
reforms are being introduced, though nobody else sees any sign of these going
anywhere. It has played along with Bahraini government claims that Iran is
orchestrating Shia dissent on the island though there is no evidence for this.
Sectarian
hatreds between the Sunni and Shia communities within Bahrain have deepened in
the last three years with the Shia more marginalised than ever. There had been
divisions within the royal family about how to handle dissent, with the King
and Crown Prince seeking compromise and the Prime Minister and the branch of
the al-Khalifa known as "Khawalids" opposed to sharing any power with
the majority. But these differences seem to have ended with a victory for the
latter faction which can increasingly ignore Shia protests that are confined to
villages and the outskirts of the capital, Manama.
It is not
at all clear why Britain needs to establish its first permanent naval base in
the Middle East since 1970 in Bahrain, other than the fact that it is possible
to do so.
British
intervention in Iraq after 2003 saw the deployment of ground troops in Basra,
but they were far too few to control the city or the surrounding countryside.
There was a political failure to understand the degree of popular hostility and
resistance this force would face.
Much the
same happened in Helmand Province in Afghanistan after 2006, when again the
numbers of British soldiers were too few to assert control while they were
enough to provoke local opposition.
The base
in Bahrain will be used to support RAF operations against the Islamic State in
Iraq, but these are on such a small scale that they will not do much to affect
the outcome of the war with Isis. Most British disasters in the Middle East over
the past century have stemmed from wishing to be a major player in the region,
while underestimating the resources necessary to do so.
Source:
The Independent
No comments:
Post a Comment