…from beneath the crooked bough, witness 230 years of brutal tyranny by the al Khalifas come to an end
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Bahrain Updates #17: Attack the Messenger! Date: 05/31/2011 03:56:06 AM

Colin S. Cavell, Ph.D.

Dear Folks,
Speaking out publicly often brings criticism, and in the last few weeks, I have been the subject of two such attacks. The first attack basically acuses me of being a spy for Washington or an agent of the United States. The second, on the other hand, accuses me of being a communist revolutionary bent on violence and intent on overthrowing all democratically elected governments. I shall deal with each one separately herein.
First, there was an article in the Bahrain newspaper Al Watan on Monday, May 23, 2011, by Mr. Yousif Al Benkhalil (No. 1990). An English translation of the article follows:

Washington and the Sunnis of Bahrain…American Studies Center

A child asks his mother:' Mom! Why did they demolish the Pearl Roundabout?

'Do you know when you play a game with a friend and you win in that game, as a result, he gets angry and stop playing with you. It is the same situation.' Replies the mother.

In such a naive way, one of the American academics, who had worked at American Studies Center in the University of Bahrain, described a state's (country) relation with its people after the events of last February. This academic, is not committed to academic ethics; however, he was a great supporter of Washington's politics , which, in its efforts, aims to find new allies in Manama. So, what did he do?! He contributed in establishing this center. This centre turned quickly to an academic centre that graduates Bahraini students specialized in the field of academic studies. The center was able to provide a great deal of in-class and out-of-class events and activities to its students that serve the goals that Washington sought to achieve in the region of gulf, particularly in Bahrain. For example, there were a series of cultural lectures that were presented by the center. Generally, the main goal of those lectures was to create a general culture (spirit, atmosphere) about the significance of democracy in accordance with the American flavor. Therefore, some of those lectures spoke about subjects that were new to Bahraini society, such as freedom of religion and thought and doctrines in democratic regimes, as well as empowering women politically. Furthermore, the center supervised the process of sending Bahraini students in scholarships to continue their studies as a part of the Fulbright Scholarship Programme in coordination with the US embassy in Bahrain. In short, the center found a valuable opportunity to intervene in the students' community at the University of Bahrain and select the ideal students that would be able to make a mark later on, and those students would have political roles that could achieve Washington's goals in the future. Also, we spoke in the past about the efforts of the American Administration to convert a number of Bahraini citizens to political as well as human rights activists. And the American Studies Center was able to do this brilliantly through direct interactions with the students and then selecting the ideal ones. It is sufficient to know that a number of kids, whose parents were involved in a plot to overthrow the political system and who are now currently in multiple trial charges, were studying in that center and some of them graduated. This is as the case with Mariam Al Khawaja who has strong ties with the operators of the center as well as with a number of officials at the US embassy in Bahrain. During their study in the American Studies Center, the Bahraini students were subjected to political speech that was different from the speeches that they can get in Bahraini society. It is because that speech has its goals and specific frameworks. It can open wider outlooks for the students themselves, particularly when the center was keen to the idea that there was a direct interaction between the students and all that is American. Therefore, there were frequent visits for the students to the aircrafts carriers in the gulf waters to inform them about the efforts of Washington in order to promote peace and security in the Arabian Gulf. This is along with other visits to the US. The issue ends with organizing an educational scholarship to complete university studies in one of the prestigious universities of America. And the final outcome is that we find some of the personalities who studied in this center move now from one university to another in the US reaching the Congress to give her human rights witness testimony as representing 'the people of Bahrain'.

Arabic link:


To begin with, the quote Mr. Benkhalil uses is not mine. It was a quote from one of the eyewitness reports I received from Bahrain and which I included in one of the previous Bahrain Updates. If freedom of speech was supported in Bahrain, then I would not have to remove or redact people's identity; unfortunately, that is not the case in Bahrain today, as the government retaliates against anyone that opposes it.
Secondly, as regards Mr. Al Benkhalil's assertion that I am "a great supporter of Washington's politics, which, in its efforts, aims to find new allies in Manama," I reply that I am indeed a supporter of the freedoms enshrined in the US Declaration of Independence and believe that the U.S. Constitution, as amended, is a bulwark of democratic liberties. However, in contributing my efforts, over eight and one-half years, to the establishment of the American Studies Center (ASC) at the University of Bahrain, I sought not to recruit allies to serve U.S. government interests but rather to educate students with democratic mindsets. In other words, in no way did my pedagogical techniques seek to develop automatons or "yes men" or "yes women" who echo what authoritarian figures command. To the contrary, I taught students to question authority in all forms. As Ralph Waldo Emerson states in his essay "Self Reliance" (1841): "He who would gather immortal palms must not be hindered by the name of goodness, but must explore if it be goodness."
And, Mr. Al Benkhalil is correct that the ASC did provide numerous activities for its students from lectures and conferences to field trips and community activities, albeit, it appears he disapproves of such activities. Such events are normal for an active academic department in universities around the world, and few would condemn such activities as merely following the dictates of their governments. It is a well-established belief that extracurricular activities aid and enhance student development, and this is why most academic departments attempt to provide such activities. Yes, it is true that the ASC did receive monies from the US Embassy to fund many of these activities, but the initiative and organization of such activities was primarily done by ASC staff. As well, Mr. Benkhalil is correct that the aim of many of these activities was to engender an appreciation for democracy amongst ASC students, as democracy is the espoused guiding principle of the United States of America. As such, I often advocated for the principles of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of the press, women's rights and the empowerment of women, worker's rights, non-discrimination, etc., which, as you state, were subjects "new to Bahraini society."
And, yes, the ASC was indeed fortunate enough, with the assistance of the American government through the US State Department, to be able to send many Bahraini students to the US, either for further academic study, student leadership programs, or foreign language teaching assistantships. In so doing, many ASC graduates have become experts on American government and culture, and, in fact, several are now working for the Bahrain Ministry of Foreign Affairs because of their specialized knowledge. But as no forcible indoctrination was involved in any of these pedagogical activities, graduates of the ASC are of many political persuasions. A number of graduates were and continue to be strong supporters of the monarchy, with a number working in the Bahrain Defence Forces (BDF); others are strong opponents to the monarchy, though some support a limited constitutional monarchy, while others favor an outright democratic republic. And still there are many–if not most–who are non-committed to either one of these options and/or are apolitical. So, yes, it is true that Maryam Al Khawaja is a graduate of the American Studies Center, as is her sister, Zainab. But so, too, are several of the Al Khalifas graduates of the American Studies Center, and they, too, are honored graduates who have strong ties to ASC staff.
Mr. Al Benkhalil is also correct in asserting that:
During their study in the American Studies Center, the Bahraini students were subjected to political speech that was different from the speeches that they can get in Bahraini society. It is because that speech has its goals and specific frameworks. It can open wider outlooks for the students themselves, particularly when the center was keen to the idea that there was a direct interaction between the students and all that is American.
While such a wide offering of political speech appears to be a negative aspect of the ASC according to Mr. Al Benkhalil, from this author's vantage point, subjecting students to a variety of political perspectives allows for students to be able to compare and contrast political theories, practices, policies, and persuasions, so as to allow them an informed choice as to what will frame their own beliefs as well as illuminate the likely consequences that follow from such adoptions.
Mr. Al Benkhalil finishes his article by lamenting the fact that some of the ASC graduates are granted scholarships to prestigious US universities only to wind up before the US Congress providing human rights eyewitness testimony and claiming to be "representing 'the people of Bahrain'." To this, all I can say, Mr. Al Benkhalil, is that, yes, I was guilty of educating many of these students to believe in themselves and to speak the truth as they see it. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
For most readers outside of Bahrain, I believe you can now see the absolute gulf which exists between some of the supporters of the Bahraini monarchy and the democratic values commonly shared by those who oppose monarchical governments.
Now, as regards the second published criticism directed at me, it is more farce than serious criticism and arises primarily because I wounded its author a few weeks ago by printing his exact published words in his attempt to be a courtier to King Hamad Al Khalifa. It comes from Dr. Scott Catino, the individual I quoted in Bahrain Updates #14 as he openly praised the King of Bahrain. Here is what I wrote in Bahrain Updates #14:
Readers this week called my attention to a blog article entitled "Bahrain: Are You Confused?" and dated March 25, 2011 and written by a former Fulbright recipient, a Dr. Martin Scott Catino, who briefly taught at the University of Bahrain in the American Studies Center during the second Bush era, and who now claims to be "a Senior Military Adviser in Afghanistan, a specialist in US Foreign and Security policy". In his blog article, Dr. Catino blames radical Shia extremists for Bahrain's present chaos. He asserts that these clever insurgents are utilizing guerrilla warfare tactics in an attempt to realize "their violent dreams." Catino writes: "Radical Shia Imams parading as caring pastors mixed with Shia malcontents, human rights activists, the intelligentsia, and the young and the restless who moved about in abayas and dishdashas at schools like the University of Bahrain, where Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah and Iran’s Ali Khamenei were deemed champions of the world’s oppressed, and of course, of the Shia of Bahrain. These very people and groups are now key players of the insurgency taking place in Bahrain" (http://www.thoughts.com/martinscottcatino/the-insurgency-in-bahrain).
Dr. Catino, of course, is entitled to his opinion about the democratic opposition and, indeed, we should welcome his contribution, for it provides us with a clear articulation of present US policy towards the six Gulf Kingdoms and, in particular, of US policy towards Bahrain, for it displays not only a disdain for the majority Shia population of Bahrain but, as well, it further evinces the same servility towards monarchy that the pro-Bush crowd exhibited during W's time in office. Catino writes of Bahrain's King as follows:
King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, the ruler of Bahrain, is a powerful man, whose whit and ability to maintain control is admired, envied, and despised by the various sectarian and racial groups that walk the streets of places like Manama, the capital of Bahrain. The King is brilliant, and holds the reins of power with an ease and finesse that baffles his opponents. His ability to manage easily the diverse interests of the Sunni Arab world, the shifting sands of international economics, and the many South and Southeast Asian migrants that inhabit his island involves subtle skills that he uses confidently, grasping intangible power structures as easily as one could grasp the steering wheel of the family car. He understands every Middle Eastern leader’s most cherished secret: the most important fight is the one to stay in power. So he offers much more than crackdowns: free schooling, subsidies to the poor of his country (Shia included), and business freedoms in the local markets. In fact, the Ajam, the enterprising Persian business class of Bahrain, embrace this freedom. But more importantly they embrace the freedom to stay out of politics, which dampens the delights of the dinar.

It is all-too-often that some self-professed conservatives in the USA proclaim their love of liberty in one moment while in the next subjugating themselves to monied interests who are determined to crush the very liberty by which they speak. This, of course, is compounded when such persons claim to be supportive of republican governments (i.e. representative governments where power arises from the people) and yet grovel before unelected monarchs. And, as long as US foreign policy leaders follow such a submissive course, America will remain obedient to kings, emirs, shahs, shoguns, czars, sultans, etc.

Apparently, confronted by his own sycophantically written words, Dr. Scott Catino could not contain himself and went ballistic with "An Open Letter to Dr. Colin S. Cavell" which appears on his blogsite and is dated as having been posted on May 18, 2011 (see: http://www.thoughts.com/martinscottcatino/an-open-letter-to-dr-colin-s-cavell). His letter is mostly an ad hominem attack against me which readers will be able to see quickly in the text that follows:

An Open Letter to Dr. Colin S. Cavell

This will be a short letter and response to your barbed words used often against the government of the United States, the administration of President George W. Bush, American conservatives, and least of all me in your latest blog at http://bahraincenter.blogspot.com/2011/05/bahrain-updates-14-monarchy-and.html.

Why are you parading as a democratic and human rights advocate? While I served as a U.S. Fulbright Scholar in Bahrain I heard you repeatedly advocate for the violent overthrow of the United States, the government of Bahrain, and other “capitalist countries.” No doubt you were caught for such activities in Bahrain and thus ran from your job in that country only to hide in the very nation that you ridiculed daily.

Why do you not have the courage to honestly and publicly admit you are Communist, which you have admitted on occasion when no one in authority was listening? Why do you not admit that you support the violent overthrow of all democratic, popularly elected governments in order to enslave them under a totalitarian regime? And now you claim you support democracy?

Do you not remember the public debates we had in class where you admitted such? Do you not remember that you tried to justify the mass murder (communist purges) of multiplied millions of people in China, Russia, Cambodia, and Vietnam, stating, “it was worth it”?

Wish you would have had the courage to continue to debate me in Bahrain, but you chose not to, fearing that you would be exposed and the student body would see your agenda.

Let me state for the record that I am deeply saddened that the many decent Shia of Bahrain are manipulated by people like you.

Relegating himself as the least targetted in my criticism is a diversion, as it is his self-published words lionizing the monarch of Bahrain that are specifically called into question. And, unlike the bald assertions of hearsay or, rather, psychological projections Catino uses in his diatribe against me, it is his very own words that I utilize from his very own blogsite to critique him. If such words indict Catino, then he should retract them rather than spewing venom at me in an attempt to deflect the meaning of his own words. One is reminded of presidential candidate Newt Gringich's recent disavowel of his own words on the May 15th edition of "Meet The Press" where he described the GOP Medicare proposal as "rightwing social engineering" and said he'd be against such radical change, implicitly opposing Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) Medicare proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher system. When the rightwing got furious at Newt, he disavowed his own words and told Fox News that the opposition should not quote him (Don’t quote me, says Gingrich)!
To advocate for the political rights of the majority in Bahrain is, apparently for Dr. Catino, to parade as a democratic and human rights advocate. Of course, this could not be a valid description of me in his mind, for, as he recalls from his time spent at the University of Bahrain as a visiting scholar, he heard me "repeatedly advocate for the violent overthrow of the United States, the government of Bahrain, and other 'capitalist countries'." Not only did I do no such thing, but, more importantly, anyone who has any real knowledge of the Bahraini government knows very well that I would have been put on the next flight out had I ever advocated for the overthrow of the Bahraini government. As it was, I was commended for my service to the University of Bahrain in a letter signed by the UOB President upon my departure.
Following this first big lie, Catino then proceeds to assert that I was "caught for such activities in Bahrain and thus ran from your job in that country only to hide in the very nation that you ridiculed daily." As I have written on every edition of the Bahrain Updates from #10 on, I resigned from my job at the University of Bahrain in mid-February as the US State Department granted my wife, a Moroccan national, with an immigrant visa provided we be residing within the USA by April 1, 2011. This is something my wife and I had been working on for a number of years and, contrary to a certain opinion in the United States, obtaining an immigrant visa to the USA is very difficult and very expensive and very time-consuming. So, no, Scott, I was not caught for the nefarious activities which exists only within the confines of your mind, nor did I run from Bahrain in order to hide. To the contrary, Scott, I have been openly writing about the crushing of the democratic opposition in Bahrain since March and sending out my Bahrain Updates to members of the international media and world press, as this edition will be distributed as well, and all from the confines of the USA where freedom of speech is a constitutional right, a right I have often praised.
Catino then turns to the bottom-feeding tactic of McCarthyism, or as Wikipedia defines it "the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence," and berates me as follows:
Why do you not have the courage to honestly and publicly admit you are Communist, which you have admitted on occasion when no one in authority was listening? Why do you not admit that you support the violent overthrow of all democratic, popularly elected governments in order to enslave them under a totalitarian regime? And now you claim you support democracy?
Catino's understanding of communism is akin to that of a Southern Klan leader; as such, anyone who advocates for democratic change is–according to this logic–a communist. As regards Catino's second charge, viz. accusing me of supporting "the violent overthrow of all democratic, popularly elected governments in order to enslave them under a totalitarian regime"–this allegation is as narrow as the first is broad. However, like the first, both are projections or psychological defense mechanisms, uttered by a wounded Catino who is denying his own undemocratic and pro-monarchical attributes and projecting them onto me. And why would he do so? Consider that it is I who have worked for two state legislatures, been a paid worker for one gubernatorial campaign and one presidential campaign, a volunteer for a number of other campaigns, have ran for elected office in grade school, high school, and in graduate school, and have written my doctoral dissertation on the subject of democracy which was later turned into a book. In other words, I have spent a good portion of my life reading about, writing on, and practicing democracy. In fact, all Dr. Scott Catino need do, if he were truly interested in what I think and have to specifically say about democracy, is to read my book Exporting 'Made-In-America' Democracy: The National Endowment for Democracy & U.S. Foreign Policy (2002) which is available from University Press of America (http://www.univpress.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search&db=^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0761824405). [And, Scott, does peddling my own book make me a capitalist?]
Dr. Catino, on the other hand, proudly describes himself on his blog as currently participating in his "second counterinsurgency effort" and, like his disdain he utters for the majority Shia of Bahrain so, too, he holds most Afghanis in contempt. He writes, "The War in Afghanistan pits the United States and our allies against an insurgent culture that extols nearly all human passions and behaviors condemned by my American upbringing…." Catino then rattles off a litany of shortcomings he associates with the Afghan citizenry, including this one:

Fourth, this is a war for civility. Our American sentiments that glamorize “the people” are useless in Afghanistan. Corruption, deceit, duplicity, and treachery are rife in Afghanistan and that at the local level. Everything in the average American does not want to believe that. Our political and cultural values taught to us from childhood have conditioned us to lionize the average human, believe we are equal culturally (in moral and social development), and thus we are victimized by our own ideology. Cultural relativism wreaks a foul odor in the valleys of truth, and how much more in the valleys found here in Afghanistan, where acts of charity are often viewed as a sign of weakness, and billions of dollars of aid have created as many enemies as friends, or at least, created instability and not the reverse (http://www.thoughts.com/martinscottcatino/afghanistan-and-the-valley-between-us).

Civility indeed!

Catino's remaining charges are pure figments of his imagination, analogous to me charging Catino with openly extolling the virtues of fascism, particularly his second to last sentence which reads: "Wish you would have had the courage to continue to debate me in Bahrain, but you chose not to, fearing that you would be exposed and the student body would see your agenda." Scott, I remind you that it was I who invited you to speak in my classes, as many of my students did not believe that such an ideologue such as yourself truly existed in the American political landscape. You were very helpful then as you are now. But note Scott, I did not, do not now, nor will ever fear a person of your mentality. As for my students, I trust that I did not hide very much from them and that they have a fairly good idea of what my agenda is, and I will leave it to them to speak for themselves about my pedagogical skills and presentation.
Yes, Samuel Johnson was correct in that patriotism is indeed the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Latest Updates:
For those following developments in Bahrain closely, I refer you all to The Crooked Bough website for timely updates on the political situation in the Kingdom, as it is beating most outlets at critical reportage coming out of Bahrain. As well, The Crooked Bough is now acting as a repository of all prior Bahrain Updates which are accessible at: http://www.crookedbough.com/?page_id=1154.

About the author:

Until February 15th of this year, I was an Assistant Professor teaching in the American Studies Center at the University of Bahrain. I submitted my resignation following the Fall semester at the end of January, as my wife, a Moroccan national, was granted an immigrant visa to the US by the State Department with the proviso that we be residing within the USA by April 1, 2011. Little did we know in January, when I submitted my resignation, that we would be in a race for time before we could leave, as the Arab rebellions were sweeping from Tunisia to Egypt to Yemen and into Bahrain and beyond. We left Bahrain on February 25th, the day of the largest demonstrations in Bahraini history, and have since been residing in Seattle, Washington.

Background on Bahrain:

On February 14, 2011, the citizenry of Bahrain rose up in opposition to the Al Khalifa monarchy and demanded democratic reforms. Their voices were met with stiff resistance from the autocratic regime which has been in power for over 200 years now. Unbowed, the citizenry took to the Pearl Roundabout in downtown Manama with some advocating for a constitutional monarchy and others a democratic republic. In response, the regime unleashed a reign of terror down on the protesters. Meanwhile, the US was directing its focus on Libya and getting through the United Nations a resolution for a no-fly zone over that country, which passed on Thursday, March 17th. One week prior, on Friday, March 11th, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates flew to Bahrain and met with the King and the Crown Prince, and on Monday, March 14th, approximately 2000 to 3000 Saudi Arabian and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) tanks and troops rolled across the causeway from Saudi Arabia into Bahrain to crush the opposition. The next day, March 15th, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa issued Royal Decree No. 18 for the year 2011, declaring a three-month "State of National Safety". The Bahrain Defence Forces (BDF) subsequently began a systematic crackdown on anyone who was suspected of opposing the monarchy and calling for democracy. On March 18th, the BDF tore down the Pearl Monument, known to locals as either "Lulu" or "the GCC Monument" and to the international press as "Pearl Square" due to its similarity to Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt where protesters had gathered. The regime's crackdown is an attempt to wipe away the memory of the 2011 Bahraini Democratic Spring from the popular mindset, and they are sparing nothing to root out and crush, using force, intimidation, torture, and murder, any further resistance. The silence from most of the mainstream media in America is deafening.

The fact that the US Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain and the fact that the US is completely dependent on and addicted to Saudi-monarchy oil–i.e. oil doled out by a corrupt and sclerotic regime, and that both regimes (i.e. the Al Sauds and the Al Khalifas)–indeed all GCC regimes–in turn, are kept in power by US guns, makes all the difference–for now at least. The US is clearly supporting the Al-Khalifa monarchy, putting its oil interests ahead of its avowed democratic principles. From all accounts, the beating into submission as well as the subsequent bloodbath continues in earnest. For US citizens, it is another lost opportunity… But with your help and voices, we can eventually rectify our country's policy in this regard and realign it with our country's avowed democratic principles.

US interests in the long term will ultimately be served by supporting democratic elements and, eventually, democratic regimes in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region. Does that mean we should overthrow existing governments? No, but it does mean that we should not be arming, financially supporting, and enabling corrupt regimes to slaughter opposition forces advocating for democratic rights in their countries, and then remaining silent while it happens. Sycophancy in the service of autocratic rulers with decidedly undemocratic ethos is degrading and demeaning. Such a stance is an affront to humanity. Putting off the goal of aligning ourselves with democratic elements for short-term advantage will have negative repercussions not only on current US foreign policy but, as well, on US domestic policy, as millions of petro-dollars will find their way back into US politics attempting to undermine our democracy here at home. While countering theocratic influence in the region is understandable and necessary, this will require a strategy with quite a bit more sophistication than is presently being demonstrated. As well, implementing such a strategy will necessitate experienced hands who are neither intimidated by the apparent chaos often associated with democratic movements nor infatuated with monarchical tendencies and supportive of elite rule as some bureaucrats appear to be.


Names and other identifying information have been removed and/or redacted in order to protect the safety of the sender[s], unless the person(s) is (are) a reporter or a public activist(s) and want their names to be known, as publicity sometimes gives them some protection from regime retaliation. If you are not a known public activist and/or reporter, please inform me if you would like your name to appear along with your report; otherwise, I will redact it to maintain your anonymity.



Colin S. Cavell, Ph.D.

P.O. Box 9087
Seattle, WA 98109

———- Forwarded message ———-

Date: Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:15 PM


Link to thepearlroundabout.org

Bahrain denies abusing female Shiite doctors

Posted: 30 May 2011 01:50 PM PDT

AFP – Bahrain's interior ministry on Monday denied claims made to AFP by female Shiite doctors that they were abused and tortured while in detention over their alleged backing for anti-regime protests.

France 24 correspondent tortured for covering pro-democracy demonstrations

Posted: 30 May 2011 01:40 PM PDT

Reporters Without Borders – When Nazeeha Saeed, the Bahrain correspondent of France 24 and Radio Monte Carlo Doualiya, was summoned to a police station in the city of Rifa’a for questioning at midday on 22 May, she expected to be back home two hours later and had no inkling of the nightmare awaiting her.

End actions against the medics in Bahrain

Posted: 30 May 2011 09:37 AM PDT

Irish Medical Times – Recent events in the Kingdom of Bahrain have evidenced violations of the Geneva Conventions, with the arrest of doctors and nursing staff treating persons injured during civil unrest in that country.

Arab spring: an interactive timeline of Middle East protests

Posted: 30 May 2011 09:21 AM PDT

The Guardian – Ever since a man in Tunisia burned himself to death in December 2010 in protest at his treatment by police, pro-democracy rebellions have erupted across the Middle East. The Guardian's interactive timeline traces key events

UK trained Bahraini army officers even after crackdown began

Posted: 30 May 2011 09:17 AM PDT

The Independent – Britain continued to train Bahraini army officers at Sandhurst months after the Gulf state began its brutal crackdown against pro-democracy demonstrators, it was disclosed yesterday.

Who cares in the Middle East what Obama says?

Posted: 30 May 2011 09:16 AM PDT

The Independent – President Obama has shown himself to be weak in his dealings with the Middle East, says Robert Fisk, and the Arab world is turning its back with contempt. Its future will be shaped without American influence

Gulf Air lays off hundreds, sales drop on unrest

Posted: 30 May 2011 09:13 AM PDT

Reuters – Gulf Air, Bahrain's loss-making national carrier, said it had laid off 200 employees and bookings were down a quarter following political and social unrest in Bahrain and the region.

Bahrain: ‘We will keep insisting on our just demands’

Posted: 30 May 2011 09:12 AM PDT

Green Left – Protests across Bahrain that began on February 14 have rocked the US-backed Khalifa royal family, mobilising hundreds of thousands of people against the regime's repressive rule.

Ecclestone still hopeful of Bahrain solution

Posted: 30 May 2011 09:06 AM PDT

CNN – Formula One supremo Bernie Ecclestone is hopeful that the postponed Bahrain Grand Prix will take place this season despite the recent turmoil in the Gulf Kingdom.

Bahrain Shi’ite leader says backs royal family

Posted: 30 May 2011 07:31 AM PDT

Reuters – The leader of Bahrain's main Shi'ite opposition party said on Sunday his goal was to help bring political reform, rejecting accusations of taking orders from Iran or seeking to install Shi'ite religious rule.

You are subscribed to email updates from thepearlroundabout.org

To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610
———- Forwarded message ———-

From: Maryam Al-Khawaja <maryam.alkhawaja@gmail.com>
Date: 2011/5/30
Subject: June 1st, and other updates.
To: Maryam Al-Khawaja <maryam.alkhawaja@gmail.com>

Dear Friends,

Hope this email finds you well. Updates on Bahrain:

1. June 1st will be the beginning of a new wave of protests as announced by what is known as the “February 14th Coalition”. (Read more below)

2. June 1st will be the next hearing of the 21 prominent leaders and may be when the sentencing will take place.

3. June 1st is when King has announced will be the lifting of State of National Safety. (Military courts are to continue and GCC forces will not be leaving.)

4. Defense lawyers Mohammed Ahmed, Hafedh Hafedh and Mohammed AlJishi were interrogated today by the military prosecution and later released with the guarantee of location. Charges against them are: illegal assembly (more than 5 people illegal in Bahrain without authorization from Ministry of Interior), demonstrating outside justice ministry and inciting hatred of regime.

5. There are still many cases in which people were arrested more than two months ago and their families have yet to hear anything from them. Many are concerned that they are being tortured. For example: Ali Abdulla Albanna was arrested two months ago, still no communication and location unknown. Mohammed AlBuflasah was the first to be arrested on February 15th, still not released.

6. Resigned MP Matar Matar, after a month since his arrest, calls his family and says he is ok

7. Still cases of missing injured like: Student Mohammed AbdulMahdi Kadhem was injured during attack on university of Bahrain, moved to hospital, now there is no info about him.

8. People are still being fired from their jobs in what people now call the “Regime’s campaign of hunger”. (Read more below)

9. State of daily terror: plea for help from a citizen of Bahrain (Read below.)

10. February 14th Coalition has put together a report of what they have documented in cases since beginning of protests. For those of you interested in reading it: online http://bit.ly/j6b3cf. Download: http://bit.ly/mfLEa9

11. Numerous attacks on Shia businesses by what appear to be government thugs:


Kindly find attached the new report on Children in Arabic and English.

AFP: Bahraini female doctors recount detention 'horror'http://tinyurl.com/42vdde9

Official document certified that the dismissal of employees is because of opinions: http://byshr.org/?p=532

President of Bahrain Centre for Human Rights still banned from traveling as he attempted to leave the country yesterday to attend an international conference that was organized by IFEX and attended by more than 100 local, regional and international human rights organizations.

Human Rights Defenders Nabeel Rajab, Abbas AlOmran and Maryam Alkhawaja along with other activists labeled as terrorists (see picture attached). Activists are being targeted through harassment, death threats and defamation campaigns online.


Maryam Al-Khawaja

Head of Foreign Relations Office
Bahrain Center for Human Rights

(Sent by February 14 Coalition)


To all institutions of the international community and permanent members of the Security Council and international organizations, human rights bodies and mrdia outlets around the world, we call on you all to dispatch international observers to monitor the peaceful rallies planned to take place in Bahrain, starting from the first of June 2011, in order record the expected abuses and aggressions by the Regime and the Saudi occupation forces against the peaceful demonstrators. The law on National Safety (Martial law) is scheduled to be lifted on this date; it is the law under which the authorities cracked down every peaceful protest, confined peaceful demonstrators in prisons, subjected them to non imaginable forms of torture, amounting to physical liquidation, and pronounced the most unfair sentences, including death sentences, by illegitimate military courts. We therefore submit this urgent appeal to the international community to intervene immediately in order to protect the Bahraini people's right to peaceful demonstration and to urge the Regime to abide by the principles of human rights and not to confiscate the right of citizens to demonstrate peacefully; which is established in all international laws and norms.


Åáì ÌãíÚ ãÄÓÓÇÊ ÇáãÌÊãÚ ÇáÏæáí æÇáÏæá ÏÇÆãÉ ÇáÚÖæíÉ Ýí ãÌáÓ ÇáÃãä æÇáãäÙãÇÊ æÇáåíÆÇÊ ÇáÏæáíÉ ÇáãÚäíÉ ÈÍÞæÞ ÇáÅäÓÇä ææÓÇÆá ÇáÇÚáÇã Íæá ÇáÚÇáã¡ ääÇÔÏåã ÌãíÚÇð ÈÖÑæÑÉ ÅÑÓÇá ãÑÇÞÈíä ÏæáÜííä áãÜæÇßÈÉ ÇáÊÜÙÇåÑÇÊ ÇáÓÜáãíÉ ÇáÍÜÇÔÏÉ ÇáãÒãÚ ÎÑæÌåÇ Ýí ÇáÈÍÑíä ÇÈÊÏÇÁð ãä ÇáÃæá ãä íæäíæ/ ÍÒíÑÇä ÇáãÞÈá¡ æÐáß áÑÕÏ ÇáÇäÊåÇßÇÊ æÇáÚäÌåíÉ ÇáÊí ÞÏ íõÞÏã ÚáíåÇ ÇáäÙÇã æÇáÅÍÊáÇá ÇáÓÚæÏí Ýí ÊÚÇãáåãÇ ãÚ ÇáãÊÙÇåÑíä ÇáÓáãííä ÇáÚõÒøóá¡ ÍíËõ ãä ÇáãÞÑÑ ÅäåÇÁ ÇáÚãá ÈÞÇäæä ÇáÓáÇãÉ ÇáæØäíÉ ÇáÐí ÞÇãÊ ÇáÓáØÇÊ ÊÍÊ ÛØÇÆå ÈÞãÚ ßáø ÇáÊÙÇåÑÇÊ ÇáÓáãíÉ æÇáÒÌø ÈÇáãÊÙÇåÑíä Ýí ÇáÓÌæä¡ æãÜÇÑÓÊ ÈÜÍÞøåã ÔÊì ÃäÜæÇÚ ÇáÊÜÚÐíÈ ÇáÊÜí ÈÜáÛÊ ÍÜÏ ÇáÊÕÝíÉ ÇáÜÌÓÏíÉ¡ æÃÕÏÑÊ ÃÍßÇãÇð ÌÇÆÑÉ ÃÈÑÒåÇ ÃÍßÇã ÇáÅÚÏÇã Ýí ãÍÇßã ÚÓßÑíÉ ÝÇÞÏÉ ááÔÑÚíÉ¡ áÐÇ ÝäÍäõ äÑÝÚõ ãäÇÔÏÉ ÚÇÌáÉ ááãÌÊãÚ ÇáÏæáí ÈÖÑæÑÉ ÇáÊÏÎá áÍãÇíÉ ÍÞø ÇáÔÚÈ ÇáÈÍÑíäí Ýí ÇáÊÙÇåÑ ÇáÓáãí æÍÖø ÇáäÙÇã Úáì ÇáÇáÊÒÇã ÈãÈÇÏÆ ÍÞæÞ ÇáÅäÓÇä æÚÏã ãÕÇÏÑÉ ÍÞø ÇáãæÇØäíä ÈÇáÊÙÇåÑ ÇáÓáãí ÇáÐí ÊõÄßÏ Úáíå ßÇÝÉ ÇáÞæÇäíä æÇáÃÚÑÇÝ ÇáÏæáíÉ.

Hunger campaign and appeal from Bahrain:

"I feel the situation on the streets is worse than in prison sometimes, there is no safety. Nobody is safe. You never know when they’ll (the security forces) come into your home, when they’ll harass your mother, sister or daughter. You never know when your brother, father or uncle will go missing or get beaten and insulted. They are thieves when they go into homes they steal things. When they stop you at checkpoints they take your money. We are living in a state of daily terror and nobody is talking about this. There is nothing worse than living in constant fear. Nobody is safe from them (the security forces). Everyone else has to stand in the face of their own government but we have to stand in the face of 5 monarchies, 4 monarchies which sent troops to help violate our freedom. They've fired more than 1300 people from their jobs soon people will run out of money to even feed their families or pay off their loans and now they are recruiting people from other countries to take the jobs of those who have been fired. Why is no one responding to the humanitarian crisis in Bahrain? What are they waiting for?”

(According to BCHR statistics, the layoffs affect approximately 9000 people in Bahrain due to many of those being fired being the bread winners in their families.)

———- Forwarded message ———-

Date: Mon, May 30, 2011 at 8:59 AM
Subject: Part 3
Part 3,
In the initial talks between the 7 societies and the Pearl, the talks and decisions were discussed but the director of the talks was Moahmmed Ali Almahfoodh. In order to begin the negotations, he made it clear to all societies that the condition to begin the dialogue with Crown Prince is to withdraw the military forces from the Pearl. At the beginning, the response was negative, but the Crown Prince made a good moce to show good intentions and ordered the troops to withdraw. The Bahraini mass considered this day "liberating the Pearl." Many of them did not know what was happening behind the scene. The first mobs who began surging were the youth of Feb 14th, who have no connection with the seven societies.
After liberating the Pearl, Alwefaq faced a crisis, because almost all Shiites surged to the Pearl, including their audience. The angry and enthusiastic wave took with it all people from all levels and with most loyalties. At the same time, there was a decree by the King that released many of the poltical detainees and allowed Hasan Mushaimaa to come back to Bahrain. These events and the new trend of the youngsters made the societies to rethink their policies. Amal declared that they support the youth of February 14th, and the mass has the right to decide their own destiny. The Head of Amal, Mohammed Ali Almahfoodh tried to deliver a message to the mass that they should liberate their loyalties to a leader, and begin adopting a new collective loyalty to freedom and liberty. His message showed that he had strong faith in change whihc is inevitable as a natural phenomenon like the seasons, years and days. He also stressed the fact that the unilateral system that carry what he called a narrow-minded conservative policy is dead, and we are living in a new era, where the mass have the final say and not the leader, including himself. Waad, headed by Ebrahim Sharif tried to be close to the people, neutral and at the same time they used the Prime Minister as a source of all the problems in Bahrain. Sharif condemned him publicly many times. Alwefaq was the only society that did not show a satble opinion in this era. They were in a crisis. For the first time, they cannot control the mass, and for the first time they have many competitiors at one time. They wanted to appease the governemnt and promised to control the audience, because they are "the biggest group in the oposition." They missed an important fact that their popularity has been curved down more than 50 percent as shown in the last elections. Moreover, there was a gathering for Alwefaq memebers for a campaign, and the number of attendees didn't cross 700 while they were thousands before. As for the US embassy, Alwefaq also played a role to manipulate the embassy in a big lie " we control the mass." The American party did not try to see the credibility of this speech and this had tragic consequences for all. As for Iran, they also told them that we carry our loyalty to Iran as a source of clergy authority, and even for Hizbullah they said a different vision. The Spirit of the Pearl was a challenge, and their agenda, as will be revealed later was to destroy the youth of February 14th. They wanted to domiante without any cost. This made Alwefaq under the pressure of going to the Pearl, but not to support peopl – it was to destroy or weaken the movement of February 14th.
The office of Sheikh Isa Qassim, a conservative clergy affiliated and directely directed by the Iranian clergy, sent around 500 members to begin dominating the pearl. The pearl was two parts: the tents and the stage. The 500 members dominated the stage. They tried to be portrayed as the patrons of this "revolution" – leaders are Ali Salman, and others. They began spreading roumers about the visitors of the pear, especially the youndsters. They described them as robust teenagers without experience, enthusiatic because they are young, the smoke and don't pray, they go datin (sthg not accepted by the Islamist clergy), and many other negative roumers. In addition, they began spreading words abotu the other societie. Ebrahim Sharif is an aethiest, Amal and Moahmmed Ali Almahfoodh want to steal the revolution. These attempts did not succeed because the youngsters have new blood, new mentalities, and they were sick of the clergy authoritative tone towards them.
There were constant debates and verbal battles between 14th February and these people. This group were organiseed and they had a target. No one could be allowed to speak on the stage without their consent. This does not mean that they succeeded; their success was 50% as a maximum, but as the days began to get closer to the crack dowwn, the stage lost its power, and the power was shifted to the tents. In the tents, there pannels run by leaders supporting Febraury 14th, like Ebrahim Sharif, Abdulwahab Hussein, Dr Alsingace, and Mohammed Ali Almahfoodh. However, the stage continued with their slogans and cheers :down with the system; Down Dow Hamad; Sunni and Shiites are brothers, we do not sell our country; and Go Out'." These cheers could not be stopped and this put Alwefaq in an embarassing sitaution. While they promise the US and the Gov to calm things down, the movement of February 14th increased the mood of the Pearl. The peaceful protests soon began to show the gap between Alwefaq and the clergy and the younsters of February 14th.
Alwefaq and the committe of the clergy headed by Sh Isa Qasim and Sayed Al-Mashaal began to propagate and call for protests at the same time that the movement of february 14th called for another protest in a different place. For exampl, the committee of 14 February arranged a protest to the Royal Office in Rifaa, while Alwefaq and the Islamic Clergy Committee managed another one from Bahrain AMll to the Pearl. The result was people split, and the surpirse was the majority did not follow Alwefaq.
Also, ALwefaq began trying to present dialogue as a solution to the crisis of Bahrain, but the audience insisted on "down with the system." Alwefaq sent MP Jawad Fairouz, Khaleel Marzouq, and Waad arranged a pannel run by Dr Mansoor ALjamri and Dr Muneera Fakhro, but they did not succeed to get rid of "down with the system."
At the same time of all these events, there were constant negotaions and discussion between many parties: the 7 societies, the government and the US embassy.

———- Forwarded message ———-
Date: Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:20 AM
Subject: Part 2

I discovered that the truth is very dangerous because each of us has a "truth"; but when we discover the "real" truth, we receive a jolt in the face. I feel absurd:) ANyway, I will begin today Part 2;
In the inistail meetings that were carried out amongst the seven societies, the gap was very clear. It is important to know that they are 7 societies, but in reality only three have a say; Waad headed by Ebrahim Sharif representing the secular people and he is a Sunni; Alwefaq supported by the clergy of Iran, Hizbullah and to some extent the clergy of Iraq, and Headed by Ali Salman, A Shiite; and Amal which is not supported by any official party but it has connections with human rights societies, the EU Parlaiment, AMnesty and other agencies; this group is headed by Moahmmed Ali Almahfoodh, A radicalist Shiite; his vision is a mixture of liberal and Islamic theories. These three leaders are a wierd mix because the way they perceive politics differently. Sharif is very pragmatic and liberal and he believes in the youngsters; he sees Bahrain's future is best as long is it diverges from the suthority of religious authorities. Ali Salman does not convey or carry one visions; he is an opportunist; it seems that he is very worried about any competition and he perceives all Shiite public leaders as a threat to him. In one of Wikileaks papers; he convey his huge concern of the increasing popularity of Hasan Mushaima to the American Embassador and he required his help to contain this issue. He also confessed that after Hasan left Alwefaq, half of the audience were lost as well. He is very much patronized by the clergyman, Isa Qasim who goes back to Iran clergy. He does not have a clear agenda about Bahrain but he cares about getting posts in the government so that Sunnis do not monpolize the posts. The third leader is Mohammed Ali Almahfoodh; His vision are liberal radical, very much influenced by characters like Mandella and the movenments of African Americans and Human rights. His vision about Bahrain is that there should be a new relationship between the government and the people. This realtionship should be cleansed of corruption, based on mutual trust, and that the Shiites, since they are the majority, should be a decisive partner in the country's affairs.
There is another important figure, Dr Mansoor Aljamri, who used to run a newspaper. This person is also an opportunist. He does and says whatever matches his personal interests, something that the people discovered very late.
the youth group of February 14 th are without any influence or patronage. Actually, most of them are still anonymous to the government. They depend heavily on the high tech and the media. This group is not influenced by any of the societies, but they have huge respect for only Ebrahim Sharif and Mohammed Ali Almahfoodh; Ali Salman is perceived by them as a "liar" or in the best cases "a competitior."
Back to the initial meetings. In the initial meetings, the crown Prince asked the societies to help him overthrow his uncle the Prime Minister. He conveyed to them a sincere approach to intiate a national dialogue. The societies did not have a united answer. Sharif did not say anything, and Ali Salman showed his support to the Crown Prince, while Moahmmed ALi Almahfoodh had another opinion – he believed that this is an issue that should be dealt with inside the royal family, it is not the problem of the ordianry people, and he beleived that if anything happens the people will fall prey to all parties of the family. This stand of Amal was misued by Alwefaq, who claimed to the government that Amal is blocking dialogue and Sharif is getting more neutral. This claim of Alwefaq was exaggerated and propagated beneath the surface to the US emabssy and to the government of Bahrain. By this move, ALwefaq was trying to be the only key player in the stage. Prior to Feb 17th, Alwefaq did not have any presence in the Pearl. After the so called "liberating the Pearl", Alwefaq began advocating a new policy, especially after the talks began with the societies, crown prince and the US reprentatives.
———- Forwarded message ———-
Date: Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:55 PM
Subject: Part 1

I will begin writing to you a documentary of what is happening in Bahrain beneath the surface, the dialogue. [redacted] I will send today Part 1:
After the first attack of the Pearl, Feb 17, 2011; the crown Prince approached the head of Alwefaq Ali Salman to begin a dialogue. There were no clear frames or boundries concerning the dialogue. Ali Salman called the Head of Waad, Ebrahim Sharif, and they wanted to begin a dialogue without the consent of the other societies and people in general. It is important to know that Alwefaq, headed by Ali Salman, are in a huge trouble because they have no contact with the groups of February 14. Moreover, this society tried to make the government and the US embassy believe in a big lie, a bubble; they wanted to prove to both parties that they can control the mass. At the same time, Wikileaks exposed some important information. this society has been playing a double role; to the US emabssy, they were trying to create a phobia or a taboo of anyone against them. This was done by Ali Salman and Mansoor Aljamri mainly. For example, they convinced the embassy that Alkhawaja is a terrorist and he was prevented from entree to the US to take part in an activity of HUman Rights first. At the same time, there were other documents that showed ALi Salman as a person who doesn't have a say. He was asked by the Minister of interiror, for example, through the embassy to convince the family of one of the martyrs of bahrain to stop examining the body of their son. The minister of Interior thanked Ali Salman for this favor. There were many issues in Wikileaks but the most important is that Alwefaq and Dr Mansoor Aljamri were pleaying a double standard role. They say sthg to the government and they say a different thing to the embassy; and the use the clergy to force people vote in the elections.
Back to the Pearl, after Feb 17th. The other societies discovered this move and they called for emergent meeting for all – the 7 parties. Mohammed Ali Almahfoodh was the one controlling the dialogue in egneral, and as you can guess, his demands have no limits. However, Alwefaq stressed to the Bahraini Government that it is the Amal Society that was stopping and preventing dialogue. However, there was a call for dialogue but no clear map of anything else. I will stop here and continue later on in Part 2.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Richard Wolff <rdwolff@att.net>
Date: Tue, May 24, 2011 at 1:39 PM
Subject: Fw: Hundreds of Bahrainis join call to end US support for Bahrain gov't
To: "Ph.D. Colin S. Cavell" <ccavell@gmail.com>

Dear Colin,

Thought this might interest you………



—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Joanne Landy-Campaign for Peace & Democracy <cpd@igc.org>
To: rdwolff@att.net

Sent: Tue, May 24, 2011 4:25:53 PM
Subject: Hundreds of Bahrainis join call to end US support for Bahrain gov't

Below is the press release the Campaign for Peace and Democracy sent out today noting the tremendous support our statement has received from Bahrainis. If you have not yet signed or donated to help publicize the statement, please do so now at the CPD website.

May 24, 2011
Contact: Joanne Landy cpd@igc.org


NEW YORK, N.Y., May 24 2011 – In a response that surprised U.S. organizers of a campaign calling on the United States government to repudiate its partnership with the Al Khalifa regime in Bahrain, hundreds of people from Bahrain joined in signing the Campaign for Peace and Democracy’s launching statement "End U.S. Support for Bahrain's Repressive Government.”

"The statement was originally circulated for signatures in the United States, but we have been deeply moved by the fact that hundreds of Bahrainis have added their names," said Joanne Landy, CPD Co-Director. "Given the violent government crackdown in Bahrain, the very act of signing is incredibly courageous. Bahraini signers have implored us to pressure the Obama administration to decisively repudiate its support of their brutal and authoritarian government."

On May 16, the New York-based Campaign for Peace and Democracy (CPD) began circulating its statement, which has thus far gathered more than 1200 signatures including those of Ed Asner, Medea Benjamin, Noam Chomsky, Martin Duberman, Daniel Ellsberg, Mike Farrell, Chris Hedges, Adam Hochschild, Jan Kavan, Kathy Kelly, Dave Marsh, Frances Fox Piven, Katha Pollitt, Alix Kates Shulman and Cornel West. The statement is below and on the CPD website. Signatures are still being accepted. The statement will be sent to President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and key members of Congress, as well as to domestic and international media.

In the United States, Psychologists for Social Responsibility (PsySR) gave organizational endorsement to the statement. Stephen Soldz, PsySR president, stated, "We cannot be silent. Many of our members are health providers. The government of Bahrain has arrested nearly 50 doctors and other health providers, many of whom have been tortured. Their 'crime' is refusing to let injured protesters die and informing the world press about the abuses they witnessed.” [See the report by Physicians for Human Rights.]
In the face of mounting complaints against Washington for muting its criticisms of repression in Bahrain, President Obama did say in his May 19 speech on the Middle East, "…we have insisted both publicly and privately that mass arrests and brute force are at odds with the universal rights of Bahrain's citizens. The only way forward is for the government and opposition to engage in a dialogue, and you can't have a real dialogue when parts of the peaceful opposition are in jail." However, in the same speech Obama referred to Bahrain as a "friend" and "partner" of the U.S., thus signaling that the massive human rights violations in that country would not stand in the way of continuing U.S. support for the regime or the continuing presence of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, a naval force supporting an interventionist foreign policy.
In words reminiscent of the Administration’s disgracefully neutral stand on the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt up until the last moment, when the Ben Ali and Mubarak regimes were clearly no longer sustainable, President Obama has called on both the government and the opposition in Bahrain to "engage in dialogue." What is needed now, however, is not episodic toothless reprimands to Bahrain’s government or pressure on the opposition to engage in dialogue with the regime, but a clear U.S. break with the Al Khalifa government. This would involve:
– An unambiguous statement from Washington that because of the atrocious government repression, Bahrain is not a "partner" or "friend" of the U.S.
– An immediate end to all U.S. aid to Bahrain
– Vigorous condemnation of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emiratesfor sending in forces at the request of Bahrain's government to back up the repression
CPD has launched this campaign in order to build pressure on Washington to stop propping up the Al Khalifa government. The brave people of Bahrain deserve no less.


End U.S. Support for Bahrain's Repressive Government
Statement by the Campaign for Peace and Democracy
May 16, 2011
(Add your name, donate or share at http://www.cpdweb.org/stmts/1019/stmt.shtml )

On Feb. 13, 2011, inspired by the forced resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, peaceful democratic protests erupted in Bahrain. Protests grew and, in response, King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa invited other Gulf states to send security forces into the country to assist in violently suppressing the demonstrators. The March 15 invasion by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates brought an intensification of torture, secret trials, demolition of Shia mosques, and repression against human rights activists, journalists, labor, lawyers, medical professionals, students, political figures, and others. On March 18 the regime destroyed the Pearl Monument that had served as the protest center.

Like many other autocracies in the region Bahrain has been a key U.S. partner. It has provided a home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, responsible for naval forces in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, and the coast of East Africa as far south as Kenya. This is why Washington’s response to the vicious repression in Bahrain has been so muted and pro-forma, in contrast to forceful denunciations of repression in countries outside the U.S. orbit, such as Iran and Libya.
Richard Sollom from Physicians for Human Rights says health care workers in Bahrain have been targeted on a scale he has never encountered. Government forces have invaded hospitals; doctors have been dragged out of the operating room, abducted and detained for giving care to wounded protestors. The government says it will try 47 medical workers it accuses, incredibly, of causing the deaths of protesters by inflicting additional wounds on them.

Hundreds of workers, including union leaders, have been fired for striking for democratic change. Security forces closed down the General Bahraini Federation of Trade Unions headquarters. The Bahrain Center for Human Rights writes, “Bahrain is currently considered a dangerous zone for the freedom of press and journalists.” On April 3 the government suspended the country’s only independent newspaper, Al Wasat. On May 2 it arrested two politicians belonging to the opposition Al Wefaq party.

Bahrain’s population is 60 percent or more Shia, with the government dominated by a Sunni minority. There is systematic discrimination against the Shiite majority in political representation, employment, wages, housing, and other benefits. The government has tried to split the opposition along Shia-Sunni lines, but uprising leaders insist their struggle for democratic rights is non-sectarian.

Zainab Alkhawaja wrote to President Obama after her father, Abdulhadi Alkhawaja, former head of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, was beaten unconscious in front of his family and arrested by masked men: “if anything happens to my father, my husband, my uncle, my brother-in-law, or to me, I hold you just as responsible as the Al Khalifa regime. Your support for this monarchy makes your government a partner in crime. I still have hope that you will realize that freedom and human rights mean as much to a Bahraini person as it does to an American, Syrian or a Libyan and that regional and political considerations should not be prioritized over liberty and human rights.”

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights, the International Crisis Group and many others have exhaustively documented the brutal terror of Bahrain’s government. No further evidence is needed. As long as the repression continues, the promise to lift the state of emergency is only an empty public relations gesture. The United States should end all aid to Bahrain, condemn the invasion by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and sharply denounceBahrain’s horrific suppression of democratic rights.

As the Arab Spring has swept through North Africa and the Middle East, the role of the United States has been truly shameful.Washington’s rhetoric cannot conceal a deep fear of democracy. Its first instinct was to stand behind its old friends. Only when it became obvious that Ben Ali’s and Mubarak’s days were numbered were they abandoned. As for Saudi Arabia, this ultra-reactionary monarchy, with its appalling treatment of women and religious minorities,is almost never criticized by U.S. officials.

There are those who, while deploring repression in Bahrain, justify continuing U.S. support for that country's brutal tyranny as "realism"; in a dangerous world, they argue, our security depends on having a Middle Eastern state willing to host the Fifth Fleet. This argument is profoundly mistaken. Interventionist naval forces are part of a foreign policy that, by siding with despots and pitting the United States against the Arab people's longing for responsible government and a better way of life, guarantees endless terrorism and bloodshed and an even more dangerous world for everyone. For good reason, democratic movements around the world today do not trust the United States, which they see as motivated by imperial interest. That is why the U.S. desperately needs a new foreign policy, one that welcomes democratic forces — not hypocritically, in order to manipulate them and blunt their impact, but to stand in solidarity with their struggles to win political power for the people and achieve social and economic justice.

* * * * * * *

THE CAMPAIGN FOR PEACE AND DEMOCRACY advocates a new, progressive and non-militaristic U.S. foreign policy — one that encourages democratization, justice and social change. The Campaign sees movements for peace, social justice and democratic rights, taken together, as the embryo of an alternative to great power politics and to the domination of society by privileged elites. Founded in 1982, the Campaign opposed the Cold War by promoting "detente from below." It engaged Western peace activists in the defense of the rights of democratic dissidents in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and enlisted East-bloc human rights activists against anti-democratic U.S. policies in countries like Nicaragua and Chile.
Recent CPD campaigns include: support for the democratic revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya; New York Review of Books letter to Iranian officials in defense of human rights leader Shirin Ebadi and a statement “End the War Threats and Sanctions Program Against Iran, Support the Struggle for Democracy Inside Iran.” Additional CPD statements have been Opposition to the U.S. Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and on Gaza, “No More Blank Check for Israel!”

Campaign for Peace and Democracy, Co-Directors Joanne Landy and Thomas Harrison, 2790 Broadway, #12, NY, NY 10025. Email: cpd@igc.org Web: www.cpdweb.org