Posts from — February 2012

Another Bahraini killed by toxic tear gas
6 February, 2012 – By shiapost

Another Bahraini civilian has died of asphyxia after Saudi-backed regime forces fired toxic tear gas into a house, activist reported.

Ali Abdullah died on Monday several days after regime forces attacked his house using tear gas.

Bahraini troops heavily rely on tear gas and stun grenades in dispersing peaceful anti-government protesters. Several Bahraini civilians, mostly senior citizens and kids, who had not participated in protest rallies have also died from asphyxia after regime troops fired tear gas in residential areas and into homes in violation of international standards that Bahrain is a signatory to.

Amnesty International has warned about the Bahraini government’s misuse of tear gas against anti-regime protesters and has called for an investigation into the tear gas-related deaths.

Meanwhile, thousands of anti-government protesters have started a week-long rally in the northern village of Muqsha, west of the capital, Manama, pressing for their demands and condemning the suppression of protests.

They also called for the immediate release of political prisoners.

Bahraini opposition groups, which organized the demonstrations, said the protest would continue until February 14, the first anniversary of the popular uprising in Bahrain.

Anti-government protesters have also vowed to march toward the site of Pearl Square, the epicenter of the country’s uprising which was razed down last year as part of Manama’s crackdown on protests. It is now called Martyr’s Square.

“This is a dress rehearsal for the return. We will return! We will return! Soon our sit-in will not be here but at the Pearl Square,” said poetess Ayat al-Qormozi, who was jailed for reading out a poem criticizing the king at Pearl Square. …source

Bahrain: a Crackdown on Demonstrators in the First Anniversary of the Feb. 14 Protests
30 January, 2012 – Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights

Bahraini authorities have launched a security crackdown in the first anniversary of the protests on February 14, Security forces and the forces in civilian clothes raided the houses and arrested demonstrators brutally.

Witnesses told Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights (BYSHR) that Security forces raided the houses in Bani Jamra, Sanabis, Daih, Nuwaidrat and other areas in recent days.

The BYSHR believes that the arrests are proactive security crackdown before 14 February, after called for opposition groups to return to the Pearl roundabout (the location of the protests, which was demolished by authorities).

According to the information, the authorities arrested in recent weeks, more than 70 demonstrators during the protests.

The Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights (BYSHR) expresses its deep concern regarding the arrests and demanded the authorities to protect freedom of assembly and opinion.
…more

Our findings show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns. There are two reasons for this success. First, a campaign’s commitment to nonviolent methods enhances its domestic and international legitimacy and encourages more broad-based participation in the resistance, which translates into increased pressure being brought to bear on the target. Recognition of the challenge group’s grievances can translate into greater internal and external support for that group and alienation of the target regime, undermining the regime’s main sources of political, economic, and even military power.

Why Civil Resistance Works
by Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth
The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Confict

Implicit in recent scholarly debates about the efficacy of methods of warfare is the assumption that the most effective means of waging political struggle entails violence. Among political scientists, the prevailing view is that opposition movements select violent methods because such means are more effective than nonviolent strategies at achieving policy goals.2 Despite these assumptions, from 2000 to 2006 organized civilian populations successfully employed nonviolent methods including boycotts, strikes, protests, and organized noncooperation to challenge entrenched power and exact political concessions in Serbia (2000), Madagascar (2002), Georgia (2003) and Ukraine (2004–05), Lebanon (2005), and Nepal (2006). The success of these nonviolent campaigns—especially in light of the enduring violent insurgencies occurring in some of the same countries—begs systematic investigation.

Extant literature provides explanations as to why nonviolent campaigns are effective means of resistance. Little of the literature, however, comprehensively analyzes all known observations of nonviolent and violent insurgencies as analogous resistance types.5 This study aims to all this gap by systematically exploring the strategic effectiveness of violent and nonviolent campaigns in conflicts between non-state and state actors using aggregate data on major nonviolent and violent resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006. To better understand the causal mechanisms driving these outcomes, we also compare our statistical findings with historical cases that have featured periods of both violent
and nonviolent resistance.

Our findings show that major nonviolent campaigns have achieved success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance campaigns. There are two reasons for this success. First, a campaign’s commitment to nonviolent methods enhances its domestic and international legitimacy and encourages more broad-based participation in the resistance, which translates into increased pressure being brought to bear on the target. Recognition of the challenge group’s grievances can translate into greater internal and
external support for that group and alienation of the target regime, undermining the regime’s main sources of political, economic, and even military power.

Second, whereas governments easily justify violent counterattacks against armed insurgents, regime violence against nonviolent movements is more likely to backfire against the regime. Potentially sympathetic public’s perceive violent militants as having maximalist or extremist goals beyond accommodation, but they perceive nonviolent resistance groups as less extreme, thereby enhancing their appeal and facilitating the extraction of concessions through bargaining. Our findings challenge the conventional wisdom that violent resistance against conventionally superior adversaries is the most effective way for resistance groups to achieve policy goals. Instead, we assert that nonviolent resistance is a forceful alternative to political violence that can pose effective challenges to democratic and nondemocratic opponents, and at times can do so more effectively than violent resistance.

The article proceeds as follows. The first section presents our main argument. The second section introduces the data set and reports our preliminary empirical findings. In the third section, we evaluate three case studies of nonviolent and violent campaigns in Southeast Asia.We conclude with some theoretical and policy recommendations derived from these findings.
…full report PDF HERE …slides HERE

Declaration of Independence

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The next section, the famous preamble, includes the ideas and ideals that were principles of the Declaration. It is also an assertion of what is known as the “right of revolution”: that is, people have certain rights, and when a government violates these rights, the people have the right to “alter or abolish” that government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

…full document PDF HERE

From Washington this looks like Syria’s ‘Benghazi moment’. But not from here
Robert Fisk – 07 February 2012 – The Independent

President Bashar al-Assad is not about to go. Not yet. Not, maybe, for quite a long time. Newspapers in the Middle East are filled with stories about whether or not this is Assad’s “Benghazi moment” – these reports are almost invariably written from Washington or London or Paris – but few in the region understand how we Westerners can get it so wrong. The old saw has to be repeated and repeated: Egypt was not Tunisia; Bahrain was not Egypt; Yemen was not Bahrain; Libya was not Yemen. And Syria is very definitely not Libya.

It’s not difficult to see how the opposite plays in the West. The barrage of horrifying Facebook images from Homs, and statements from the “Free Syrian Army”, and the huffing of La Clinton and the amazement that Russia can be so blind to the suffering of Syrians – as if America was anything but blind to the suffering of Palestinians when, say, more than 1,300 were killed in Israel’s onslaught on Gaza – doesn’t gel with reality on the ground. Why should the Russians care about Homs? Did they care about the dead of Chechnya?

Look at it the other way round. Yes, we all know that Syria’s intelligence service has committed human rights abuses. They did that in Lebanon. Yes, we all know this is a regime in Damascus, not an elected government. Yes, we all know about corruption. Yes, we watched the UN’s humiliation at the weekend – although why La Clinton should expect the Russians to click their heels after the “no-fly zone” in Libya turned into “regime change” is a bit of a mystery.

The destruction of the Alawite-led government in Syria – which means in effect, a Shia regime – will be a sword in the soul of Shia Iran. And look at the Middle East now from the windows of the massive presidential palace that overlooks the old city of Damascus. True, the Gulf has turned against Syria. True, Turkey has turned against Syria (while generously offering Bashar exile in the old Ottoman empire).

But look east, and what does Bashar see? Loyal Iran standing with him. Loyal Iraq – Iran’s new best friend in the Arab world – refusing to impose sanctions. And to the west, loyal little Lebanon refusing to impose sanctions. Thus from the border of Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, Assad has a straight line of alliances which should prevent, at least, his economic collapse. …more

Civilian Body Counts During Recent Conflicts

Afghanistan 9,415 – 29,007

Syria 3,673 to 7,276

Congressmen Confront Bahrain Over Recent NGO Visa Restrictions
Joshua Hersh – Huffington Post – 02 February, 2012

WASHINGTON — With the first anniversary of the popular uprising, and subsequent suppression, in Bahrain fast approaching, a number of human rights organizations are asking a dreaded question: What happens if there’s another crackdown, and not enough international organizations are there to witness it?

This unlikely circumstance has started to seem like a serious possibility in recent weeks, as the government of Bahrain — amid its own internal investigation and repeated promises of reforms and accountability — has stepped up its denial of visas to human rights oriented non-governmental organizations.

On Thursday, the brewing controversy received a boost in attention as a bipartisan collection of congressmen signed on to a letter to Sheikh Hamad Bin Isa Al-Khalifa, the ruler of Bahrain, asking him to “reconsider the recent travel bans” on the NGOs:

As we approach the one-year anniversary of mass protests in Bahrain on February 14th, reversing these bans would support your pledge to engage international organizations and individuals “in order to ensure that there is no return to unacceptable practices once the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry has left Bahrain.”

The letter, an advance copy of which was obtained by The Huffington Post, is set to be delivered to Sheikh Hamad later Thursday.

The letter is being circulated by the office of Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), and is also signed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Donald Payne (D-N.J.), Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), Mike Honda (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), John Conyers (D-Mich.) Jim Moran (D-Va.), Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and John Carter (R-Texas).

“In Bahrain, representatives from organizations such as Freedom House and Human Rights First have been denied access or told to delay their visit to Bahrain,” McDermott told HuffPost. “Many of these organizations have been instrumental in advancing the rule of law and human rights in Bahrain. As we approach the one-year anniversary of the protests in Bahrain, it is critical now more than ever that the Bahraini government let these NGOs into the country.”

The increased congressional attention to the matter comes as Egypt faces growing condemnation from the international community over its treatment of American and European pro-democracy NGOs. In late December, heavily armed security officials stormed the Cairo offices of several NGOs under the pretense of investigating whether the groups were properly registered. …more

Can Egypt Avoid Pakistan’s Fate?
By MICHELE DUNNE and SHUJA NAWAZ – 3 February, 2012 – NYT

ONE year after the revolution that ousted President Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian military is closing down civil society organizations and trying to manipulate the constitution-writing process to serve its narrow interests. Meanwhile, in Pakistan, where the military has also held sway for more than half the country’s existence — for much of that time, with America’s blessing — a new civil-military crisis is brewing.

For the United States, the parallels are clear and painful. Egypt and Pakistan are populous Muslim-majority nations in conflict-ridden regions, and both have long been allies and recipients of extensive military and economic aid.

Historically, American aid tapers off in Pakistan whenever civilians come to power. And in Egypt, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama both resisted pressure from Congress to cut aid to Mr. Mubarak despite his repression of peaceful dissidents.

It is no wonder that both Egyptians and Pakistanis express more anger than appreciation toward the United States. They have seen Washington turn a blind eye to human-rights abuses and antidemocratic practices because of a desire to pursue regional objectives — Israeli security in the case of Egypt, and fighting Al Qaeda in the case of Pakistan.

The question now is whether the United States will, a year after the Egyptian revolution, stand by and allow the Pakistani model of military dominance and a hobbled civilian government to be replicated on the Nile.

Pakistan and Egypt each have powerful intelligence and internal security agencies that have acquired extra-legal powers they will not relinquish easily. Pakistan’s history of fomenting insurgencies in neighboring countries has caused serious problems for the United States. And Egypt’s internal security forces have been accused of involvement in domestic terrorist attacks and sectarian violence. (However, Washington has long seen Egypt’s military as a stabilizing force that keeps the peace with Israel.)

The danger is that in the future, without accountability to elected civilian authorities, the Egyptian military and security services will seek to increase their power by manipulating Islamic extremist organizations in volatile and strategically sensitive areas like the Sinai Peninsula.

Despite the security forces’ constant meddling in politics, Pakistan at least has a Constitution that establishes civilian supremacy over the military. Alarmingly, Egypt’s army is seeking even greater influence than what Pakistan’s top brass now enjoys: an explicit political role, and freedom from civilian oversight enshrined in law. …more

Bahrain protesters rally ahead of anniversary
05 February 2012 – MWC News

Thousands of Bahrainis have begun a week-long rally in a Shia village, 10 days ahead of the first anniversary of the start of pro-democracy protest which was brutally crushed, activists have said.

“The large number of people who participated yesterday [Saturday] wanted to deliver a message to the government that people are determined to keep up the demands that they made on February 14 last year,” Matar Matar, a leading Shia opposition activist, told the AFP news agency on Sunday.

“They will use any venue available,” he added.

Mostly-Shia protesters occupied Manama’s Pearl Square for about a month last year until they were driven out in a heavy-handed mid-March crackdown.

The “steadfast” rally began in the afternoon in al-Muqsha village, about 7km west of Manama, the capital, and continued until 11:00 pm (2000 GMT).

It will reconvene at the same time on Sunday, according to Matar, a former MP.

Sheikh Ali Salman, a Shia cleric and leader of al-Wefaq, the main Shia opposition grouping, urged demonstrators to rename the rally spot in the village as “Freedom Square,” insisting that people have decided that “there will be no return to pre-February 14”.

“It is impossible that Bahrain remains without equality between its people,” he said, according to the al-Wefaq Facebook page.

Although al-Wefaq said that the protest would last a week, the interior ministry announced on Friday that the demonstration had been authorised for two days only.

Matar said that his party informed the interior ministry that it intends to hold a seven-day rally, after it did not get authorisation to organise an open-ended demonstration.

During the month-long protest last year, the Shia-led opposition demanded significant constitutional changes that would reduce the power of the Sunni al-Khalifa ruling dynasty, including through having an elected prime minister.

Tensions have remained high in Bahrain since the initial deadly crackdown, and sporadic violence has risen in recent weeks as the first anniversary approaches of the launch of the protests. …source

The Egypt Revolutionaries’ Alliance – which brings under its umbrella over 50 political groups including the country’s six most prominent revolutionary movements – listed seven demands to be met in order for its anticipated campaign of civil disobedience to end.

A host of political groups, university students and workers in various fields have been increasingly calling for a campaign of civil disobedience to begin on 11 February, the one-year anniversary of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak’s ouster.

The group’s chief demand is the immediate handover of power from the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) to a civilian administration in the People’s Assembly (the lower house of Egypt’s parliament). The six additional demands are:

1. The immediate dismantlement of the incumbent interim government, led by SCAF-appointed premier Kamal El-Ganzouri, and the appointment of a bona fide government of national salvation members of which shall be selected by the People’s Assembly.
2. The immediate holding of presidential elections.
3. The formation of an investigative committee mandated with the judicial and executive authority to investigate all crimes and massacres committed by the ruling authorities since 25 January 2011.
4. The establishment of “revolutionary tribunals” to try all former regime figures found guilty of involvement in crimes committed after the January uprising.
5. The immediate dismissal of Egypt’s prosecutor general.
6. The purge and overhaul of Egypt’s Ministry of Interior, especially the National Security apparatus, which continues to be seen largely as a continuation of the notorious, now-defunct State Security apparatus.

Moscow slams Western “hysteria” over its Syria stance
06 February, 2012 – By Nastassia Astrasheuskaya, Alissa de Carbonnel – Reuters

MOSCOW: Western anger at Moscow’s decision to block a U.N. resolution on Syria had approached hysteria, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Monday, a day after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called it a travesty.

Lavrov plans to travel to Damascus along with Russia’s foreign intelligence chief on Tuesday for talks with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who faces pressure from the West, Arab states and opponents at home to step down.

Defending Moscow’s decision to veto a Western-Arab draft in the Security Council that had urged Assad to give up power, Lavrov said Russia had asked for the vote to be delayed until after his visit. He had announced plans for the Syria trip just hours before the vote on Saturday.

“It is sad that the co-authors decided to hastily put the resolution to a vote, even though we appealed to them with a request to give it a few more days, including to make it possible to discuss the situation after (the trip),” he said.

The veto, in which Russia was joined by China, sparked expressions of outrage in the United States and Europe as well as among protesters and opponents of Assad in Syria, who say Syrian forces killed more than 200 people in Homs on Friday and continued bombarding the opposition stronghold since.

“Some of the voices heard in the West with evaluations of the results of the vote in the U.N. Security Council on the Syria resolution sound, I would say, improper, somewhere on the verge of hysteria,” Lavrov said.

“This brings to mind the saying, ‘He who gets angry is rarely in the right’,” he said at a news conference following talks with Bahrain’s foreign minister.

Lavrov said Western nations’ refusal to postpone the vote “means it was more important to them to put the blame on somebody for what is happening … than to reach a consensus in the Security Council, which was completely realistic.”
…more

POMED Notes: The Syrian Crisis: Internal Dynamics and International Policy
6 February, 2012 – Project on Middle East Deveopment

On Monday, The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) hosted a discussion concerning the Syrian Crisis in light of the recent failure of the draft resolution by U.N. Security Council (UNSC). The panel featured Senior Fellow for Regional Security at IISS Emile Hokayem, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy Dana Allen, and Senior Fellow for Land Warfare Brigadier Ben Barry. The discussion was chaired by Adam Ward, Director of Studies at IISS.

Emile Hokayem began the discussion stressing that the importance of diplomacy had decreased in the minds of the Syrian people due to the failure of the UNSC. Hokayem said that the West, Gulf States, and Turkey “did not have a back up plan” for the Russia/China veto; the watered-down version of the UNSC resolution supported by Turkish/Arab constituencies was expected to be enough for a Russian acceptance. Hokayem foresaw the creation of an international body, which he referred to as the “Friends of Syria Group”, as a way to preserve the Arab League initiative without limiting the initiative to solely Arab support.

In the short-term, Hokayem predicted that the Syrian regime under President Bashar al-Assad, given the new window of opportunity created by the failure of the draft resolution, would intensify the crackdown to fragment the opposition further and solidify its position within the country. He said that as the civil war intensifies, the threat of spillover becomes imminent. Also, the burden of responsibility for intervention has shifted from the international community to Turkey and the Gulf States. Hokayem noted that the Assad regime now knows that “Russia has its back” and has an opportunity to sway some opposition figures into dialogue. Although dialogue will not be popular among “activists” and will not be able to “control the street” or stop the violence, it gives the regime a chance to change the narrative.” Additionally, Hokayem noted that representatives from Moscow are visiting Damascus to “deliver a message” to Assad to say that he must “give them something they can tell the international community,” such as cosmetic reforms (constitutional changes, elections, new parties.) Russia has “lost credibility on the street” and thus Hokayem was doubtful that the Russians could broker a deal. …more

New Bahrain Report Documents “Gathering Storm” Ahead of Uprising Anniversary
06 February, 2012 – Human Rights First

Washington, DC – Escalating attacks on civilians, fresh reports of torture in custody, and a decision by the Bahraini government to block independent human rights observers from entering the kingdom mark a “gathering storm” of renewed unrest ahead of protests on the first anniversary of the Bahrain uprising on Feb. 14.

In a new Human Rights First report issued today, the organization urged the United States to take immediate steps to publicly call for an end to ongoing violence in Bahrain and it renewed its call for the Bahraini government to cease its violent attacks on citizens.

“February 14 is a highly significant date, with large rallies expected to be mounted by the opposition in the days leading up to it. Shut out of the airwaves and most print media in Bahrain, those calling for reform have few options to make their dissent known to the regime other than to take part in marches and rallies,” noted Human Rights First’s Brian Dooley, author of today’s report, Bahrain: The Gathering Storm. “The regime’s security forces’ preferred method of policing marches appears to be attack them, and so significant clashes are very possible.”

Today’s Bahrain report is the fourth by Dooley, who has traveled to Bahrain several times in the last year, but was recently denied entry ahead of this year’s Feb. 14 anniversary. Bahrain: The Gathering Storm provides an analysis of today’s situation in Bahrain, including first person accounts of the government’s efforts to silent dissent. Among the evidence of ongoing abuse documented by Dooley is a copy of government orders for medical workers to report all injuries to authorities or face prosecution, and first-person accounts from members of the Bahraini police force who were arrested and abused because they refused to participate in the Kingdom’s brutal crackdown.

The report also documents efforts in Congress to block military transfers to Bahrain, which hosts the U.S. Fifth Fleet.

“In the months since the Bassiouni Commission released its findings and recommendations, Bahrain’s leaders have responded with little but lip service,” Dooley notes, “The abuses are intensifying. The sham trials and prosecutions drag on, and the government has blocked observers from entering the Kingdom to report on what’s happening there. It’s time for the U.S. government and other nations to make clear that such abuses and secrecy will not be tolerated.”

To address these concerns, Human Rights First is calling on the U.S. government to make clear that the future of U.S.-Bahrain relations hinges on how Bahrain responds to calls for reform, to publicly condemn abuses by the Bahrain government and call for accountability, and to announce that it will closely monitor the upcoming anniversary events in Bahrain to ensure that its security forces adhere to international standards and law in protecting peaceful protesters. …more

Unlike Fred Halliday and his pro-imperialist Arab and non-Arab acolytes, we need never choose between imperialism and fascism; we must unequivocally opt for the third choice, which has proven its efficacy historically and is much less costly no matter the sacrifices it requires: fighting against domestic despotism and US imperialism simultaneously (and the two have been in most cases one and the same force), and supporting home-grown struggles for democratic transformation and social justice that are not financed and controlled by the oil tyrannies of the Gulf and their US imperial master.

Imperialism, despotism, and democracy in Syria
The stark choice between a fascist or an imperialist course in Syria should be discarded for a third and better course.
6 February, 2012 – Joseph Massad – AlJazeera

New York, NY – In the context of the US invasion of the Gulf in 1991, British academic Fred Halliday announced his new right-wing affiliations in the British newspaper the New Statesman by declaring: “If I have to choose between imperialism and fascism, I choose imperialism.” It never occurred to Halliday that he could have opposed both and supported home-grown democratic struggles instead.

This was indeed a watershed moment for Arab, American, and European anti-imperialist leftists who would become turncoats, moving from a principled opposition to imperialism to a principled and financially more rewarding support of it. Like much of the scholarly and journalistic output of turncoats, Halliday’s sober and academically valuable studies, written before his transformation into a pro-imperial apologist, were followed by forgettable and mediocre studies after it, so much so that he did not publish a single study after 1991 that had academic merit or even a shelf life beyond a few weeks (though his Arab turncoat comrades saw fit to translate these later studies to Arabic!).

The stark opposition that Halliday drew between American imperialism and Saddam’s despotic rule preceded the events of 9/11 and the re-introduction of the term “fascism” in a slightly altered form to fit US imperialism’s new enemies, namely the neologism “Islamofascism”, which another British turncoat, Christopher Hitchens, had done so much to disseminate.

At the time, many Arabs, Europeans, and Americans (myself included), who have been unwavering critics of Saddam Hussein’s despotic and terroristic rule and US imperialism’s genocidal wars against Third World enemies, opposed the first US invasion of the Gulf in 1991 and the ensuing 12-year siege, which cost more than a million Iraqi lives, as well as the subsequent US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and its 8-year occupation of the country, which killed another million Iraqis.

Opposition to US invasions of Iraq and Kuwait stemmed neither from any illusions about the nature of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorial regime nor from his alliance with the Saudi theocratic state and its smaller Gulf partners. It came even less from his military strategic alliance with France and the United States from the late 1970s onwards, in the service of which he invaded Iran in 1980 and sacrificed the lives of one million Iranians and 400,000 Iraqis. On the contrary, it was based on a sober assessment of these realities and the costly impact of imperial invasions.

It was in this context that the Iraqi exile opposition in London and Washington, especially the irrepressible Kanan Makiya, who were calling for a US ground invasion and for more bombings of Baghdad by US forces, began to attack all those who oppose the US invasion, including the late Edward Said, as apologists for Saddam. Indeed, in 1991, Makiya’s Iranian ex-wife, Afsaneh Najmabadi, joined the fight and launched an impassioned defence of a US invasion of Iraq and the intellectuals and journalists who championed it, especially Thomas Friedman, Fouad Ajami, and Makiya himself. She obscenely attacked Said’s criticism of them, describing it as the “rhetorical equivalent of political murder”.

It would seem then, as Marx put it, that history repeats itself twice – the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. But does it repeat itself a third time?

The Iraqi exile opposition insisted along with its US imperial sponsors and the chorus of pro-war American intellectuals that people should make one of two choices: for or against Saddam. While the US and its Iraqi partners had their way, the subsequent destruction of Iraq, the dismantling of its state structures, and the destruction of its societal cohesion is the clearest illustration of what such a choice entailed for the Iraqi people and their country.

In 2011, we were treated to a repeat performance of the very same scenario. The Libyan exile opposition and those inside the liberated parts of the country, consisting mostly of erstwhile servants of the Qaddafi regime, began to call for a NATO invasion of Libya to help the Libyan people in their uprising against Qaddafi. Again, many anti-imperialist and pro-democracy Arabs and non-Arabs cautioned that while Qaddafi had been a merciless despot for four decades and had become an ally of the United States and Europe for the last decade of his rule, a western imperial invasion of the country would not be in the interest of most Libyans Rather, it would entail the destruction of the country, with thousands of casualties, for the sole purpose of controlling Libya’s oil wealth and not in the interest of establishing democratic rule. Again the Libyan opposition allied with imperial powers, like its Iraqi predecessor, immediately challenged any opponent of the imperial invasion to make one of two choices: for or against Qaddafi.

It would seem then, as Marx put it, that history repeats itself twice – the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. But does it repeat itself a third time?

In the age of Arab exile oppositions sponsored by Gulf oil and US imperialism, it clearly does. Enter Syria’s exile opposition who hijacked the popular uprising against the Assad dynasty in the country. True, neither Qaddafi nor Assad (Sr or Jr) could compare to the despotic terror of Saddam Hussein, though they have tried their hardest to approximate it.

Like Saddam, the Assad dynastic regime has been an ally of the Saudi theocracy and its junior Gulf partners, and an agent of US imperialism in the region, especially in its major intervention in Lebanon in 1976 at the invitation of the Christian fascist forces who called the Syrians in to help them crush the leftist revolutionary movement in the country, including the PLO. The role played by the Syrian regime (in conjunction with Israeli advisors) in the horrific Tel al-Za’tar massacre in 1976, when thousands of Palestinians were slaughtered at the hands of fascist Maronite forces abetted by the Syrian army, is now the stuff of history.
[Read more →]

Said Yousif Almuhafda from Bahrain Center of Human Rights has post this great collage of vidoe that show the gassing of a Bahraini Village as a means of collective punishment.
See Video HERE

Saudi Arabia calls for ‘critical measures’ against the Syrian regime
06 February 2012 – By Al Arabiya

Saudi Arabia on Monday urged the international community to take “critical measures to protect innocent lives” in Syria, warning of an impending “humanitarian disaster” after the U.N. Security Council failed to pass a resolution on the crisis there.

“The U.N. Security Council’s failure to pass a resolution in support of the Arab Initiative must not prevent the taking of critical measures to protect innocent lives and stop the bloodshed and all acts of violence that threaten serious consequences for the Syrian people and regional stability,” a cabinet statement said.

Riyadh “appeals to the international community not to stop exerting sincere efforts to find a solution to this crisis that has killed hundreds of Syrians and threatens to cause a humanitarian disaster if it continues,” said the statement carried by state news agency SPA.

U.S. President Barack Obama has said he will keep applying sanctions and put more pressure on Syria to try to usher in transitional government. He said it was important to try to resolve the Syrian crisis without outside military intervention.

The United States closed its embassy in Syria and has pulled out all remaining staff on Monday citing serious security concerns as protests swirled against President Assad’s regime.

“The United States has suspended operations of our embassy in Damascus as of February 6. Ambassador (Robert) Ford and all American personnel have now departed the country,” a State Department statement said.

“The recent surge in violence, including bombings in Damascus on December 23 and January 6, has raised serious concerns that our embassy is not sufficiently protected from armed attack,” it said, referring to attacks linked to al-Qaeda.

“We, along with several other diplomatic missions, conveyed our security concerns to the Syrian government but the regime failed to respond adequately.”

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, meanwhile, said after meeting German Chancellor Angela Merkel that he would call Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to discuss the international community’s response to the crisis.

Neither France nor Germany, he said, would accept the “blocking” of international action on Syria.

Britain, meanwhile, said it is seeking new ways of applying pressure on Syria through the UN General Assembly.

“Russia and China are protecting a regime that is killing thousands of people. We find their position incomprehensible and inexcusable,” Prime Minister David Cameron’s spokesman said in London.

Russia and China, both permanent members of the Security Council, on Saturday vetoed a U.N. resolution condemning Syria for its deadly crackdown on protests, drawing condemnation from other global powers.

The Saudi government statement came as Oman’s foreign minister said foreign ministers from the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) will meet in Riyadh later this week to discuss developments in Syria. …more

Bahrain’s use of tear gas against protesters increasingly deadly
by Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Amnesty International – 26 January, 2012

Bahrain must investigate more than a dozen deaths that followed the misuse of tear gas by security forces, Amnesty International has said after another person was seriously injured by a tear gas canister in Manama this week.

On Tuesday, 20-year-old Mohammad al-Muwali was seriously injured and hospitalized after being hit in the head by a tear gas canister launched by riot police responding to an anti-government protest in the capital city’s Karrana neighbourhood.

A Bahraini human rights group has reported at least 13 deaths resulting from the security forces’ use of tear gas against peaceful protesters as well as inside people’s homes since February 2011, with a rise in such deaths in recent months.

“The rise in fatalities and eyewitness accounts suggest that tear gas is being used inappropriately by Bahraini security forces, including in people’s homes and other confined spaces,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Deputy Director.

“The Bahraini authorities must investigate and account for the reports of more than a dozen deaths following tear gas use. The security forces must be instructed on how to use tear gas in line with international policing standards.”

Tear gas is used by law enforcement agencies in many countries as a riot control agent, to disperse violent gatherings that pose a threat to law and order.

But when used inappropriately, including in enclosed areas or on unarmed protesters who are simply exercising their freedoms of expression and assembly, deploying tear gas can constitute a human rights violation.

Amnesty International calls on the Bahraini authorities to make public the instructions that were given to security forces involved in policing demonstrations.

Eyewitnesses have told Amnesty International that Bahraini security forces have intentionally fired tear gas canisters into private homes, often with devastating results for those inside.

Bahraini lawyer Fatima Khudair described how anti-riot police used tear gas after arriving at her house in Sitra village, south of the capital, on 5 January.

She said around 12 women and children were inside her home when some 30 officers burst in and began to beat them.

Fatima Khudair described how one of the officers threw a tear gas canister into a room inside the house before launching another five canisters into an adjacent courtyard.

The tear gas seriously affected the lawyer’s seven-year-old daughter Maryam ‘Issam Ghanem, who suffers from asthma. Her condition is still unstable.

Zaynab ‘Ali Ghanim, Fatima Khudair’s sister-in-law, was also hospitalized with an eye inflammation brought on by the tear gas, among other injuries inflicted by the police.

Human rights activists and recent media reports have pointed to several deaths resulting from the Bahrain security forces using tear gas inside people’s homes. …more