A story of no mention in the US press.

Netanyahu implicated in nuclear smuggling from U.S. — big story in Israel
by Philip Weiss – 6 July, 2012 – MondoWeiss

The Israeli press is picking up Grant Smith’s revelation from FBI documents that Benjamin Netanyahu was part of an Israeli smuggling ring that spirited nuclear triggers out of the U.S. in the 80s and 90s.

Arutz Sheva, the nationalist Israeli press:

Declassified FBI documents from a 1985-2002 investigation implicate Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in an initiative to illegally purchase United States nuclear technology for Israel’s nuclear program.

Netanyahu was allegedly helped by Arnon Milchan, a Hollywood producer with ties to Israeli prime ministers and U.S. presidents.

The original story was broken by Grant Smith at antiwar.com, “Netanyahu worked inside nuclear smuggling ring”:

On June 27, 2012, the FBI partially declassified and released seven additional pages [.pdf] from a 1985–2002 investigation into how a network of front companies connected to the Israeli Ministry of Defense illegally smuggled nuclear triggers out of the U.S.* The newly released FBI files detail how Richard Kelly Smyth — who was convicted of running a U.S. front company — met with Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel during the smuggling operation. At that time, Netanyahu worked at the Israeli node of the smuggling network, Heli Trading Company. Netanyahu, who currently serves as Israel’s prime minister, recently issued a gag order that the smuggling network’s unindicted ringleader refrain from discussing “Project Pinto.”

The Hebrew paper Ma’ariv, in translation:

According to FBI documents released by the United States, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was involved in smuggling in the 70s from the U.S. components of Israeli nuclear program, and assisted by the businessman Arnon Milchan, who according to previous publications was a former Mossad agent.

The documents, declassified in part by the FBI after partial classification removed, describe the findings of the investigation has been performed between the years 1985 to 2002 on about how a network of front companies a U.S. security firm illegally smuggled equipment used for weapons seeds out of the U.S..
…source

Syria foreign minister accuses U.S. of stoking violence
28 August, 2012 – Agence France Presse

LONDON: Syria’s foreign minister accused the United States of being the “major player” encouraging anti-government rebels, but vowed the regime would not deploy chemical weapons in an interview published Tuesday.

Walid Muallem suggested to Britain’s Independent newspaper that the U.S. may be using Syria to curb Iran’s influence in the Middle East and that it had exaggerated Tehran’s nuclear capabilities in order to sell weapons to Gulf countries.

“We believe that the U.S. is the major player against Syria and the rest are its instruments,” he told journalist Robert Fisk.

When asked whether the U.S. was using the Syria crisis against Iran, Muallem cited a recent study by influential Washington think-tank the Brookings Institution which concluded that “if you want to contain Iran, you must start with Damascus”.

“We were told by some Western envoys at the beginning of this crisis that relations between Syria and Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas are the major elements behind this crisis,” he told Fisk.

“But no one told us why it is forbidden for Syria to have relations with Iran when most if not all the Gulf countries have very important relations with Iran.”

U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon demanded an independent inquiry Monday into the killings of hundreds of civilians in the Syrian town of Daraya as world outrage mounted over the “massacre” by pro-government forces.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that 334 bodies had now been found in Daraya after what activists described as brutal five-day onslaught of shelling, summary executions and house-to-house raids by pro-government forces.

The Sunni Muslim town of some 200,000 people is seen as a stronghold of opposition to the minority Alawite-led regime of President Bashar Assad.

Muallem accused the U.S. of assisting the rebels’ military effort by supplying them with telecommunication equipment, adding that it was supporting terrorism.

The minister played down suggestions that the Assad regime would resort to using chemical weapons if its authority was further weakened, saying the government’s “responsibility is to protect our people.”
…more

Rachel Corrie ruling ‘deeply troubling’, says her family
guardian.co.uk – 28 August 2012

Cindy and Craig, the parents of Rachel Corrie, said it was a ‘bad day for human rights’ Link to this video

The death of pro-Palestinian activist Rachel Corrie was a “regrettable accident” for which the state of Israel was not responsible, a judge has ruled, dismissing a civil lawsuit brought by the family.

The young American had “put herself in a dangerous situation” and her death was not caused by the negligence of the Israeli state or army, said Judge Oded Gershon at Haifa district court.

The 62-page ruling found no fault in the internal Israeli military investigation which cleared the driver of the bulldozer which crushed Corrie to death in March 2003. The judge said the driver could not have seen the activist from the cab of the bulldozer.

Corrie could have saved herself by moving out of the zone of danger “as any reasonable person would have done”, he said. The area was a combat zone, and the US government had warned its citizens not to go there.

International activists were intent on obstructing the actions of the Israeli military and acting as human shields “to protect terrorists”.

Corrie was killed on 16 March 2003, crushed under an Israeli military bulldozer while trying to obstruct the demolition of a Palestinian home in Rafah, on the Gaza-Egypt border.

The lawsuit, filed by Corrie’s parents, Cindy and Craig, of Olympia, Washington state, accused the Israeli military of either unlawfully or intentionally killing Rachel or of gross negligence. The family had claimed a symbolic $1 (63p) in damages and legal expenses.

The judge said no damages were liable, but the family’s court costs would be waived.

The family was “deeply saddened and deeply troubled” by the ruling, Cindy Corrie said at a press conference after the ruling. “I believe this was a bad day, not only for our family, but for human rights, humanity, the rule of law and also for the country of Israel.”

The state had, she said, employed a “well-heeled system” to protect its soldiers and provide them with immunity. “As a family, we’ve had to push for answers, accountability and justice.”

Rachel’s sister, Sarah Corrie Simpson, said: “I believe without doubt that my sister was seen as the driver approached her.” She hoped that the driver would one day “have the courage” to tell the truth. …more

Saudi Arabia – America’s Real Strategic Petroleum Reserve?
27 August, 2012 – John Miller – The Energy Collective

As oil prices ticked above $115 per barrel last week, a White House leak revealed that President Barack Obama may dip into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), the United States’ 695 million barrel stockpile of emergency fuel supplies. The leak might have been a signal that Washington wants Gulf countries to take action to lower oil prices. It might also have been an attempt to wring the risk premium out of current prices by reassuring the market that America won’t let a potential war with Iran shut off the spigot. The one thing we can say for sure is that the announcement highlights two interrelated problems with U.S. energy policy: that every president since Ronald Reagan has used Saudi Arabia as his de facto SPR and that there exist no clear standards for when to dip onto the actual SPR. Both problems have the potential to bite us — badly.

Over the years, the United States has been surprisingly reluctant to release SPR during times of crisis, preferring instead to let Saudi Arabia handle the problem by simply increasing its production. For decades, in fact, U.S. presidents have been able to count on the Middle Eastern petro giant to pre-release oil in anticipation of times of war. For example, Riyadh flooded the market ahead of the first Gulf War and, though many do not remember, it also put extra oil on the market ahead of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Saudi Arabia even increased its oil production after the 9/11 attacks, which badly strained U.S.-Saudi relations. Likewise, this spring, when the Obama administration was debating whether or not to release the SPR ahead of the tightening of sanctions against Iran, Saudi Arabia helpfully boosted its production above 10 million barrels per day, causing oil prices to fall more than $10 a barrel and eliminating the need for the White House to make a firm decision.

But relying on Saudi Arabia, while politically convenient, is not without risks. The most obvious is that the Saudis have come under increased pressure — both internal and external — as a result of their longstanding oil-for-security alliance with Washington. Iran has warned its fellow Gulf producer not to make up the slack resulting from American and European sanctions, threatening direct retaliation if it does. Saudi Arabia isn’t taking any chances. In recent months, it has arrested prominent Shiite dissidents — always suspected of possible ties to Iran –and doubled the number of Saudi National Guard forces in the Eastern Province, home to the vast majority its 2 million-plus Shiite citizens as well as the close to 90 percent of its oil production.

Oil markets might have taken solace in Saudi preparedness until rumors surfaced of an assassination attempt aimed at the kingdom’s intelligence chief, a move purported to be a revenge killing by Iran for similar assassinations of senior military leaders in Syria. The rumors proved to be false, but like much of the region’s murky political intrigue, it moved markets and served as a reminder that a tit-for-tat game of high level assassinations is not out of the realm of possibility. The oil implications of this unpredictability are clear: It will be hard to keep global oil markets calm in the coming weeks and months. Deaths of rulers can change dynamics overnight virtually anywhere in the region, and Israel’s defense policy remains an ever-present black swan. Saudi Arabia’s own rumored pursuit of new nuclear-style ballistic missiles from China adds an additional layer of uncertainty about a nuclear arms race in the region.

America’s ability to fall back on the Saudis is further imperiled by the inherent instability of the kingdom’s political and economic system. Saudi Arabia is going to need more and more oil revenue just to keep its population from growing restive. Riyadh-based Jadwa Investment predicts that Saudi Arabia will be forced to run budget deficits from 2014 onwards, even at a break-even price forecast of $90.70 per barrel in 2015. Other forecasts are even bleaker in the medium term, estimating the breakeven price at $110 a barrel in 2015. Either way, the kingdom’s thirst for cash is likely to mean that U.S. and Saudi interests diverge. The oil-for-security deal between the two countries has destabilized the kingdom in the past by igniting support for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and it could be used again by agents of internal opposition groups. Moreover, the recent pro-democracy upheavals in Egypt, Syria, and above all Bahrain are bound to influence U.S.-Saudi relations over time in ways that are hard to predict.

For the time being, these risks have been at least temporarily mitigated. Recent leadership successions in the senior ranks of the Saudi security apparatus (defense, interior, and intelligence) and the common interest in containing Iran has brought Saudi oil policy closer in line with White House goals — at least for now. Saudi oil shipments to the United States have been on the upswing this year — a reversal of previous policy that favored sales to China — and the kingdom, together with Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, has stockpiled oil in ships off the coast of Al-Fujairah, outside the critical shipping choke point of the Strait of Hormuz, and added emergency crude oil stocks in China, Japan, South Korea, and Rotterdam. This coordination helped keep oil prices from spiking when Western countries tightened the sanctions regime against Iran’s oil industry. The extra Gulf crude was aimed not only to wean Asian and European buyers off Iranian oil but also to give the United States (or even Israel) more economic leeway for a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities in the event that diplomatic negotiations stalled out. But as more and more Iranian oil comes off the market and the specter of military action intensifies, the impact of these significant moves is wearing off. …more

Open Letter to the President of The Arab Republic of Egypt, Dr. Mohamed Morsi Isa El-Ayyat

Johannesburg, August 27, 2012

Dear Mr. President:

I write you in my capacity of The Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR) Acting President, to express my deep disappointment and to protest the unlawful and hostile treatment I was subjected to at Cairo’s International Airport on Sunday, August 16, 2012 by the Egyptian security forces.

I had a 7-hour layover in Cairo and was going to enter the country to see Egyptian friends before boarding my connecting flight to South Africa scheduled on the same day. I was granted an entry approval at the airport. Shortly thereafter, I was called back and asked to wait. Then, my passport and travel documents were taken by the police. I was informed afterwards that I will not be allowed into the country due to “top secret reasons.”

To no avail, I repeatedly asked about what the “top secret reasons” were, and why I was not informed of their nature even though they concerned me. I was told that it was a matter of “national security and intelligence.” I was not given the information because the security officials at the airport told me “they could not provide me with the reasons as they themselves did not have access to it.”

Upon the arrival of my Egyptian attorney, he insisted on finding out why I was considered a threat to the national security of Egypt, and how they could deny me entry after they had stamped my passport with approval.

In response, we were told that “if I insisted on not leaving voluntarily, I would be forcibly deported to Bahrain.” To further intimidate me, I was also informed that the Bahraini government had issued an arrest warrant with my name.

I am afraid that this incident is not an isolated occurrence, but one of many to date where Bahraini human rights defenders are routinely subjected by Egyptian security forces.

In April 2012 I was stopped at Cairo’s airport by security officials who attempted to deny me entry into Egypt. I was ultimately allowed in after my lawyer and your wonderful countrymen– Egyptian activists intervened.

During my ordeal on this time, a police officer candidly admitted to me that I was eventually allowed in because according to him, there were protests going on in Egypt – which is not the case this time around.

Earlier this year, my colleague and the actual president of the Bahrain Center of Human Rights, Nabeel Rajab was denied entry and returned to Bahrain by security officials at Cairo Airport. As you may know Mr. President, Mr. Rajab is currently imprisoned in Bahrain to punish him for his role as an outspoken human rights defender.

In pre-revolution Egypt, authoritarian regimes like Bahrain found a diligent ally in Egyptian intelligence as they sought hinder the movement of human rights defenders. Such regimes, and others, eagerly outsourced their harassment to former Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak. Back then, it was always a risk for Bahraini and Arab human rights activists to travel to Egypt because of the former regime’s commitment to fellow dictatorships.

Not long ago Mr. President, you were personally on the receiving end of these arbitrary and unjust practices as a dissident. I respectfully ask you today sir as a fellow Arab: How can such blatant disregard for the law and basic human dignities continue under your watch?

As the acting president of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, I write to inform you that I am gravely concerned, as a human rights defender, by the unjust and hostile treatment I was subjected to in Cairo’s airport.

Sincerely,

Maryam Abdelhadi Al-Khawaja

Acting President

Bahrain Centre for Human Rights

Iran might let diplomats visit suspected nuclear site
27 August, 2012 – By Yeganeh Torbati, Fredrik Dahl – Reuters

DUBAI/VIENNA: Iran indicated on Monday it might allow diplomats visiting Tehran for this week’s Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit to go to the Parchin military base, which U.N. nuclear experts say may have been used for nuclear-related explosives tests.

When asked about the possibility, Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad Mehdi Akhoundzadeh said: “Such a visit is not customary in such meetings…However at the discretion of authorities, Iran would be ready for such a visit,” the Iranian government-linked news agency Young Journalists Club reported.

The tentative offer was made just three days after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) again failed to gain access to Parchin for its inspectors at a meeting with an Iranian delegation in Vienna.

Iran is hosting the NAM summit, which ends on Friday, at a time when the West is trying to isolate the Islamic Republic over suspicions it is seeking a nuclear weapons capability. Tehran says its atomic programme has only peaceful aims.

Any visit to Parchin by NAM representatives would do little to calm Western concerns or those of the IAEA whose talks with Iran on the agency’s stalled probe into suspected atom bomb research in the Islamic state ended on Friday without agreement.

“Any tour the Iranians conduct for visiting NAM officials would be nothing more than a very, very bad publicity stunt,” a senior Western diplomat in Vienna told Reuters. “It is the IAEA that should have been given access to Parchin.”

The U.N. body suspects that Iran has conducted explosives tests in a steel chamber at Parchin relevant for the development of nuclear weapons, possibly a decade ago.

“RIDICULOUS”

Citing satellite pictures, Western diplomats say they suspect Iran in recent months has been cleansing the site where the experiments are believed to have taken place of any evidence of illicit nuclear activity.

The IAEA is voicing growing concern that this would hamper its investigation if it ever gained access to Parchin.

Last week diplomatic sources said Iran had covered the building believed to house the explosives chamber with a tent-like structure, fuelling suspicions about a clean-up there.

Iran says Parchin, a vast complex southeast of Tehran, is a conventional military facility and has dismissed allegations about it as “ridiculous”.

Monday’s Iranian media report did not make clear whether the NAM diplomats would be able to visit the location in Parchin which the IAEA wants to see or only other areas of the complex.

Akhoundzadeh said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who is due to attend the NAM summit later in the week, might be able to visit Iran’s atom sites, but his spokesman denied any such plan.

“There are no such plans for a visit of that kind by the secretary-general while he is in Iran for the Non-Aligned Movement summit,” spokesman Martin Nesirky said in New York.
…more

Bahrain Rights Activist Denied Entry to Egypt
27 August, 2012 – POMED

Prominent Bahraini opposition activist, Maryam al-Khawaja, was denied entry into Egypt Sunday. Khawaja, daughter of human rights activist Abdulhadi al-Khawaja who was sentenced to life in prison for his in role in last year’s uprising, has been an outspoken critic of Bahrain’s government and has accused Arab governments of “continuing repressive security cooperation despite political change in the region,” according to Reuters. An Egyptian airport official said Khawaja’s name was on a list of people who have been denied entry at the airport, and that “The ban is based on a memorandum from the national security authorities.” Khawaja told Reuters, “We’ve been having problems with Bahraini activists getting into Egypt for years. We thought with the revolution it would change, but it hasn’t.”

Additionally, Bahrain’s International Affairs Authority (IAA) denied reports of the resignation of John Yates, Senior Policy Adviser to the Ministry of Interior. While Yates’ initial contract expired in July, the IAA stated that “he remains as an important adviser to the Minister of Interior, overseeing police code of conduct and implementation of reform measures.

Meanwhile, in neighboring Yemen, security forces report that a gunman opened fire on protesters at a sit-in in Taiz Sunday, killing one. Activist Shaher Mohammed Saeed says he heard and saw gunshots from a white pick-up truck driving past protest tents in Taiz at dawn. The protests are calling for reform related to last year’s uprising that outed Yemen’s long-time president.

Elsewhere, Kuwait’s opposition announced plans for a public gathering on Monday evening as it seeks to exert public pressure on the government to reverse its decision to consult the constitutional court on the constitutionality of the controversial electoral law that changes the constituency system and the number of candidates each voter is able to elect. Several political groups and ex-lawmakers said they would take part, hoping to see reforms that include an elected government and the growth of political parties. …source

Separate City to be Built for Saudi Women: Reductio ad absurdum
By: Colin S. Cavell, Ph.D. -August 26, 2012

On August 6, 2012, the Saudi Industrial Property Authority (MODON) issued a press release which highlighted, once again, the utter absurdity of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This writer has written previously on the rampant corruption, perversity, cruelty, and utter criminality of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and this latest insight into the workings of the House of Saud—i.e. the family that runs this gulag—defies rationality and further exposes the insanity of the rulers of this captive nation. Once again, we see how monarchy distorts the mind, corrupts the body politique, and deforms society into bizarre contortions as it attempts to reconcile its contradictions.

MODON’s press release stated that it had initiated work on planning and development of “the first industrial city being readied for women workers in the Kingdom. It will be launched in Al-Ahsa 2nd Industrial city which is located in Hofuf near Al-Ahsa airport,” reads the release. And while the press notice indicated that job opportunities would be created for “both men and women,” it was the focus on the separation of the sexes in the workplace that caught the attention, and outrage, of news agencies and observers from around the world. With an estimated costs of 500 million riyals or about $133 million, the new city is expected to create only about 5000 new jobs.

“The city,” the development authority announced “is distinguished from other industrial cities for its proximity to residential neighborhoods to facilitate the movement of women to and from the workplace. It is also characterized by allocating sections equipped for women workers in environment and working conditions consistent with the privacy of women according to Islamic guidelines and regulations.”

Nearly half of Saudi Arabia’s 28 million population and over 60 percent of the country’s university students are female and yet only about 15 percent of the entire Saudi workforce is comprised of women. Al Arabiya reports that 78 percent of the Kingdom’s university graduates are unemployed.

Reporter Homa Khaleeli of the UK-based Guardian newspaper writes that the “country already has separate schools, segregated universities (and the biggest all-female university in the world) not to mention offices, restaurants and even separate entrances for public buildings. Now industrial hubs are to be built so that women can be hidden away even further than their current dresscode of abaya, headscarf and niqab allows.” The proposed KSA development is “so extreme,” remarks Khaleeli, that “the plans bring to mind the US’s racial divide under the Jim Crow laws, ensuring ‘separate but equal’ institutions for black and white people.” Furthermore, she correctly points out, “like the legalised discrimination in the US, ‘equal’ in this context means no such thing. The female half of the adult population of Saudi Arabia is considered unfit to control their own lives. Women cannot decide whether to leave the house, whether or who to marry, whether to work or study, whether to travel, what to wear, or even whether to have major surgery—without the consent of a male guardian.”

Brett Wilkins, writing in Digital Journal, notes that the city “is being billed as a way for women to achieve a greater degree of financial independence while obeying the strict gender segregation dictated by the kingdom’s Wahhabi Muslim rulers and enforced by the dreaded mutaween morality police.” Describing KSA as being “run by the world’s most repressive religious fundamentalist monarchs,” Wilkins lays bear the facts that in Saudi Arabia, “women are subject to a strictly enforced gender apartheid. They aren’t allowed to vote or drive. They cannot be treated in hospitals or travel without written permission from their husbands or male relatives. One woman who was kidnapped and raped by seven men was sentenced to 90 lashes of the whip for being in a vehicle with an unrelated male. When she went to the media with her story, her sentence was increased to 200 lashes. In 2002, 15 girls needlessly died when the mutaween locked them inside their burning school and stopped firefighters from saving them because they weren’t ‘properly’ dressed in black robes and headscarves.”

As The Week put it, “Saudi Arabia has a problem: The Persian Gulf kingdom has an increasingly educated, increasingly unemployed female population and ultraconservative laws and customs that forbid women from mingling, much less working, with men.” In other words, this is a recipe for civil war. Being prodded by its western ally, the USA, to reconcile its deformed society to contemporary production methods and enter into modernity—at least into the nineteenth century by western standards—King Abdullah, in September of 2011, announced that by 2015 women will be able to vote and run in local elections. But don’t hold your breath, as such statements are issued from time to time by the Saudi royals only to please their American protectors and never meant to actually be implemented.

Contradiction upon contradiction is plaguing the House of Saud, and nearly every solution they propose to address their multiplicity of problems is prone to failure by the contortions of their belief system. On the one hand, the house of Saud bills itself as “the custodian of the two holy mosques” in Mecca and Medina and, hence, as the “true” guardians and interpreters of Islam. On the other hand, they defy Islam and common sense by denigrating the female half of the population as either subordinate or inferior to men, if they consider women to be human at all.

In coddling these neanderthals, the US sets itself up for payback, as can be witnessed by the current Republican Party courting Saudi Arabian financial contributions as well as campaign donations from the other oil-rich monarchs of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council in their attempt to unseat Barack Obama from the US presidency. The latest example of this disparagement of women was spewed forth from the mouth of Missouri Congressman Todd Akin who claimed just last week that women cannot become pregnant from something he calls “legitimate rape”. This comment and others prompted the following response from Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine: “the comments from Akin reinforce the perception that we in the Republican Party are unsympathetic to issues of paramount concern to women.” And, yet, the Republican Party continues to compete to see how extreme they can be in relegating American women back to the status of their Saudi counterparts: subordinated, strictly regulated, covered up, denied equal personhood, and stripped of their legal status as citizens.

Akin was only following the party line, as Republicans in the last year since becoming the majority in Congress in the 2010 midterm elections, have proposed redefining rape and thus limiting the charge to only cases described as ‘forcible rape’ in order to deny women access to health services, voted to defund Planned Parenthood (the nation’s leading sexual and reproductive health care provider and advocate), repeatedly tried to restrict women’s access to health care services, and held a Congressional House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the Obama Administration’s contraception rule in February of this year with five men and no women. Indeed, as in much of the Republican Party’s assault on women, female input into formulating their proposals is entirely absent. It is no wonder that Olympia Snowe, quoted above, is stepping down from her position as a Republican senator.
[Read more →]

Britain’s barbaric ‘special relationship’ with Arab dictators
27 August, 2012 – By Finian Cunningham – PressTV

While the majority of Bahrainis struggle with poverty, discrimination in the labour market, unemployment, ill health and squalid housing, the Al Khalifa clan lives in luxurious palaces on confiscated lands, enriched through rampant business corruption, under-the-table deals with foreign banks and investors, and, of course, embezzlement of the island’s oil industry.”

The image of British Prime Minister David Cameron greeting Bahrain’s King Hamad on the steps of 10 Downing Street last week conveys a subtle message of Britain’s presumption of global superiority. It also betrays the real role of Britain’s rulers in the suppression of democracy and human rights around the world.

The taller Cameron, in dapper pinstripe suit, is seen extending a benevolent hand to the dumpy little Arab tin-pot king who is donning a medieval-looking headdress and robe.

It would appear, from the photo-op, that patronage is being afforded by a thoroughly democratic leader to an antiquated ally from the Arabian desert, the latter in need of jolly-good-old Anglo-Saxon tutelage in the art of modern statecraft.

How civilized. The British premier invites the Bahraini monarch into the iconic dwelling near the supposed “mother of all parliaments” for a serving of English tea and cakes over “low-key talks”.

On the agenda, according to one of Britain’s “liberal” newspapers, the Guardian, the prime minister raised, apparently, the troubling matter of human rights as well as – and this is the unmentioned significant bit – trade opportunities for British businesses in the Persian Gulf kingdom.

It is a scintillating scenario of British conceit and pretence of decency. We are thus inculcated with the impression that Britain is the epitome of refined democracy. Cameron, you see, is enquiring of business opportunities while also doughtily expressing to his Al Khalifa Arab guest concerns over human rights. The British rulers, you see, are not just wrangling for a quick pound. Oh no, they have ethics and principles to defend and uphold as well.

Commenting on the meeting, Bahrain’s foreign minister Shaikh Khalid Al Khalifa (a relation of the king – as is the whole government of that kingdom) said another subject on the agenda was “regional stability”. (In that disclosure, Shaikh Khalid let the cat out of the bag, but more on that later.)

Let’s cut through the woolly British media reportage that serves to reinforce, subliminally, a self-styled sense of civilised greatness. The truth is that the British government does not give two figs about human rights in the oil shaikhdom of Bahrain. It never had any concern and it still doesn’t. By reporting that Cameron raised the issue of human rights with King Hamad, the British media are indulging in conceit that there is genuine concern about the matter among its political establishment. But history shows that to this day, human rights in Bahrain (and elsewhere) are frankly anathema to Britain’s geopolitical interests.

The absolute Al Khalifa monarchy was installed in Bahrain by the British Empire more than 200 years ago. The so-called royal rulers of Bahrain were then nothing more than a tribe of Bedouins elevated by British military force to positions of lordly privilege in Bahrain. The Al Khalifas were, to put it plainly, barbaric impostors who were fortified on their new island abode to safeguard British trading interests in the Persian Gulf en route to imperial India. It was a typical British quid pro quo. The Al Khalifa cut-throats got a throne to sit on, underpinned with “Protectorate” status, while the ever-so polite British got to rule the waves.

The Sunni Al Khalifa band of brigands was imposed against the will or consent of the indigenous Shia population of Bahrain. To this day, that is the crux of the grievance among the Bahraini majority. The Al Khalifas enriched themselves by exploiting the people from their British-protected palaces. Older people in Bahrain will tell you about the times when the Al Khalifas would send their thugs into the villages to collect taxes and tributes from the farmers and fishermen on pain of death. The young shaikhs would also drive into hamlets and take any young female that they desired for their gratification.

Such crude suzerainty may not be quite as brazen today. Today, Bahrainis are exploited and raped in more insidious ways through rigged elections and ring-fencing of the economy to satisfy the Al Khalifa rulers. While the majority of Bahrainis struggle with poverty, discrimination in the labour market, unemployment, ill health and squalid housing, the Al Khalifa clan lives in luxurious palaces on confiscated lands, enriched through rampant business corruption, under-the-table deals with foreign banks and investors, and, of course, embezzlement of the island’s oil industry.

Bahrainis have consistently protested this British imposition of despotic monarchy. They want an elected government to run the island’s oil wealth democratically, for the wellbeing of the populace, not for the crony aggrandisement of the Al Khalifa dynasty and its entourage of hangers-on. This is a basic democratic demand, a fundamental human right. Yet how could such a distortion of natural justice be sustained? Enter the British government, and in recent decades, the American too.

Down through the decades when the indigenous Bahrainis – Shia as well as Sunni – would regularly rise up against their Al Khalifa overlords, it was the British government and its military might that safeguarded the position of monarchy. In the 1950s and 60s, British troops stationed on the island opened fire on striking oil workers.

When Bahrain was finally granted nominal independence in 1971, the British may have officially left by the front door, but they came back in through the back window, as one old Bahraini memorably described it. The state security apparatus was – and continues to be – overseen by British military intelligence. It is one of the most brutal security apparatuses in the world. A notorious founding figure was Colonel Ian Henderson who was the head of the kingdom’s national security agency from 1968 to 1998. Henderson oversaw the administration of unrelenting vicious repression, during which thousands of Bahrainis deemed to be a security threat were detained without trial and tortured often at the hands of Henderson himself. …more

Why was a Navy adviser stripped of her career?
By Jeff Stein – 21 August, 2012 – Washington Post

Gwenyth Todd had worked in a lot of places in Washington where powerful men didn’t hesitate to use sharp elbows. She had been a Middle East expert for the National Security Council in the Clinton administration. She had worked in the office of Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in the first Bush administration, where neoconservative hawks first began planning to overthrow Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

But she was not prepared a few years later in Bahrain when she encountered plans by high-ranking admirals to confront Iran, any one of which, she reckoned, could set the region on fire. It was 2007, and Todd, then 42, was a top political adviser to the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet.

Previous 5th Fleet commanders had resisted various ploys by Bush administration hawks to threaten the Tehran regime. But in spring 2007, a new commander arrived with an ambitious program to show the Iranians who was boss in the Persian Gulf.

Vice Adm. Kevin J. Cosgriff had amassed an impressive résumé, rising through the ranks to command a cruiser and a warship group after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Following a customary path to three stars, he had also spent as much time in Washington as he had at sea, including stints at the Defense Intelligence Agency and as director of the Clinton White House Situation Room.

Cosgriff — backed by a powerful friend and boss, U.S. Central Command (Centcom) chief Adm. William J. “Fox” Fallon — was itching to push the Iranians, Todd and other present and former Navy officials say.

“There was a feeling that the Navy was back on its heels in dealing with Iran,” according to a Navy official prohibited from commenting in the media. “There was an intention to be far more aggressive with the Iranians, and a diminished concern about keeping Washington in the loop.”

Two people who were there said Cosgriff mused in a staff meeting one day that he’d like to steam a Navy frigate up the Shatt al Arab, the diplomatically sensitive and economically crucial waterway dividing Iraq and Iran. In another, they said, he wanted to convene a regional conference to push back Iran’s territorial claims in the waterway, a flash point for the bloody Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

Then he presented an idea that not only alarmed Todd, but eventually, she believes, launched the chain of events that would end her career.

Cosgriff declined to discuss any of these meetings on the record. This story includes information from a half-dozen Navy and other government officials who demanded anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, many parts of which remain classified.

According to Todd and another witness, Cosgriff’s idea, presented in a series of staff meetings, was to sail three “big decks,” as aircraft carriers are known, through the Strait of Hormuz — to put a virtual armada, unannounced, on Iran’s doorstep. No advance notice, even to Saudi Arabia and other gulf allies. Not only that, they said, Cosgriff ordered his staff to keep the State Department in the dark, too.

To Todd, it was like something straight out of “Seven Days in May,” the 1964 political thriller about a right-wing U.S. military coup. A retired senior naval officer familiar with Cosgriff’s thinking said the deployment plan was not intended to be provocative.

But Todd, in an account backed by another Navy official, said the admiral “was very, very clear that we were to tell him if there was any sign that Washington was aware of it and asking questions.”

For the past year, the air had been electric with reports of impending U.S. or Israeli attacks on Iran. If this maneuver were carried out, Todd and others feared, the Iranians would freak out. At the least, they’d cancel a critical diplomatic meeting coming up with U.S. officials. Todd suspected that was Cosgriff’s aim. She and others also speculated that Cosgriff wouldn’t propose such a brazen plan without Fallon’s support.

Retired Adm. David C. Nichols, deputy Centcom commander in 2007, recalled in an interview last year that Fallon “wanted to do a freedom-of-navigation exercise in what Iran calls its territorial waters that we hadn’t done in a long time.” Nothing wrong with that, per se, but the problem was that “we don’t understand Iran’s perception of what we’re doing, and we haven’t understood what they’re doing and why,” Nichols said. “It makes miscalculations possible.”

Todd feared that the Iranians would respond, possibly by launching fast-attack missile boats into the gulf or unleashing Hezbollah on Israel. Then anything could happen: a collision, a jittery exchange of gunfire — bad enough on its own, but also an incident that Washington hawks could seize on to justify an all-out response on Iran.

Preposterous? It had happened before, off North Vietnam in 1964. In the Tonkin Gulf incident, a Navy captain claimed a communist attack on his ship. President Lyndon Johnson swiftly ordered the bombing of North Vietnam, touching off a wider war that turned the country upside down and left more than 58,000 U.S. servicemen dead.

Don’t tell anybody? No way.

Todd picked up the phone and called a friend in Foggy Bottom. She had to get this thing stopped. …more

Q&A: Government weighs in on Bahrain protests
By Nicole Dow – CNN – 24 August, 2012

(CNN) — For more than a year, Bahrain has been the site of anti-government protests. What does the government say about the demonstrations and rights groups’ accusations of a crackdown?

Spokesman Fahad AlBinali offers this take:

CNN: A Bahrain court sentenced activist Nabeel Rajab to three years in prison, a government spokesman said Thursday, and this week, the Court of Appeals acquitted him of defamation. Amnesty International has said the sentence questions the independence of the judiciary. How do you respond?

AlBinali: Nabeel Rajab had a number of cases against him. The one you mentioned, the defamation case, the Court of Appeals cleared Nabeel Rajab of that charge. However, he is in prison for other cases, for active incitements and indirect participation in illegal demonstrations and rallies, and through the use of petrol bombs and improvised weapons. There have also been numerous cases of assault against police officers. The minister of state for media affairs gave a press conference a few days ago detailing the decision in that case of inciting illegal rallies and marches in very busy areas and in the commercial district of the capital.

CNN: Najeeb Rajab is still in prison, correct?

AlBinali: Yes.

CNN: And there’s another sentence for which he’s in prison?
Bahrain: Jailed doctor, official speak

AlBinali: No. The minister of information — the minister of state media affairs — she pointed out that there were three specific incidents that took place earlier this year: the first on January 12, the second on February 14, and the third incident was on March 31. This is a form of behavior that has been engaged in regardless of numerous warnings and cautions regarding the illegal state of crowd incitement and detrimental effect it has on safety and public order.

As I said earlier, they have often led to violence through use petrol bombs, Molotov cocktails and also improvised weapons. Such violent activity and conduct has led to deaths in cases of those engaged in the violent activity as well as bystanders who happen to be in the area at the time or good Samaritans. There was a case of death of a person who tried to clear burning tires off the road. There are real consequences to such conduct and behavior. …more

A Look in the Press: Understanding Saudi Protests in Qatif
Mareike Transfeld – 24 August, 2012 – Muftah

Ever since protests in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province were re-ignited by the arrest of Shiite cleric and opposition leader, Sheikh Nimr Al-Nimr, in early July 2012, protesters have continued to voice their demands. Mainstream media and Western governments have, however, largely ignored the protests in the oil-rich region, a circumstance which is unlikely to change. Given the historic US-Saudi alliance, increased American reliance on Saudi oil, and the two states’ shared strategic interests in several regional countries rocked by the Arab Spring, including Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain, demands for political change in the oil-monarchy will likely continue to be ignored. While the protests remain limited and reported casualties from government violence are comparatively small, keeping an eye on the region is crucial.

Peter Fragiskatos, professor at the Western University in London, Canada, believes that although the protest movement is weak, it may be potentially devastating to both the Saudi ruling family and the world economy:

Calls for an end to Shiite discrimination, at least from the perspective of Saudi leaders, come off as disguised attempts to capture control over the Eastern Province, its oil and the system of domination it has made possible. This view persists despite the fact that the recent protests have not emphasized a desire for autonomy (although some Shiite activists have proposed reforms in the past, such as a constitution and legislative assembly for the Eastern Province, which hint at precisely this outcome).

Though the Shiite opposition is weak, it also has a potentially devastating trump card: access to vital oil pipeline networks that could easily be attacked if their plight remains unchanged. If and when that happens, there will be more at stake than a rise in oil price.

Chris Zambelis argues that “Saudi Arabia’s reaction to dissent among its Shi’a population provides insight into the way it interprets its evolving geopolitical position in a rapidly changing Middle East”:

Saudi Arabia also sees an Iranian hand behind Shi’a-led activism in the region. As evidenced by its decision to deploy security forces in neighboring Bahrain in March 2011 to crush an uprising led largely by a marginalized Shi’a majority that is agitating for greater freedoms under a Sunni-led, pro-Saudi monarchy, the Kingdom worries that its own Shi’a community will rise up in turn. Saudi Shi’a, many of whom maintain tribal and familial links with their Bahraini counterparts, organized protests in solidarity with Bahrainis while calling on Riyadh to remove its military from Bahrain (see Terrorism Monitor, June 15). In this regard, Saudi Arabia views the organized and sustained political opposition among its Shi’a community in the context of its regional rivalry with Iran. …more

US remains “deeply troubled” on Bahrain activist
24 August, 2012 – Bahrain Freedom Movement

The United States said Thursday that it remained troubled by a three-year sentence Bahrain handed to a leading rights activist, even though a court acquitted him on another charge.

State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland welcomed the decision of an appeals court in the US ally to acquit Nabeel Rajab, an activist from the Shiite Muslim majority, over alleged insults issued via Twitter.”However, we’re deeply troubled that the Bahraini court simultaneously sentenced Mr. Rajab to three years last week in prison on charges of leading illegal gatherings,” Nuland told reporters.

“We take this opportunity to urge the government of Bahrain to consider all available options to resolve this case and in general to take more steps to build confidence across Bahraini society and begin a meaningful dialogue with the political opposition, civil society and the government,” she said.

Rajab has led protests among Shiite Muslims who accuse the Sunni leaders of discrimination. Unlike the main Shiite opposition, the activist has insisted on protests in Manama even after the government crushed demonstrators in the capital’s Pearl Square last year.

The United States has faced criticism by human rights groups for supporting and selling arms to Bahrain – a major US military base which has longstanding tension with neighboring Iran – in contrast to its pressure on other Arab leaders to quit in the face of public protests. …more

BBC censors video showing dark side of Syrian rebels
Voltaire Network – 24 August, 2012

The BBC has sensationally censored a news story and a video showing Syrian rebels forcing a prisoner to become a suicide bomber, a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, presumably because it reflected badly on establishment media efforts to portray the FSA as glorious freedom fighters.

The video, a copy of which can be viewed below (the original BBC version was deleted), shows Free Syrian Army rebels preparing a bomb that is loaded onto the back of a truck to be detonated at a government checkpoint in the city of Aleppo.

The clip explains how the rebels have commandeered an apartment belonging to a Syrian police captain. The rebels are seen sneering at photos of the police captain’s family while they proclaim, “Look at their freedom, look how good it is,” while hypocritically enjoying the luxury of the man’s swimming pool.

The video then shows a prisoner who the rebels claim belonged to a pro-government militia. Bruises from torture on the prisoner’s body are explained away as having been metered out by the man’s previous captors. The BBC commentary emphasizes how well the rebels are treating the man, showing them handing him a cigarette.

However, the man has been tricked into thinking he is part of a prisoner exchange program when in reality he is being set up as an unwitting suicide bomber. The prisoner is blindfolded and told to drive the truck towards a government checkpoint.

“What he doesn’t know is that the truck is the one that’s been rigged with a 300 kilo bomb,” states the narrator.

The clip then shows rebels returning disappointed after it’s revealed that the remote detonator failed and the bomb did not explode. The BBC narrator admits that forcing prisoners to become suicide bombers “would certainly be considered a war crime.” …more

Shia killings condemned, protests planned across Europe
Shia Post – 24 August, 2012

LONDON: Europe’s biggest Shia Muslim organisation has announced to launch Europe-wide protest movement against the brazen target killings of Shias in Pakistani cities by extremists from the banned terrorist outfits.

At an emergency meeting held at Markaz-e-Ahle Bait in Tooting here, Majlis-e-Ulema Shia Europe announced that it would launch a series of protests in European countries and would approach the world human rights bodies including the United Nations to call for help to protect the lives of Shias in Pakistan who are under attack all over the country.

Their target killings have increased dramatically in recent weeks and militants now act with impunity as the state agencies seem helpless to counter the killers who wear either the police or military uniforms, said Maulana Jafar Ali Najam.

He announced that a meeting of Shia leaders from Europe will be convened before start of the movement in capitals of European cities to highlight the “plight of Shias in Pakistan who are cut like vegetables by sectarian hate-mongers”.

Maulana Azmat Abbas Zubairi alleged that sectarian killers have the support from within the security agencies of Pakistan and there were powerful people in the agencies who do not want the law to go near them.

“These are the myopic people who are still obsessed with the wrong type of foreign policy agenda. They have not changed with times and they still believe their view will dominate and that will happen with the help of terrorists.

Their thinking is fallacious,” he said, appealing to human rights and peace organisations to take notice of the killings of Shias.

He said that western countries were shedding tears over human rights violations in oil-rich countries but neglected Shia persecution in most Islamic countries by their fellows in faith and some international forces.

Maulana Syed Kalbe Abbas from the World Federation, an NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council (Ecosoc) of the United Nations, said Shias make up the second largest Muslim sect after the Sunnis and they have lived in harmony historically but some people wanted them to fight each other in the name of religion and sects.

“Those killing Shias are doing it in army uniform but there is no one to check them. The state has failed and the outlaws have taken it upon themselves to kill every Shia. This is a conspiracy against Pakistan,” he said.

Abbas said Pakistani media was being complacent and was not doing enough to expose the killers of Pakistanis despite knowing well who the killers were and who their mastermind is. …source

UN Experts Urge Bahrain To End Persecution Of Human Rights Defender
24 August, 20120 – RTT

(RTTNews) – A group of U.N. human rights experts have called on the Bahraini authorities to comply with the rights to peaceful assembly and expression and immediately release those arbitrarily detained for exercising their legitimate freedoms.”

They also called for the immediate release of prominent human rights defender Nabeel Rajab, who was recently sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The call comes amid serious concerns about the ongoing persecution of human rights defenders in the oil-rich Gulf Kingdom.

Rajab was convicted on three charges of illegal assembly related to his participation in peaceful gatherings in favor of fundamental freedoms and democracy, including a peaceful protest to denounce the detention of fellow human rights defender Abdulhadi Al Khawaja.

“The sentencing of Rajab represents yet another blatant attempt by the Government of Bahrain to silence those legitimately working to promote basic human rights,” said the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders, Margaret Sekaggya. She called on the Bahraini government to immediately cease its campaign of persecution of human rights defenders in the country.

The Special Rapporteur on freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, stressed that “the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly should not be subject to prior authorization from the authorities.” For the rights expert, “the criminalization of people participating in peaceful assemblies for the sole reason that they did not seek the approval of the authorities to hold such assemblies contradicts international human rights law.”

Rajab is also currently serving three months imprisonment for alleged libel through a social networking site.

“The continuing repression of free speech in Bahrain runs counter to international law and standards that individuals will not be prosecuted for peaceful political speech”, said the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue. …source

Behind Morsi’s Momentous Decision
by ESAM AL-ALMIN – Counter Punch

Ever since early April when he became an official candidate in the first post-revolution presidential election, Dr. Mohammad Morsi has been generally dismissed by most political observers as a weak and unimpressive politician. In fact, he was an accidental contender since he was the stand-in candidate for the Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) first choice, senior leader KEgypt Muslim Brothairat Al-Shater. The MB fielded Morsi as its back-up candidate on the last day of filing because it predicted correctly that its original candidate would be disqualified by the pro-SCAF Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC).

As Egypt’s Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) took the reigns of power in February 2011, many observers believed that a tacit understanding existed between the powerful Egyptian military and the MB, the most organized political and social group in Egypt. For the next eighteen months, this complicated and largely behind the scenes contentious relationship between these two powerful entities had its ups and downs.

When SCAF sided with millions of Egyptians in ousting Hosni Mubarak in early Feb. 2011, it was not to advance the objectives of the revolution but rather to sacrifice the president in order to save his regime. Throughout 2011, there were three centers of powers in the country: SCAF with its apparent military power, the MB with its enormous capacity for organization and mass mobilization, and the other revolutionary and grassroots groups (dominated by the youth but politically unorganized and inexperienced) taking to the streets throughout the year while paying a terrible price with dozens martyred, hundreds wounded, and thousands detained in military show trials.

When SCAF cracked down on the revolutionary groups, especially during the fall of 2011, the MB refrained from challenging the military as it was in the midst of its campaign for the parliamentary elections. By January 2012, it was clear that the Islamist groups led by the MB had won almost seventy five percent of the seats in both parliamentary chambers. As the MB flexed its muscle and asked to be allowed to form the next government, SCAF refused and threatened the group with the dissolution of parliament. Shortly after, the MB reversed its public promise not to field a contender and actually filed for two presidential candidates.

Within days the military revealed its preferred candidate, Gen. Ahmad Shafiq, the last prime minister of the Mubarak regime. Consequently the tension of the two groups came to the fore as SCAF and the Egyptian deep state (where the remnants of the Mubarak regime still occupied strategic positions and were in control of the state bureaucracy) did everything in their power during the first round of the presidential elections in late May to split the opposition and support their candidate in order to get him to the second round.

Despite their apprehension over the MB’s past broken promises, the revolutionary groups largely coalesced behind Morsi, the other winner of the first round, in the runoff elections, which he barely won with just over 51 percent of the vote. When it became clear on the last day of the runoff elections on June 17 that its candidate might lose, SCAF carried out a sweeping power grab as it dissolved the MB-dominated parliament, reclaimed all legislative powers to itself, issued a constitutional declaration that largely diminished the office of president, and assigned itself the right to appoint the constitution-writing committee if the current one was invalidated as expected by the SCC. In short, by the time Morsi took the oath of office on June 30, SCAF -which essentially ruled the country for the past 16 months- was effectively in control of the most important levers of power relegating the elected president to the position of a figurehead with diminished authority. …more

British Policy Towards The Arab Spring Has Been Entirely Consistent
24 August, 2012 – by Dan Glazebrook – JUST

Over the past year, the British government have bombed rebels into power in Libya – and are desperately hoping to do the same in Syria –whilst simultaneously aiding and abetting the crushing of rebel forces in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Some commentators have called this hypocritical. In fact, there is no contradiction: the British government is engaged in a vicious, region-wide attack on all independent, anti-colonial forces in the region, be they states or opposition movements. Client regimes – in many cases monarchies originally imposed by the British Empire – have been propped up, and states outside the orbit of Western control have been targeted for destruction. The policy, in other words, has been entirely consistent: a drive towards the total capitulation of the Arab world; and more specifically the destruction of any potential organised resistance to an attack on Iran. What is more, it has been planned for a long time.

The Arab spring did not come out of the blue; it was both predictable and predicted. All demographic, economic and political trends pointed in the direction of a period of instability and civil unrest across the region, and especially in Egypt. The combination of growing and youthful populations, rising unemployment, corruption and unrepresentative government made some kind of mass manifestation of frustration a virtual certainty – as was recognised by a far-reaching speech by MI6-turned-BP operative Mark Allen in February 2009. In August 2010, Barack Obama issued Presidential Study Directive Number 11, which noted “evidence of growing citizen discontent with the region’s regimes” and warned that “the region is entering a critical period of transition.” Four months later, Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in Tunisia, sparking off the unrest that led to the downfall of President Ben-Ali.

For the world’s imperial powers, wracked by their own economic crises – Britain, France and the US – it was clear that this unrest would present both a danger and an opportunity. Whilst it threatened to disrupt the Gulf monarchies imposed by Britain during the colonial period (Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait et al), it could also create the ideal cover for the launching of long-planned proxy wars against old enemies. …more

Bahrain, UK pledge closer ties
By Habib Toumi – 24 August, 2012 – Gulf News

Manama: Bahrain and Britain have agreed to boost cooperation to safeguard stability and security in the region, Bahrain’s foreign minister has said.

King Hamad Bin Eisa Al Khalifa on Thursday met British Prime Minister David Cameron in London for official talks.

“The visit by HM King Hamad is highly significant and is happening at a time when closer ties between Bahrain and London are required,” Shaikh Khalid Bin Ahmad Al Khalifa said.”

The talks between King Hamad and Cameron covered bilateral relations and ways to safeguard stability and security in the region. The two leaders also discussed ways to safeguard peace in the Middle East as well as the latest developments in Syria. “There is common concern about the bloodshed [in Syria] and its repercussions for security in the region,” Shaikh Khalid said in a statement carried by the Bahrain News Agency. …source

New Project to Track Govt Spin Campaign Shows Over $32M Spent on PR

BAHRAIN GOVT HIRES 18 WESTERN COMPANIES TO IMPROVE IMAGE AFTER UNREST
August 23, 2012 – Bahrain Watch

[Manama] The Government of Bahrain has spent or allocated at least US$ 32.5 million for the services of eighteen different London and Washington DC based companies, to improve its image in the Western media, since the start of pro-democracy protests last February. This according to a new project called PR Watch <http://bahrainwatch.org/PR> launched on Thursday by research and activist group Bahrain Watch. The ongoing goal of PR Watch is to monitor and document the activities of each public relations company working for Bahrain’s government.

When Arab Spring-inspired protesters took to Bahrain’s streets in February 2011, security forces responded with a bloody crackdown, killing two protesters in the first two days and over 60 to date in the ongoing unrest. Although coverage in the Western media was relatively limited, it shone a spotlight on the Government’s darker side: torture and police abuse, sectarian discrimination, and the concentration of political power in the ruling family and its allies. Its carefully-cultivated facade of tolerance and progressivism under threat, the government turned to an array of Western public relations (PR) and PR-related firms.

Using information primarily from media reports and official government documents, PR Watch uncovers how these companies have sought to transform the narrative about Bahrain in the Western media. The information is organized and presented on a website: . While PR Watch has identified eighteen different Western PR-related companies receiving payments or contracts worth at least $32.5 million since February 2011, these figures are based only on publicly-available information. Actual spending by the Bahraini government on PR is likely to be considerably higher.

Among the eighteen firms hired are some of the biggest names in Western PR, such as London-based Bell Pottinger, and Washington DC-based Qorvis Communications. Both have been previously criticised for PR contracts with other repressive governments.

In general, the activities undertaken by PR companies on behalf of the Bahraini government include:

While this is part and parcel of the regular PR trade, some companies, such as DC-based Policy Impact Communications, play a more dubious role. To skirt rules barring lobbyists from paying for US Congressional travel, Policy Impact established a non-profit front organization that funded a visit to Bahrain by Representative Dan Burton. The same group also organized a trip to Bahrain for Representative Eni Faleomavaega. Both Congressmen made statements in support of the government while in Bahrain, and upon their return to the US.

In general, activities by PR companies seek to promote the following myths about Bahrain’s political situation:

The country is not ruled by an autocrat, but by an enlightened monarchy shepherding its subjects towards democracy;

The opposition protesters are wolves in sheep’s clothing who may be calling for democracy, but are actually backed by Iran and want to impose a Shia theocracy;

Any violence carried out by security forces against protesters is always only in reaction to violence carried out by protesters, labelled as “terrorists” or “vandals”;

Torture and police abuse is not systematic, but is the result of just a few bad apples rather than the orders of any senior officials;

The government has made amends for any mistakes it made last year.

The findings of the PR Watch project directly contradict a statement made by Bahrain’s Minister of State for Information in July 2012, in which she characterized claims that the government has hired Western public relations companies as “one of the fabrications among the fabrications of the Opposition to tarnish the image of Bahrain.”

“That the Bahraini government is pouring so much money into Western PR firms suggests it cares more of its international image, than it does ending the ongoing human rights violations against its own citizens,” said Bahrain Watch member Marc Owen Jones. “PR companies protecting the image of the Bahraini government simply offer excuses to those who should be pressuring the Kingdom for reform, accountability and social justice.” …source

U.S government turns a blind eye to human rights violations in Bahrain: Nabeel Rajab jailed for three years over ’illegal gatherings’, but U.S reaction is delayed and weak
21 August, 2012 – International Federation for Human Rights

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) welcomes the U.S. State Department’s long overdue public statement last week in response to the Bahraini government’s sentencing of Nabeel Rajab, a prominent human rights defender, to three years in prison. However, the State Department’s call for “the verdict and sentence [to] be reconsidered in the appeals process” is a woefully insufficient response considering Nabeel’s predicament and the ongoing repression and human rights violations committed by the government of Bahrain.

Nabeel Rajab, one of several human rights defenders currently imprisoned and threatened in Bahrain, was condemned to 3 years in prison last Thursday for organizing and participating in peaceful marches. He is also scheduled appear in court this Thursday, August 23rd, to appeal another sentence of 3 months in prison for simply having Tweeted his criticism of his government. These charges not only violate Nabeel’s basic rights to freedom of expression and assembly, but Nabeel’s family and colleagues were denied access to his trial on August 16th, calling into question the fairness and transparency of the legal proceedings.

As a member of the Human Rights Council, which in July of this year passed a resolution reaffirming the right to freedom of expression “through any media of one’s choice” (A/HRC/RES/20/8), the United States has an even greater responsibility to uphold international human rights standards including the freedom of expression. Moreover, given that the United States is one of Bahrain’s closest military allies (approving continued arms sales to the Kingdom of Bahrain in May 2012 despite clear evidence of Bahraini security forces using excessive force against civilians), it is in a unique position to pressure Bahraini authorities to respect their citizens’ fundamental freedoms. Rather than doing so, the U.S. government has until today stayed silent on Nabeel Rajab’s ongoing harassment, and is still failing to publicly and clearly condemn what is without any doubt a violation of international human rights law.

FIDH calls on the U.S. government to publicly denounce the continued persecution of human rights defenders in Bahrain, and to insist on the immediate and unconditional release of Nabeel Rajab and all other prisoners of conscience. …source

Deafening Toll Of Nabeel Rajab’s Injustice
21 August, 2012 – The Trench

Three weeks ago Michael Posner, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, paid a visit to the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission with a deceptive blueprint under his arm. In addition to his normal duties, Posner has served as Bahrain’s de facto ambassador throughout the island’s 18-month democratic uprising. The Secretary would employ a number of arguments to shield King Hamad Bin isa Al-Khalifa’s monarchy from Congressional scrutiny, weaving criticisms of the government’s repression between an overarching defense of its actions. His general conclusion: Bahrain may share some similarities with Syria, Libya or Tunisia, but each country’s “unique history” must “shape U.S. policy accordingly.”

As if local history is the only force dictating U.S. policy on and around the island.

King Hamad has certainly played some parts of his counterrevolutionary hand with skill. While his modest security forces are not equipped to cause the same destruction as Muammar Gaddafi or Bashar al-Assad’s armies, Hamad and his royal circle could employ a variety of lethal tactics to break the opposition’s will to resist. Instead they have chosen pellet guns [shotguns] and U.S.-made tear gas canisters over automatic weapons as their primary instruments. Beatings, night arrests and other non-lethal tactics also keep the island’s casualties, international pressure and media exposure to a minimum. Applying lessons from Western crowd control tactics – including the so-called Free Speech Zones abused by the Bush administration – Hamad’s government even contracted Western police figures John Timoney and John Yates to add to his performance’s realism.

Yet the King’s circle is prone to lapses in strategic thinking, particularly the entry of Saudi Arabian forces (along with Jordanians and Pakistanis) and the destruction of Pearl Monument. The monarchy believes in firmly prosecuting opposition activists to make examples of them, a tactic that simply contributes to their political influence and the country’s instability. Conversely, King Hamad’s government has thrown away every opportunity to establish a genuine dialogue with the opposition’s diverse network, holding all dissident parties responsible for the island’s political breakdown. State media’s interpretation of Posner’s speech illustrated the reckless mindset of both governments: “Bahrain is more stable than a year ago.”

Posner would claim that Bahrain’s violence has “reduced significantly” in recent months, but nothing could be further from the truth. That Bahrain’s violence sits at the opposite end of Syria’s spectrum is true, except relativity doesn’t negate the repressive environment that its opposition labors under. 2012’s casualties and injuries have maintained a similar pace as 2011, pushing the death count closer to 100, and police abuse remains a frequent occurrence. The island is only becoming more divided over time. Nabeel Rajab, Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, his daughter Zainab and other peaceful figures of the opposition remain incarcerated for political reasons, antagonizing Bahrain’s democratic movement and foreign supporters. Meanwhile a U.S.-backed dialogue with Al Wefaq and its allies drifts lifeless down a river of mistrust, and this collective marginalization is venting into the streets.

Now the harsh sentencing of Rajab threatens to top all of the King’s blunders and add more drag on U.S. policy.

Rajab and his family counted themselves among the few who weren’t surprised by last Thursday’s verdict, because even hardened observers of Bahrain’s uprising shook their heads in disbelief. Ego and fear offer a plausible explanation for the monarchy’s counterproductive behavior. Leaving aside the injustice of his three-year sentence, one each for three different charges of instigating protests and violence, imprisoning Rajab will not accomplish the government’s objective of restoring order. Hero-making makes for flawed counterrevolution and is thus perplexing at the strategic level: three years in prison equates to at least three more years of protests. Jail walls won’t stop his Twitter account or his followers from marching in his place.

Furthermore, Rajab’s harsh treatment at Jaww prison suggests that his appeal process is as fake as King Hamad’s commitment to democracy. …more

The New York Police Department infiltrated Muslim student groups, put informants in mosques, monitored sermons and catalogued every Muslim in New York who adopted new, Americanized surnames.

Spying on Muslims led to no leads or terror cases: NYPD
21 August, 2012 – Al Arabiya News – By ADAM GOLDMAN and MATT APUZZO – Associated Press

In more than six years of spying on Muslim neighborhoods, eavesdropping on conversations and cataloguing mosques, the New York Police Department’s secret Demographics Unit never generated a lead or triggered a terrorism investigation, the department acknowledged in court testimony unsealed late Monday.

The Demographics Unit is at the heart of a police spying program, built with help from the CIA, which assembled databases on where Muslims lived, shopped, worked and prayed. Police infiltrated Muslim student groups, put informants in mosques, monitored sermons and catalogued every Muslim in New York who adopted new, Americanized surnames.

Police hoped the Demographics Unit would serve as an early warning system for terrorism. And if police ever got a tip about, say, an Afghan terrorist in the city, they’d know where he was likely to rent a room, buy groceries and watch sports.

But in a June 28 deposition as part of a longstanding federal civil rights case, Assistant Chief Thomas Galati said none of the conversations the officers overheard ever led to a case.

“Related to Demographics,” Galati testified that information that has come in “has not commenced an investigation.”

The NYPD is the largest police department in the nation and Mayor Michael Bloomberg has held up its counterterrorism tactics as a model for the rest of the country. After The Associated Press began reporting on those tactics last year, supporters argued that the Demographics Unit was central to keeping the city safe. Galati testified that it was an important tool, but conceded it had not generated any leads.

“I never made a lead from rhetoric that came from a Demographics report, and I’m here since 2006,” he said. “I don’t recall other ones prior to my arrival. Again, that’s always a possibility. I am not aware of any.”

Galati, the commanding officer of the NYPD Intelligence Division, offered the first official look at the Demographics Unit, which the NYPD denied ever existed when it was revealed by the AP last year. He described how police gather information on people even when there is no evidence of wrongdoing, simply because of their ethnicity and native language. …more