Sadeghi’s take on Bahrain

An in-depth and worthwhile article in Al Jazeera by Shirin Sadeghi, which is nevertheless partially retrograde in its analysis.  Yes, sectarianism is promoted as the root cause of the troubles in Bahrain by many actors, not least the Bahrainis and Saudis, for their own cynical reasons.  However, suggesting that colonialism is the root cause–that Britain and America are the primary villains–is a step backward.  The ongoing Arab Revolt is increasingly successful because the Arabs in the revolutionary countries have, for the first time, taken responsibility for their own governance.  For the first time, they have said to hell with foreign conspiracy theories and outmoded ideas of the survival of colonialism, and, recognizing that their oppressors are their own, they have eliminated them.

Still, this is an insightful and well-written article by a native Iowan of Iranian ethnic stock.  We can learn something from Intricacies of Bahrain’s Shia-Sunni divide

]]>

Sadeghi’s take on Bahrain

An in-depth and worthwhile article in Al Jazeera by Shirin Sadeghi, which is nevertheless partially retrograde in its analysis.  Yes, sectarianism is promoted as the root cause of the troubles in Bahrain by many actors, not least the Bahrainis and Saudis, for their own cynical reasons.  However, suggesting that colonialism is the root cause–that Britain and America are the primary villains–is a step backward.  The ongoing Arab Revolt is increasingly successful because the Arabs in the revolutionary countries have, for the first time, taken responsibility for their own governance.  For the first time, they have said to hell with foreign conspiracy theories and outmoded ideas of the survival of colonialism, and, recognizing that their oppressors are their own, they have eliminated them.

Still, this is an insightful and well-written article by a native Iowan of Iranian ethnic stock.  We can learn something from Intricacies of Bahrain’s Shia-Sunni divide

]]>

Al Jazeera’s story of Bahrain’s own Arab revolt

It is difficult to watch this brutal story and conclude that the example of the Egyptian and Syrian non-violent revolts will work in Bahrain.  There comes a point, as it did in the American colonies in the late 18th century, when armed revolt is justified. 

Ghandi would not have approved; a Buddhist would not approve.  But, other than martyrdom, oppression and torture, what is the alternative?

And where is the western pressure, the American sanctions, against this regime?

Bahrain: Shouting in the Dark

]]>

Al Jazeera’s story of Bahrain’s own Arab revolt

It is difficult to watch this brutal story and conclude that the example of the Egyptian and Syrian non-violent revolts will work in Bahrain.  There comes a point, as it did in the American colonies in the late 18th century, when armed revolt is justified. 

Ghandi would not have approved; a Buddhist would not approve.  But, other than martyrdom, oppression and torture, what is the alternative?

And where is the western pressure, the American sanctions, against this regime?

Bahrain: Shouting in the Dark

]]>

Another wrong call

‘End of the Jihadist Dream’ runs one New York Times editorial.  In fact the Jihadist dream was almost dead; we may have just shocked it back into a brief, fitful life.

Bin Laden was increasingly irrelevant to the Arab world.  The Arab Spring, the Arab Revolt–whatever we want to call it–is a sea change in the way an entire nation (Nasser’s Arab nation) sees itself: for the first time in how many life times, Arabs are taking responsibility for their own governance.  And, for the most part, non-violently!  Jihad and Bin Laden are not even on the Arab radar.  Who could have foreseen such an evolution?  Certainly not the US State Department or the US Administration, packed as both are with Dennis Ross-style ‘experts’: civil servants and consultants who for twenty years have published in Foreign Affairs Magazine and advised administration after administration . . . with not one significant success to show for it.

What should we have done?

We should have marginalized Bin Laden even further.  This is how:

Let him live–but appropriate the neighborhood

We should have made his neighborhood American soil.  Twentyfour hour webcams set in concrete and placed all around and peering down into his compound would have beamed real-time pictures up to YouTube and dedicated English and Arabic websites. He and his family would have wanted for nothing, but everything and everybody would have gone through an American airport-style scanning process, going in and going out.  Instead of patting down elderly ladies from Wisconsin, we would have patted down Bin Laden’s family and relatives.  We would have made him increasingly visible–and increasingly ignored.  We would have discussed his long-term prospects with the Pakistani government in very long-term discussions . . . while immediately reexamining our multi-billion dollar yearly aid to the Pakistani military.

Encourage Arab democracy movements

We should right now kick Saudi forces out of Bahrain and pressure the Bahraini government to enter into serious discussions with the opposition to transform the country into a democratic, constitutional monarchy.  We need to promote development within Saudi–every kind of development–and that means being vocal and unpopular.  No doubt we’ll lose some defense contracts.  It’s a small price to pay.  At the same time we should enter into direct talks with Hamas in Gaza, as part of a Hamas/Fatah Palestinian unity government.  We should do what is necessary to forge peace in Israel and Palestine.  The short-term domestic political hysteria in the US will quickly subside.  It will be difficult to argue with peace.  With success. 

It’s too late to follow the first prescription.  We’ve turned a loser into a martyr.  Another failure of American leadership.  But it’s not too late to redeem our error.  It’s not too late to promote freedom and democracy in the Arab world–an Arab world eager to take responsibility for their own democratic governance.

There’s still time to redeem America’s increasing irrelevance in the Middle East.

]]>

Another wrong call

‘End of the Jihadist Dream’ runs one New York Times editorial.  In fact the Jihadist dream was almost dead; we may have just shocked it back into a brief, fitful life.

Bin Laden was increasingly irrelevant to the Arab world.  The Arab Spring, the Arab Revolt–whatever we want to call it–is a sea change in the way an entire nation (Nasser’s Arab nation) sees itself: for the first time in how many life times, Arabs are taking responsibility for their own governance.  And, for the most part, non-violently!  Jihad and Bin Laden are not even on the Arab radar.  Who could have foreseen such an evolution?  Certainly not the US State Department or the US Administration, packed as both are with Dennis Ross-style ‘experts’: civil servants and consultants who for twenty years have published in Foreign Affairs Magazine and advised administration after administration . . . with not one significant success to show for it.

What should we have done?

We should have marginalized Bin Laden even further.  This is how:

Let him live–but appropriate the neighborhood

We should have made his neighborhood American soil.  Twentyfour hour webcams set in concrete and placed all around and peering down into his compound would have beamed real-time pictures up to YouTube and dedicated English and Arabic websites. He and his family would have wanted for nothing, but everything and everybody would have gone through an American airport-style scanning process, going in and going out.  Instead of patting down elderly ladies from Wisconsin, we would have patted down Bin Laden’s family and relatives.  We would have made him increasingly visible–and increasingly ignored.  We would have discussed his long-term prospects with the Pakistani government in very long-term discussions . . . while immediately reexamining our multi-billion dollar yearly aid to the Pakistani military.

Encourage Arab democracy movements

We should right now kick Saudi forces out of Bahrain and pressure the Bahraini government to enter into serious discussions with the opposition to transform the country into a democratic, constitutional monarchy.  We need to promote development within Saudi–every kind of development–and that means being vocal and unpopular.  No doubt we’ll lose some defense contracts.  It’s a small price to pay.  At the same time we should enter into direct talks with Hamas in Gaza, as part of a Hamas/Fatah Palestinian unity government.  We should do what is necessary to forge peace in Israel and Palestine.  The short-term domestic political hysteria in the US will quickly subside.  It will be difficult to argue with peace.  With success. 

It’s too late to follow the first prescription.  We’ve turned a loser into a martyr.  Another failure of American leadership.  But it’s not too late to redeem our error.  It’s not too late to promote freedom and democracy in the Arab world–an Arab world eager to take responsibility for their own democratic governance.

There’s still time to redeem America’s increasing irrelevance in the Middle East.

]]>

Not from Al Jazeera . . . from CNN!

All kudos to Al Jazeera for Middle Eastern news–EXCEPT for serious news from Qatar, Saudi or Bahrain.  Yes, we are now dependent on Amber Lyon and her CNN team for a picture of Bahraini reality.

Veterans of the Middle East may at first cringe a little at the blonde, wide-eyed Amber, sitting all by herself in the big airplane, heading to Manama.  But watch and listen to the whole story.  She’s a professional journalist.  She has guts.  Watch not only the ‘story’, but the back story.  Yes, it’s her first time in this kind of situation, but she got through it and came back with the real story and told it.

Kudos for CNN and for the journalist Amber Lyon.  And shame on Hilary, Obama, and the US government.

]]>

Not from Al Jazeera . . . from CNN!

All kudos to Al Jazeera for Middle Eastern news–EXCEPT for serious news from Qatar, Saudi or Bahrain.  Yes, we are now dependent on Amber Lyon and her CNN team for a picture of Bahraini reality.

Veterans of the Middle East may at first cringe a little at the blonde, wide-eyed Amber, sitting all by herself in the big airplane, heading to Manama.  But watch and listen to the whole story.  She’s a professional journalist.  She has guts.  Watch not only the ‘story’, but the back story.  Yes, it’s her first time in this kind of situation, but she got through it and came back with the real story and told it.

Kudos for CNN and for the journalist Amber Lyon.  And shame on Hilary, Obama, and the US government.

]]>

Nabeel Rajab on the situation in Bahrain

American double-standards prevail on the southern shore of the Gulf, as Mark Levine and Nabeel Rajab make clear.  Kudos for Al Jazeera publishing this material, but where is the live news story, direct from Manama?

The West’s ‘double standards’ in Middle East – Opinion – Al Jazeera English.

]]>

Nabeel Rajab on the situation in Bahrain

American double-standards prevail on the southern shore of the Gulf, as Mark Levine and Nabeel Rajab make clear.  Kudos for Al Jazeera publishing this material, but where is the live news story, direct from Manama?

The West’s ‘double standards’ in Middle East – Opinion – Al Jazeera English.

]]>

Bloodshed in Bahrain

The plot of my 2008 novel, The Desert Contract, started with a Shia uprising in Saudi Arabia.  The video above shows Shia protesters in Bahrain–about 35 miles from Saudi’s eastern coast–being shot by Bahraini police (probably Pakistanis).  They are being shot in an attempt to maintain the monarchs of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

You can explain to any Muslim until the night is long, the theological differences between Catholics and Protestants, as an explanation for the two sects murdering each other for decades in Northern Ireland.  They will not get it.  Similarly, you can explain to any western Christian or secular until the night is long, the theological differences between Sunnis and Shi’ites, as an explanation for the two sects despising each other as a lower form of human and spiritual life, oppressing each other, and occasionally murdering each other–and they will not get it.

Sectarian strife is half of what’s happening in Bahrain right now.  Shia make up about 70% of the island’s population; they are also the native population of Saudi’s neighboring Eastern Province, and may still be in the majority there.  The monarchs of both countries are Sunni, and oppress and discriminate against their Shia citizens.  The Shia are fed up with being second-class citizens, much as the blacks in America were fed up in the ’60s.

The other half is a desire for representative government.  The Bahrainis are tired of absolute monarchy, much as the French were in the 18th century. 

What is the US doing to assist political evolution on the southern shore of the Gulf?  In early March, the US Secretary of Defense, Bill Gates, had an audience with Bahrain’s king, at which he insisted on seeing meaningful reform.  A few days later, Saudi sent troops, APCs and tanks across the causeway, while Bahraini police murdered unarmed protesters and even occupied hospitals.  Subsequently, the US Secretary of State and the US President ‘urged restraint’, and expressed the importance of a political settlement.  In short, Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy whose citizens supplied most of the 9/11 hijackers–and an American ally in ‘the war against terror’–has invaded a neighboring absolute monarchy to help it murder citizens demanding the rights that Americans acquired 50 to 230 years ago.  And the American government mouths mealy platitudes.

One can talk all day about pragmatism and about foreign policy being guided by strategic interests.  But absolute monarchies fall.  How does our weak-kneed support of political evolution serve our long-term interests?

Not long ago, critics of American foreign policy described Israel and Saudi Arabia as US ‘client states’.  Who is the client state now?

]]>

Bloodshed in Bahrain

The plot of my 2008 novel, The Desert Contract, started with a Shia uprising in Saudi Arabia.  The video above shows Shia protesters in Bahrain–about 35 miles from Saudi’s eastern coast–being shot by Bahraini police (probably Pakistanis).  They are being shot in an attempt to maintain the monarchs of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.

You can explain to any Muslim until the night is long, the theological differences between Catholics and Protestants, as an explanation for the two sects murdering each other for decades in Northern Ireland.  They will not get it.  Similarly, you can explain to any western Christian or secular until the night is long, the theological differences between Sunnis and Shi’ites, as an explanation for the two sects despising each other as a lower form of human and spiritual life, oppressing each other, and occasionally murdering each other–and they will not get it.

Sectarian strife is half of what’s happening in Bahrain right now.  Shia make up about 70% of the island’s population; they are also the native population of Saudi’s neighboring Eastern Province, and may still be in the majority there.  The monarchs of both countries are Sunni, and oppress and discriminate against their Shia citizens.  The Shia are fed up with being second-class citizens, much as the blacks in America were fed up in the ’60s.

The other half is a desire for representative government.  The Bahrainis are tired of absolute monarchy, much as the French were in the 18th century. 

What is the US doing to assist political evolution on the southern shore of the Gulf?  In early March, the US Secretary of Defense, Bill Gates, had an audience with Bahrain’s king, at which he insisted on seeing meaningful reform.  A few days later, Saudi sent troops, APCs and tanks across the causeway, while Bahraini police murdered unarmed protesters and even occupied hospitals.  Subsequently, the US Secretary of State and the US President ‘urged restraint’, and expressed the importance of a political settlement.  In short, Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy whose citizens supplied most of the 9/11 hijackers–and an American ally in ‘the war against terror’–has invaded a neighboring absolute monarchy to help it murder citizens demanding the rights that Americans acquired 50 to 230 years ago.  And the American government mouths mealy platitudes.

One can talk all day about pragmatism and about foreign policy being guided by strategic interests.  But absolute monarchies fall.  How does our weak-kneed support of political evolution serve our long-term interests?

Not long ago, critics of American foreign policy described Israel and Saudi Arabia as US ‘client states’.  Who is the client state now?

]]>