Bahrain Declares War on the Opposition

via IPS News

The special session of the Bahraini National Assembly held on Sunday Jul. 28 was a spectacle of venom, a display of vulgarity, and an unabashed nod to increased dictatorship.

Calling the Shia “dogs”, as one parliamentarian said during the session, which King Hamad convened, the Al-Khalifa have thrown away any hope for national reconciliation and dialogue.

The 22 recommendations approved during the session aimed at giving the regime pseudo-legal tools to quash dissent and violate human and civil rights with impunity. All in the name of fighting “terrorism”.

Watching a video of some of the speeches during the session, one is saddened by how low official political discourse has become. Students of Bahrain yearn for the days when parliamentary debaters were civil and when Shia and Sunni parliamentarians engaged in thoughtful, rational, and tolerant debates despite their political or ideological differences.

In the early 1970s when the Constituent Assembly debated the draft constitution, Bahrainis followed the speeches by their elected and appointed representatives with much respect and hope for the future of a modern, tolerant, and civil society.

Such parliamentarians as Rasul al-Jishi, Jasim Murad, Ali Saleh, Abd al-Aziz Shamlan, Ali Sayyar, Isa Qasim, Qasim Fakhro, and others made their countrymen proud with the quality of debate that characterised Bahrain’s first ever elected parliament.

Even such ministers as Muhammad bin Mubarak al-Khalifa, Ali Fakhro, and Yusif Shirawi participated in those parliamentary debates and worked jointly with elected members to chart a more hopeful future for all the people of Bahrain.

As I sat through those parliamentary sessions in 1973 and followed the lengthy discussions on a myriad of constitutional amendments, I envisioned a democratically prosperous Bahrain for years to come. The National Assembly, however, was dissolved two years later, and the constitution was suspended. Al-Khalifa ruled by decree ever since.

The parliamentary special session last Sunday showed a divisive, intolerant, and fractured country that is rapidly descending into chaos. It’s as if civility, rationality, and moderation have become relics from the past.

King Hamad and the Crown Prince welcomed the recommendations, and the powerful prime minister urged his ministers to implement them immediately; in fact, he has threatened to fire any minister who slows their implementation.

According to media reports, the recommendations were prepared before the meeting and were disseminated to the media a few minutes after the session ended. They were not even debated meaningfully or rationally during the session.

The regime’s fear that Bahrainis would have their own “tamarud” (rebellion) civil disobedience movement to confront the regime on Aug. 14, Bahrain’s actual independence day, drove the timing of the session. The Bahraini opposition hopes to emulate the Egyptian “tamarud”, which indirectly led to Morsi’s removal.

Like other autocratic regimes, whether under Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in Egypt or Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Al-Khalifa justified the draconian recommendations against all forms of opposition and peaceful dissent in the name of fighting “terrorism” and incitement of “all forms of violence” (Recommendation #3). The regime will likely use these recommendations to ban all peaceful demonstrations and protests.

The regime is prepared, according to Recommendation #2, to revoke the citizenship of Bahraini citizens “who carry out terrorist crimes and those who instigate terrorism”. The regime defines a terrorist as any Bahraini who is suspected of being a dissident or actively advocating genuine reforms. In fact, Recommendation #6 bans “sit-ins, rallies and gatherings in the capital Manama”.

The regime does not seem perturbed by the fact that citizenship revocation violates international legal norms and the Bahraini constitution. In fact, this might be a sinister way for the Sunni al-Khalifa to alter the demographics of the country by depriving the Shia dissidents of citizenship.

Viewing the entire protest movement through the security prism, as the recommendations imply, the regime seems bent on escalating its crackdown against peaceful protest and freedoms of speech and assembly, according to the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights.

Under Recommendation #7, the country could soon be ruled under martial law or “National Safety”, as the regime euphemistically calls it.

The recommendations have put the country on a sectarian collision course, have dealt a major blow to peaceful dissent and civil rights, and have raised serious questions in Washington about Al-Khalifa’s commitment to genuine reform.

In a direct rebuke to U.S. Ambassador Thomas Krajeski, Recommendation #11 requests “that all ambassadors to Bahrain to not interfere in the kingdom’s domestic affairs.”

Some die-hard Sunni parliamentarians, with the support of the Royal Court, have urged the regime to expel Ambassador Krajeski from Bahrain, claiming he has been meeting with pro-democracy Shia dissidents. Others have threatened his personal safety.

Still others, with tacit regime support, are hoping the ambassador would be transferred out of Bahrain, much like what happened to political officer Ludovic Hood in May 2011.

At the time, according to the “Religion and Politics in Bahrain” blog, pro-regime Sunni activists demanded Hood’s removal because they claimed he offered “Krispy Kreme doughnuts to demonstrators who had gathered outside the American Embassy” to protest perceived U.S. support for Al-Khalifa.

Now pro-regime Sunni activists are feverishly campaigning against the U.S. ambassador’s public support for human rights and genuine reform in Bahrain. The recommendation curtailing diplomatic activities in the country is squarely aimed at Ambassador Krajeski.

According to Bahrain Mirror, some have advocated banning him from appearing on state media and in pro-regime newspapers, even if the subject he is discussing is gourmet cooking, one of the ambassador’s hobbies!

The anti-Shia and anti-reform underlying theme of the recommendations is a naked display of tribal family autocracy, which Al-Khalifa are determined to preserve at any cost, including tearing the society apart. Adopting these recommendations reflects the regime’s nervousness about the ever-increasing precarious nature of their rule and the unstoppable demands for justice, dignity, and equality.

According to a recently leaked audio recording, Crown Prince Salman was quoted as saying, “The current situation is unsustainable, and the policy we are pursuing cannot continue. People are getting tired, and conditions could worsen any moment. Bigger dangers are threatening our society, and the future is becoming more precarious.”

Washington and other Western capitals should work diligently to disabuse the king and the prime minister of the notion that “securitisation” is the answer to Bahrain’s domestic ills. Engaging with the public on the future of Bahrain, including the Shia majority and the pro-democracy youth movement, is the only way to bring the country back from the brink.

Washington should make it clear to Al-Khalifa that media attacks and threats against Ambassador Krajeski should stop. Whipping the flames of hatred against the U.S. embassy to preserve the regime’s dictatorial rule is a dangerous game, which Al-Khalifa cannot afford to engage in.

As a first and immediate step, King Hamad should muzzle the hotheads in his Royal Court and in the prime minister’s office. In the meantime, the U.S. should initiate serious discussions on how and when to move the Fifth Fleet out of Bahrain to a neighbouring country or over the horizon.

Emile Nakhleh

Dr. Emile Nakhleh was a Senior Intelligence Service officer and Director of the Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program at the Central Intelligence Agency. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a Research Professor and Director of the Global and National Security Policy Institute at the University of New Mexico, and the author of A Necessary Engagement: Reinventing America’s Relations with the Muslim World and Bahrain: Political Development in a Modernizing State. He has written extensively on Middle East politics, political Islam, radical Sunni ideologies, and terrorism. Dr. Nakhleh received his BA from St. John’s University (MN), the MA from Georgetown University, and the Ph.D. from the American University. He and his wife live in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

SHOW 40 COMMENTS

40 Comments

  1. Mohammed Albuflasa is not a “Sunni punk”. He is a retired BDF officer, was the first political prisoner since February 2011, was held in captivity for months regardless of the fact that he is in the employ of the Crown Prince in his court. (I was mistaken. He works for the Crown Prince, not the King). Furthermore, his speech did not infer anti-government or anti-Khalifa sentiments. He’s not an icon, he is just one of the many political prisoners who were tried under military courts because thats what the “state of national safety” allowed. Instead of people being tried fairly in a civil court, with full access to legal consultation and using fair trial standards. This is one of the issues I’m talking about, this conflict isn’t sectarian, it has to do with the fact that government authorities hate people speaking out which is why they are so harsh on anyone critical of their policies.

    The protests that started in February 2011 were not “an excuse”. Yes, they are connected to the Arab Spring protests. Yes, it was an advantageous opportunity to ride on the international phenomenon. But calling it an excuse is unfair to the people who genuinely believe that there are problems with this country and want to solve them.

    My ethnic orientation has nothing to do with my concern about the path that Bahrain isn’t going down. In fact, saying that is both racist and offensive. What I said is not disinformation, calls for the removal of the King did not start on such a mass scale until after people were harshly attacked at Pearl Roundabout. The people there were attacked at night, in their sleep, and many were taken by surprise. Not just the people at Pearl Roundabout, but people like me who genuinely believed that Bahrain would never attack people in this way. But we were all proven wrong. I don’t want things like that to happen again. Not just of my “ethnicity” but because this isn’t what I want Bahrain to turn into.

    I don’t know anything about the 2002 constitution because I have not read it. However, the constitution and international law protects freedom of expression and so far government authorities are suppressing this under vague charges that relate to “national” or public safety or security. No one was being harmed when people were massing at Pearl Roundabout, but people were certainly harmed when they were shot by rubber bullets there. And then at every police and protester clash afterwards.

    We have both agreed that Al Wefaq has problems in terms of transparency.

    You are comparing Bahrain to “the western world”. These kinds of issues aren’t specific to any one place. They occur all over the world. But each place is different and you can’t compare problems like these and try to equate them. That diminishes the legitimacy of people’s problems and thats unfair. Thats like saying a person with clinical depressions will always suffer less than a person with fatal cancer because a clinically depressed individual isn’t sure to die. Each individual suffers from a problem and trying to compare them to tell which one is worse is a waste of time because the problems aren’t being solved.

    People protest, vandalize, commit arson etc in Western countries all the time. Not just in the West but everywhere. You seem to have an issue with the way in which people are expressing their views which is fair because vandalizing and terror acts isn’t a good solution for peace. But you can’t say that problems don’t exist or that people’s problems aren’t genuine just because they “aren’t as bad” as problems elsewhere.

    Would you really choose increased violence between government authorities and its people over dialogue and reconciliation?

  2. The word PUNK denotes modesty and simplicity. It was originally associated with music in 80s where Punk Rock was referred to those bands starting in garages. It’s not a derogatory term. Mohammed Albuflasa was one of BDF 20,000 low rank conscripts. I am not sure of the terms of his discharge or retirement from BDF but if I were you I wouldn’t have involved his name with such fanfare “Advisor to King” to mislead the audience for the purpose of propelling and furthering a political agenda. The Crown Prince is a highly educated person. I’d doubted very much if Mr. Albuflasa was working for him, let alone advising him.

    For the time being however and as far as I am aware there is only one Sunni political prisoner. He is Ibrahim Sharif. For your information Ibrahim used to work for TAIB Bank in Bahrain. He parachuted rich in 2005 or 2006. He started an exclusive 2CONNECT VOIP business I believe in 2006, and since then his business prospered while he was quite active politically. Despite his critics of the government he was never touched nor harassed by the government. This is the sort of democracy Bahrain propounds in the region. The Government never had nor has with any problem with people speaking against it. Bahrain is being criticised openly by other Gulf states for the tolerant nature and the standard of its democracy. It were the events of February 14, 2011 and what followed that led to his arrest and imprisonment on grounds of insinuating violence and racial hatred with his anti government rhetoric in the roundabout. I think Mohammed Albuflasa is no longer imprisoned.

    A bit of statistics. There are those who would say Bahrain has a Shia majority as apposed to those saying a Sunni majority. Bahrain has no laws stating Shias or Sunnis, a clear example of the secular nature of the system of governance. One can therefore safely state it’s a 50:50 split, along with minority Christians, Jews, Bhais, etc. I can also safely state that almost every Sunni, with the exception of very few (probably less than 10 people), is against the Shia dominant opposition Alwefaq for being nothing but an extension of the Lebanese Hizbulla. Alwefaq spiritual leader is Isa Qasim who is a representative of Iranian Khamenaei. This is where the charges of sectarianism and religious Welayat Faqih is coming from. What else could be there?

    Are there problems in Bahrain? of course there are, and who hasn’t? I will continue to repeat that the venue for voicing out such problems is the elected lower house of parliament and not through arsons, killings, destruction of public properties, and blockage of highways. The Shia dominant opposition was a party to the 2006 elections and 2010. Unfortunately, owing to Shias ulterior motives of settling an old score calling for the overthrow of the 250 years of Alkhalifa rule, they rode the Arab Spring bandwagon to achieve their ever wanting goal, of course in the name of democracy, freedom of expression and equitable distribution of wealth, believing it was going to be a duck walk, which was not to be. This is why it’s a well known fact in Bahrain and almost in every Arab and Muslim country that the events of 2011 were nothing but an excuse to achieve that far fetched long awaited goal of toppling a legitimate rule.

    Just not sure of what you are not telling us Bader or telling us but i am afraid your ethnic orientation has everything to do with it. As I explained in my earlier comment the issue of ethnicity, loyalty, maturity, etc., are far more important than the usual rhetorics of human right, freedom, equality, distribution of wealth, etc., Remember, it’s a completely different world we live in post 1979 Iranian revolution. Ethnicity, sectarian divide and Welayat Faqih was officially launched in multi cultural societies in 1979 post the Iranian revolution.

    Not sure what you meant with Alwefaq having transparency problems because I am quite clear in my mind on Alwefaq and my views go far beyond their transparency problems. Alwefaq has degenerated itself into nothing but a religiously driven sectarian Shia movement propounding the Iranian Welayat Faqih doctrine. Why would otherwise Hassan Moshaime’ declare the “Islamic Republic of Bahrain” in the roundabout?

    You see Bader I get very confused when you ask that we shouldn’t compare Bahrain with the Western World. I agree that every country or a culture has its uniqueness. Unfortunately, it has always been the western powers who continue calling for such comparatives, in the name of democracy and human right. I recall listening to a BBC interview with Tony Blair on Egypt post the events of June 30, 2013 to discuss whether the ousting of the democratically elected Morsi was a military coup or not. Blair said that Egypt situation was quite “UNIQUE” thus evading from using the term “COUP”. To say the least it’s very confusing. You say we shouldn’t compare; I say we should; western powers say we should; Blair says we shouldn’t. Which standard are we supposed to follow? I gather the standard you want to follow is the one calling for people going on the rampage whenever they have demands instead of resorting to the parliament. You are basically asking for the western world version of democracy but with a “unique” Bahraini way of voicing out demands by way of arsons, killings, destructions, terror, burning tires, etc.

    Now, whether I would prefer violence over dialogue or vise versa, of course would opt for dialogue and reconciliation, but what sort of a dialogue and reconciliation? A dialogue with a set of preconditions calling for the Prime Minister to resign; abolishment of 2002 constitution; suspension of parliament; demographic changes; etc., is not even worth considering. What you are calling for technically speaking is a Coup D’etat. I would have imagined there was an elected lower house of parliament for having a dialogue and debates.

    You are not being reasonable chaps.

  3. * http://www.thefreedictionary.com/punk << None of the definitions here fit your definition of modesty. Three definitions however are offensive in nature.

    I didnt involve Mohammed Albuflasa's name with fanfare. I made a mistake. I thought he was employed in the King's court when it was the Crown Prince's court. I didn't try to mislead people, nor do I have a political agenda. You accusing me of having one is offensive and it derails the healthy debate we were having. It doesn't matter whether you doubt something. His position is documented by numerous sources. You should look them up. Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about the Crown Prince's education and then saying that Mohammed Buflasa doesn't work for him. Didn't you say that "punk" is used in a positive context? If its positive, then what is wrong with Mr. Buflasa? Why wouldnt he be employed in the Crown Prince's court?

    Furthermore, I never mentioned anything about the democratic or human rights situation in pre-Feb 2011 Bahrain. The issue I was discussing all along is the deterioration of political discourse and the escalation of the political conflict since 2011. You are trying to draw comparisons between Bahrain and other Gulf states. Lets try to keep the focus of the discussion squarely on Bahrain.

    We've already agreed about the contradictions surrounding Al Wefaq's actions and messages.
    Our differences come about in our views about the way in which a legitimate way to voice concerns can be established. I think that voicing concerns through the parliaments has worked fine for people until now, however, ever since the start of the conflict in 2011, the situation has deteriorated so much so, that the parliament is supporting the harsh treatment of political opposition upheld by government authorities. I believe that there are more ways to voice concerns about this, but so far none of these venues are working because government forces treat all of them as illegitimate.

    Also, you are showing a lot of concern about my ethnic orientation and I have to say, its offensive and is getting off-topic. You keep accusing me of holding views that I did not say I hold. Its unfair and is getting us nowhere. I'm not "basically" saying any of the things that you say I am. What I am saying is that BOTH sides need to stop using these harsh and terrorist-like tactics of suppression, vandalism, and human rights violations and move towards national reconciliation and peace. I've repeated this notion multiple times.

    Its unfair to call me "unreasonable" just because you don't agree with my ideas or don't think that they would work. I already accepted your suggestions for leaving it to the parliament and added my own views on the matter. This conversation has gotten derailed heavily.

  4. Wish one could UPLOAD images. Referring to Emile Nakhleh article and the image of a Bahraini woman raising the Red Bahrain flag. Can UPLOAD an image of the same people just days before the events of February 14, 2011 raising the Yellow flags and banners of Lebanese Hizbulla, and they ask why their loyalty and ethnicity is being brought into question.

  5. Managed to trace Mohammed Albuflasa on Twitter @alboflasa, so you can read his tweets. He is utterly refusing to exploit his name in the western media by people like you Bader. In his tweet, he says ” he is just a poor and simple man who is not to be deceived with what is being said”. I will address our media deceits on another occasion.

Comments are closed.