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.
Mr Bader, I’m again interjecting my comments into you & Mr Abdul’s back & forth, as I see an issue that perhaps is or isn’t of importance. That being your willingness to send Mr Abdul a photo copy of your I.D., which to my way of thinking, isn’t a very wise move, unless, you have several different nom de gares that you go by. I might also add, that from the tone of Mr Abdul’s words, it sounds like he’s baiting you, but is having a difficult time of it. But you seem to be aware and are avoiding the bait. Quite mature attitude for one your age. It reinforces what I have said earlier, this thinking is what could break the stalemate in the M.E., as it’s fresh, undoubtedly is shared by many of you peers, perhaps throughout the M.E., which of course, could be perceived as a threat, to those who cling to the old ways.
Many thanks for your interjection Norman.
I appreciate your modesty in acknowledging your shortfalls when it comes to the historical politics of this region and Bahrain in general. Despite being the smallest country in the Gulf and the weakest link, Bahrain politics is one of utter complication owing to its pioneering status is national resistance movements from the 1920s and the high level of education of its people. I sincerely wish your novice snobbish politicians followed your steps in acknowledging the need for far more due diligence and scrutiny prior to pulling out a gun and start shooting, as a result of which, todays world is a much more dangerous place to live than it used to be in the past. Just few days ago, Foreign Secretary Kerry opened his mouth with the wrong words at the worst possible place when he said Egypt wasn’t a military coup, and where? in Pakistan, of all places.
The trio of Bush, Blair and City Slickers Aznar destabilized the entire Middle East region based on information that was either wrong or manipulated, to put it in simple terms. Young US Experts on foreign policy with a couple of in their treasure on either Russia, Vietnam, Niger, Iran, Timbuktu, etc., are regarded as experts. This region is on fire because of novice US politicians and experts preaching on local politics of a country without having a clue of its social and religious fabric and its history. Examples of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Iran, Syria, Iraq, etc., suffices.
These novice politicians and policy makers can at times be so naive they could be subconsciously taken to the cleaners on hearing secular rhetorics of human right, democracy, freedom of expression, torture, violence, etc., without having the depth of knowledge nor the age or expertise to vet or scrutinize the rhetoric whether they are genuine or fake.
Political Islam or Islamophobia, i.e. the use of Islam in furthering political objectives as well as financial objectives, has become the motto of this day and age. Almost everything is now religiously driven. As a result of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the subsequent Khomeini’s Welayat Faqih doctrine, the Shias of this region embarked on a political project and became very much militant. To put it simply, a Bahraini Shia citizen, or a Kuwait Shia, or even a Shia from the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia of Qatif or Ihsaa, is prepared to blindly go on the rampage and execute an instructions from the Supreme Spiritual leader Khamenaei of Iran without any question. Such a situation never existed prior to 1979 Iranian revolution. This is how complex the nature of the local politics of this region has become. These are the sort of people the Government has to deal with.
Iran forms the cornerstone of Gulf politics. It basically takes center stage importance. The Shah was secular so he never posed religious threats. There were geographic threats I must say but never religious. Post 1979 Iranian revolution, the threat are both geographic, and more importantly religious.
The Bahraini Shias are a classic example of political Islam or Islamophobia. All their congregations are spearheaded by clerics; preached by clerics; manipulated by clerics; instructed by clerics; to the extent their votings in the parliamentarian elections were based on strict religious convictions. In one of the electoral centers in the North of the country, namely Deraz, the choice was among two candidates, both Shias, one more qualified and somewhat liberal but independent (Ali Al-Ayoubi),where the other was less qualified but from the religious society of Alwefaq (Abdul Hussain Al-Metghawi). The Alwefaq candidate (Al-Metghawi) won. All 18 candidates of Alwefaq won in the 2010 elections. This is the principle reason why we believe Alwefaq is nothing but a religiously driven sectarian movement that is riding the wave of Islamophobia to propel and further political agendas. Who in his right mind is so naive to believe that the Shia dominant opposition of Alwefaq is secular?
Then this talk of peace, dialogue, reconciliation, harmony, debate, stopping violence, etc. While they are very nicely worded rhetoric, I just wonder how they would be implemented with an opposition that is religiously driven with the command centre in either Iran, Lebanon, or Iraq. How am I supposed to deal with such a situation? They accuse the Government and the Parliament of being harsh with political opposition but they never say or ask themselves who drew first blood. The Government is basically reacting to an original action the Shia dominant opposition of Alwefaq took by withdrawing from the Parliament during the wave of the Arab Spring in 2011 and opting to go on a rampage of arsons, killings, destruction of public assets, vandalism, etc.
On top of being in the middle of such a complex situation, novice US politicians and Foreign policy experts add fuel to fire. If only they knew when to talk and when to shut up, we might have been able to manage the situation better and faster.
The Egyptian dimension. Although there is not a single element of similarity between Bahrain and Egypt, in that Egypt is essentially of a one sect ethnicity (Sunnis) as opposed to Bahrain’s two (Shias and Sunnis split 50:50)). Bahrain people are far more well off than our colleagues the Egyptians. Egypt is the pinnacle of the Arab region with its more than 80 million population as opposed to Bahrain’s 700,000.
Yet, the Shia dominant opposition of Alwefaq, on grounds of a vastly flawed old eccentric doctrine that says the Alkhalifas had stolen the rule from them some 250 years ago, capitalized on the events of the Arab Spring that time had come to settle the one and only old score to topple the legitimate rule of Alkhalifa hoping it was going to be a duck walk, which was never to be. Now they want to copy cat Egypt Tamarrud on August 14, 2013, again forgetting the absence of every similarity, and of course all this in the name of democracy, freedom, justice, equitable distribution of wealth, etc, to the liking of the west.
In conclusion I should like to say that Bahrain has historically been a tolerant society where Sunnis, Shias, Christians, Jews, etc., have lived in peace and harmony for centuries. I for one would always propound for a secular Bahrain, as the system of governance is today and always been.
I’d be damned Norman to even try to draw someone into a trap, let alone accepting an invitation from someone to receive a copy of his ID through mail. It’s foolish. I had no intention whatsoever.
On the other hand, and since we are debating such a sensitive issue, wouldn’t you at least want to make an effort to solve some of the enigmatic issues of 3Ws (Who was saying What and Why)? Why can’t I be allowed to do this? Why should anyone be afraid of being challenged? substance wise as well as character. Essentially, it’s a combination of material authenticity and personal credibility that would potentially produce the right result. Isn’t this what happens in court proceedings when selecting juries? Why both Plaintiff and defendant attorneys drill jury candidates to the bone? Why some juries are accepted and some declined? Principally, to eliminate any shred of doubt of prejudices, so that objectivity was the focal point. Am I doing anything different? Is it not my right and duty to make sure only truth was being projected?
My friend Bader tried to substantiate his argument with a piece of disinformation, a rather vital one with serious relevance to the core subject, when he stated on August 5, at 8.34am, in a widely circulating international Blog and Newsletter, quote “The first political prisoner since the beginning of the uprising in 2011 is a Sunni, who was an advisor to the King” unquote. Fortunately, this happened to be not the case, utterly wrong, and quite misleading. From an international reader standpoint, it would have meant it was mayhem. The detainee was no more than a single individual low rank officer among the 20,000 other officers in Bahrain Defence Force “BDF”. He was never an Advisor to the King nor to the Crown Prince, and was released from detention within a couple of months. According to his tweet @alboflasa says quote ”he was just a poor and simple man and not to read too much into what was being said about him”.
Had I not scrutinised this piece of disinformation, novice politicians, foreign policy researchers, and layman readers would have taken the statement for granted, or might have not. As far as I am concerned, this was a big piece of disinformation, the purpose of which was very much in line with the opposition’s grand propaganda campaign of media deceit, to undoubtedly propel and further a negative political situation in Bahrain.
How would you view me Norman if for example I started spreading disinformation material about US politicians and senators which happened to be wrong? Would I ever be trusted again. I might even be sued. Bader’s views can be either those of a Shia Bahraini or a naive Sunni. Bahrain is a small country with only 700-750 thousand people (split 50:50) where each one knows the other very well. Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution and Khomeini’s Welayat Faqih doctrine, Shias have transformed into a totally different creatures to that prior to 1979. Khomeini’s Welayat Faqih doctrine is a core characteristic of every Shia person. Everything is religiously driven nowadays. Never believe anyone when he says it’s secular, regrettably of course.
Our Shia dominant opposition of Alwefaq, and for the last two years and a half focused almost entirely on nothing but disinformation, media deceit, doctored images, doctored graphic footages, theatrical deaths and injuries, weeps, etc., with the assistance of satellite networks of Iran, Iraq, and Lebanese Almanar, to attract the attention of international media and politicised NGOs, very much resembling Nazi Germany Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbles.
Let me ask the ongoing rhetorical question of how Iraq was destroyed and eventually divided. Was it not because of media deceit and disinformation? The Iraq scenario was such that US soldiers were going to be received with flowers by Iraqis. Instead more than 4,000 body bags flew back to US and US policy was branded a total failure. It was because of academicians writing from thousands of miles away on issues they never had a clue of. There never found WMD nor Uranium enrichment or any connection to Al-Qaeda. The moment the last US soldier left Iraq around June 2011, the Shia government of Almaliki turned against Sunni Tariq Al-Hashemi and started a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Sunnis. Iraq has historically been known to be a very multicultural multiethnic society of Sunnis, Shias, Christians, Jews. All Bahraini Jews came from Iraq a century ago. Met few Christian Iraqis in Jordan who thought Saddam Hussain was far better than the present Iraqi ethnic regimes. Haven’t we learned enough how media deceit and disinformation destroyed Iraq?
If there is anyone that was being “baited” I have to say it’s you Norman. Actually you ate the bait twice. It was you who made the first comment on Emile Nakhleh article, basically taking everything he mentioned for granted, suggesting a change since the majority were being oppressed by the minority. Your comment of August 1 at 9.15pm refers. You took a second bait when you gave in to the resonating rhetoric of freedom, democracy, torture, violence, dialogue, reconciliation, etc., without conducting the slightest form of vetting or examination of what was being said or written. I bet you took the “Advisor to King” note for granted.
In a way Norman, my comment of August 9 at 4.59pm was in a way referring to people like you; people sitting thousands of miles away and propelling all sort of views and opinions based on secondary desk research material obtained from the internet or from a book or a telephone conversation with a 30 year old novice politician or expert who happened to have read a couple books and was regarded as an expert.
As I said in my comment of August 9 at 4.59, it’s people like you Norman and those novice politicians and foreign policy researches and experts who are essentially adding fuel to fire, subconsciously of course.
Back at you Mr. Abdul, after reading your 8-09-13 @4:59PM, I was quite impressed with your history lesson. I might add, I also came away with the impression, that perhaps there were two of you, for the tone in said letter was quite different than the ones directed toward Mr. Bader
To say I was taken aback, with todays: 8-10-13 @ 6:23PM,would be an understatement. The tone you have used, is the same that you used with Mr. Bader, which reads an awful lot like someone who is pretending to be someone he’s not. As for where I sit, you have no Idea of my background, knowledge of or interest in Bahrain, other than what I’ve wrote. The difference in tone between the two letters stated, are like night & day. I don’t believe that I denigrated you in any way, just that I found your attitude toward Mr. Bader on the negative side, uncalled for if you may. My saying to him what I did, still stands, which has nothing to do with my knowledge of what is or isn’t going on in Bahrain today or in the past.
Recall this started out when he stated that the old ways have failed, that new thinking should be embraced. I applauded him for that thinking, especially at his stated age of 19. I can believe that, due to my experience with that age group. Your remarks directed at him, has given me the impression that you cling to the old ways, which even you’ll have to admit hasn’t produced a peaceful solution. Now you attack MOI with that same negative tone, after first complimenting and enlightening in your 8-09-13 @ 4:59PM response. Why you feel compelled to strike out in this manner, leaves me with the impression that feel threatened in some way shape or form. Perhaps you are, but I’m certainly not a threat to you, though your post today 8-10-13 @ 6:23PM certainly appears to bear this out.
Mr. Abdul, Your attitude is what feeds the frustration of the young people, they have seen the way the old ways have only created more chaos, not a pretty picture. So, here you have it right back, and if an apology from me is in order, then I apologize if your feelings have been hurt. That said, I’m a Great Grandfather, in the twilight years of life, disgusted that my country has made a mess of the M.E., doesn’t seem to understand that the World doesn’t need nor want to be ruled by a gaggle of idiots, yes idiots, who don’t know their backside from a 40 acre lot. Corruption on a grand scale is a kind term. But then, you being from the M.E., are well aware of that.
In closing, I’m sorry that you can’t seem to see the forest from the trees, or perhaps a better analogy might be seeing the difference between the sand dunes and a mirage. The old ways have to give way to the young new ways of thinking.
* To Mr. Norman: I hesitated very much before and after saying that I would be willing to send Mr. Aagool my ID. I only do so to prove the legitimacy of my stated identity (even though I think its wrong that I have to go to such lengths merely to prove my own identity). This kind of mentality of generalizing whereby someone says “If I know your religious affiliation, then I also know that you are x, y, z.” which is unfair, offensive and does not depict any of the complexities that human beings possess. Once again, I thank you for your kind and honest responses. They are greatly appreciated.
* To Mr. Aagool: I would like to respond to your use of the term “Islamophobia” first. I think that you are confusing what the term actually means and how it is SOMETIMES used to further a political agenda. However what you are confusing is the fact that Islamophobia is used to further a political agenda AGAINST Islam. This is different from Political Islam which is using Islam to further a political goal.
“Islamophobia is prejudice against, hatred towards, irrational fear of, or racism[1] towards Muslims” – Wikipedia’s definition.
Second of all, you said that “To put it simply, a Bahraini Shia citizen, or a Kuwait Shia, or even a Shia from the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia of Qatif or Ihsaa, is prepared to blindly go on the rampage and execute an instructions from the Supreme Spiritual leader Khamenaei of Iran without any question. Such a situation never existed prior to 1979 Iranian revolution. This is how complex the nature of the local politics of this region has become.” You portray Shia’s as blind rampaging individuals but then say that the situation is complex. What is so complex about a blind raging person? Once again, you are unfairly simplifying the issues. Just because someone follows the Shia faith doesn’t also necessarily mean that they are something else. They are a follower of the Shia faith, that is all. People are different and just because someone belongs to a specific group doesnt mean they are ALL carbon copies of one another. Thats wrong, offensive and discriminatory.
Third of all, I would like to address the repititous nature of your past few comments. So far, in your comments you have repeated a few main points that we have agreed to and understood and are no longer debating but you keep bringing them up anyway.
1. Al Wefaq is not secular. I have agreed with you on this.
2. You attribute a lot of blame to foreign interference even though this is speaking too broadly about the issue of the Bahraini government’s responses to its political opposition.
3. You keep bringing up Egypt’s military coup and criticizing media’s depiction of the issue when it would serve us better to talk about the media’s depiction of Bahrain instead.
If this debate is to continue beneficially and effectively, it would serve us better to move on to different topics. Trying to place details in very broad contexts is not really helping especially when you are not giving us very many details about these contexts. For example, you have mentioned the 1979 revolution multiple times but I still don’t understand how much of a significant role it is. Can you please just tell us these details instead of merely repeating the fact that it had an effect? Maybe then, we will be able to debate on this issue.
Furthermore, you also keep accusing me of things that I did not do. “My friend Bader tried to substantiate his argument with a piece of disinformation, a rather vital one with serious relevance to the core subject,”. I did NOT produce disinformation, it was a factual inaccuracy. I admitted to this as soon as I found out I made a mistake. Go read my post when I say this. Its very clear. I mentioned Mr. Buflasa because I wanted to show that its not only Shia’s being targeted but you obviously do not believe so. This is the issue that I was discussing – the way in which the government, international media and AL Wefaq try to portray this issue in simplified, black-white, sectarian terms.
“Had I not scrutinised this piece of disinformation, novice politicians, foreign policy researchers, and layman readers would have taken the statement for granted, or might have not. As far as I am concerned, this was a big piece of disinformation, the purpose of which was very much in line with the opposition’s grand propaganda campaign of media deceit, to undoubtedly propel and further a negative political situation in Bahrain.” Also, I believe that you put too much importance on this small factual inaccuracy that I made. I highly doubt that politicians, researchers and others would take this to such a grand scale as you make it out to be. Why don’t you check these things online for yourself? Thats what I did. You accuse people of taking things for granted. Also, how is a slight factual inaccuracy about a single individual going to propel Bahrain into a far more negative situation that it already is? In an internet comment section, even. This is the kind of mentality that government authorities hold about cyber security, that everything being said is a potential threat to national security when that is just ridiculous. People shouldn’t be taking things said on Twitter so seriously. If they doubt the ligitimacy of these claims, then they should go online and research these topics for themselves before they start blaming people for spreading disinformation and what not.
What I think is REALLY going to propel Bahrain into a negative situation is the fact that hate speech, blaming people, and accusations are commonplace. This sort of thing promotes hatred and discontent among people and is ultimately what creates a fractured society – when people hate each other so much that they cannot trust one another.
Once more you keep trying to put me into a specific category. “Bader’s views can be either those of a Shia Bahraini or a naive Sunni.” Both of which I do not agree to. Why do you INSIST on not believing who I say I am and then trying to CHOOSE an identity for me? How is this fair? You do not give me enough respect or credit and like Mr. Norman said, your tone is starting to become very disrespectful to me.
Also, you do the same to Mr. Norman who is only trying to keep an open mind in order to understand the situation for himself. ” it’s people like you Norman and those novice politicians and foreign policy researches and experts who are essentially adding fuel to fire, subconsciously of course.” Why do you accuse him of such things? Because his name is Norman? Because he is a foreigner? Or from the US? Thats an unfair accusation and it seems that you have a very personal problem with the issue from the way you have worded your statement. Mr. Norman does not deserve to be attacked on the basis on his nationality the same way no one else does.
Mr. Norman’s open-minded attitude to this debate should be appreciated, not insulted.
If this debate is going to continue, I will kindly ask you to stop using offensive generalizations and accusations directed towards both me and Mr. Norman. If you want to talk about the ROLE of ethnicity in Bahraini politics, then thats fine. But you have to stop wording these statements in such a direct, personal, accusatory and offensive manner.