By Boris Volkhonsky
On Friday, as reported by The Washington Post, the Obama administration said it will resume some military sales to Bahrain, while recognizing “a number of serious unresolved human rights issues” and citing increased “polarization” in Bahrain, where arrests and repression against increasingly violent political protests have increased despite the government’s pledges to begin a political dialogue with its opponents.
The decision to lift the restrictions, which had frozen tens of millions of dollars worth of planned arms sales last fall, the story in The Washington Post, goes on was based on “our desire to help the Bahrainis maintain their external defense capabilities, and a determination that it is in U.S. national interest to let these things go forward.”
The logic is wonderful! Human rights issues remain unresolved, polarization is increasing, and so are violent protests, arrests and repressions, but “it is in U.S. national interest to let these things go forward.”
What adds to the ridiculousness of the situation is the fact that Washington’s faithful (and George Soros financed) Human Rights Watch’s Washington director Tom Malinowski gave the administration “credit for pushing very hard” for the Bahraini government to implement its commitments to open the political process. “I don’t think there’s any question about what the administration is trying to achieve in Bahrain or the sense of urgency they feel,” Malinowski is quoted as saying by The Washington Post.
The decision to reopen the arms supply routes to Bahrain was taken shortly after a visit to Washington this week by Bahrain Crown Prince Salman Hamid al-Khalifa, who met Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
Also, among the recent U.S. activity in the Persian Gulf region U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton met with the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council – Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (all of the six being the real standard bearers of democracy and human rights) – in order to reach a new security cooperation agreement. This is especially notable.
One could wonder why, while pressing others on human rights issues and threatening “humanitarian intervention” whenever a country is not ready to follow the U.S.-led guidelines, Washington’s attitude towards Bahrain is so different. In fact, one could, but one shouldn’t.
The core of the issue lies in the fact that Bahrain serves as the most important base for the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the region and that, geopolitically speaking, it serves as one of the most important levers in the U.S. and Saudi hands in their coordinated policy of containing Iran. And remembering that the above-mentioned protesters are mostly Shiites, and therefore give ground for suspecting them in having close ties with Iran, the abuses against them may be easily disregarded.
When it comes to far-reaching national interests, such considerations as human rights do not really matter. The “our SOB” approach has always prevailed in the U.S. policy, and why should the U.S. change its attitudes? As for the human rights watchdog, it has always been a reliable instrument of Washington policies, instigating protests in countries opposed to Washington and hushing them up in countries loyal to the U.S.
Therefore, the humble concerns expressed by Tom Malinowski that “the number one U.S. security interest in Bahrain right now is not making sure they have slightly better F-16 engines, it’s making sure that they implement the reforms needed to make the relationship sustainable over the long term,” should not mislead anybody. His statement that “there’s no question about what the administration is trying to achieve in Bahrain” is much more meaningful.
So long as Bahrain remains faithful to its U.S. and Saudi bosses, it will remain their favorite offspring. And forget about human rights!
[wpsr_facebook][wpsr_retweet][wpsr_plusone][wpsr_sharethis]
Alterviews: Bahrain – Our Son of a Watchdog
By News Division in Alterviews, Newsvox · May 12, 2012 · No comments
Tags: Bahrain, Commentary, Human Rights, politics, US, weapons sales, World
By Boris Volkhonsky
On Friday, as reported by The Washington Post, the Obama administration said it will resume some military sales to Bahrain, while recognizing “a number of serious unresolved human rights issues” and citing increased “polarization” in Bahrain, where arrests and repression against increasingly violent political protests have increased despite the government’s pledges to begin a political dialogue with its opponents.
The decision to lift the restrictions, which had frozen tens of millions of dollars worth of planned arms sales last fall, the story in The Washington Post, goes on was based on “our desire to help the Bahrainis maintain their external defense capabilities, and a determination that it is in U.S. national interest to let these things go forward.”
The logic is wonderful! Human rights issues remain unresolved, polarization is increasing, and so are violent protests, arrests and repressions, but “it is in U.S. national interest to let these things go forward.”
What adds to the ridiculousness of the situation is the fact that Washington’s faithful (and George Soros financed) Human Rights Watch’s Washington director Tom Malinowski gave the administration “credit for pushing very hard” for the Bahraini government to implement its commitments to open the political process. “I don’t think there’s any question about what the administration is trying to achieve in Bahrain or the sense of urgency they feel,” Malinowski is quoted as saying by The Washington Post.
The decision to reopen the arms supply routes to Bahrain was taken shortly after a visit to Washington this week by Bahrain Crown Prince Salman Hamid al-Khalifa, who met Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
Also, among the recent U.S. activity in the Persian Gulf region U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton met with the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council – Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (all of the six being the real standard bearers of democracy and human rights) – in order to reach a new security cooperation agreement. This is especially notable.
One could wonder why, while pressing others on human rights issues and threatening “humanitarian intervention” whenever a country is not ready to follow the U.S.-led guidelines, Washington’s attitude towards Bahrain is so different. In fact, one could, but one shouldn’t.
The core of the issue lies in the fact that Bahrain serves as the most important base for the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the region and that, geopolitically speaking, it serves as one of the most important levers in the U.S. and Saudi hands in their coordinated policy of containing Iran. And remembering that the above-mentioned protesters are mostly Shiites, and therefore give ground for suspecting them in having close ties with Iran, the abuses against them may be easily disregarded.
When it comes to far-reaching national interests, such considerations as human rights do not really matter. The “our SOB” approach has always prevailed in the U.S. policy, and why should the U.S. change its attitudes? As for the human rights watchdog, it has always been a reliable instrument of Washington policies, instigating protests in countries opposed to Washington and hushing them up in countries loyal to the U.S.
Therefore, the humble concerns expressed by Tom Malinowski that “the number one U.S. security interest in Bahrain right now is not making sure they have slightly better F-16 engines, it’s making sure that they implement the reforms needed to make the relationship sustainable over the long term,” should not mislead anybody. His statement that “there’s no question about what the administration is trying to achieve in Bahrain” is much more meaningful.
So long as Bahrain remains faithful to its U.S. and Saudi bosses, it will remain their favorite offspring. And forget about human rights!
[wpsr_facebook][wpsr_retweet][wpsr_plusone][wpsr_sharethis]