As the al Khalifa regime grows increasingly desperate so does its arrogance and the intensity of the violence it uses to corral the revolutionary opposition. The regime’s bloody and unrelenting crackdown has been a huge success in hardening the call for the regimes ouster. In Michael Stephens article below he begins with an argument to the regime claims of Hezbollah orchestrated violence being behind recent bombings in Bahrain. He then becomes a regime apologist. Western liberals on board with the myth of infallibility of the Obama Administration and Conservatives dressed clothing of objectivity, misread and mislead regarding the ‘realities’ on the ground that face the Street Defenders in Bahrain.

The Street Defenders emerged out of a black bloc sort of protest movement in Bahrain as a defensive force as Police raped children and routinely attacked Women, even those with infants, in the streets and conducted raids on the Villages with theft, indiscriminate chemical gassing of homes and wanton destruction of personal property. The Villages were overrun by Bahrain’s foreign national (mercenary) police force. The police reveled in unchecked and indiscriminate violence against Shia Villages. The scale of police violence is clearly and directed effort not just a few random “bad cops”.

Hamad’s or rather Secretary Clinton’s, BICI report and the regime hiring of US Chief Timoney had “fuck-all” to do with the cessation of these despicable acts by Hamad’s mercenary police. Now imprisoned Human Rights activists, documented regime crimes for the whole world to see, exposing the criminal police and disenfranchised youth took charge of the Streets as the West turned “deaf ears” and “blind eyes” to a rampant genocidal “crackdown” by the regime. Chief Timoney’s greatest teaching seems to be, how to effectively wound and maim Street Protesters with Birdshot so they can be collected latter at the Hospital or Morgue. Police reform in Bahrain is a myth and will remain so as long as the al Khalifa’s operate mercenaries to police their “kingdom”.

The State Department in Washing has fallen asleep regarding Bahrain and left the crisis to ‘spookish’ Ambassador Krajeski to look after. The State Department’s spokes person, Mark toner, recently had harsh words for the regime in his press conference but that had never been any diplomatic contact until that point with the regime. Toner’s rhetoric feeds Western media demand while al Khalifa’s Public Relations campaign that embellishes stories of opposition bombings and weapons caches that go unsubstantiated but provide a firewall for the regime to continue its unimpeded crackdown.

To be certain the “uprising” in Bahrain comes at an inopportune time for President Obama as he tries to help prop up a failing economy with hundreds of million of dollars in weapons sales supporting tens of thousands of jobs in the US to the al Khlaifa potentate, al Saud. Obama’s war efforts with Syria and Iran put a set of unpredictable dynamics in the mix – though some pentagon asshole will swear “we can do it” given time, money and enough force. The al Saud’s in the meantime provide cheap oil to the US as a firewall in support of US imperialist aggression launched through its ‘democracy wars’ and nation imploding throughout MENA. This is an ugly road ahead and Michael Stephens could do much better rethinking the political realities rather than arguing an Obama-esque ‘third way’ to be found in successful economic reform. Phlipn out.

Bahrain Burning
BY MICHAEL STEPHENS – 7 November, 2012 – Foreign Policy
The island kingdom is descending into violence, and nobody has a plan to restore order.

Violence is once again rearing its ugly head in Bahrain. The coordinated detonation of five home-made explosive devices in the capital of Manama on Nov. 5, resulting in the death of two people and the maiming of another, was not some crude attempt to celebrate Guy Fawkes night, but an escalation of bloodshed that threatens to tip the island kingdom into chaos.

The attack appears to be an amateurish attempt to cause terror and mayhem, achieving no result other than killing innocent expatriate labourers. The quality of the explosive devices was poor, suggesting that the attacks were the work of unsophisticated actors working with little institutional support.

Four individuals were arrested for the bombing just one day after it occurred, with Bahrain officials warning darkly that the attacks “bear the hallmark” of Hezbollah. The link to the Lebanese militant organization is crude: Poorly constructed pipe bombs are not Hezbollah’s style — one need only look at the July attack on the Bulgarian city of Burgas to see the group’s devastating efficiency in killing innocents. So while it is possible that the individuals responsible may hold some affinity for the group, it is highly unlikely a Hezbollah cell is to blame for this act.

Government officials and some of their more hard-line supporters have at times stretched the truth in describing actions by anti-government factions as terrorism, and very rarely has the opposition’s strategy of civil disobedience strayed into violence. But let’s be clear: the Nov. 5 bombings were acts of terrorism, committed by terrorists. The government would be justified in prosecuting the offenders to the fullest extent of the law.

The important question to ask is why terrorist actions are now increasing to what appears to be a sustained level. The fact is, this latest attack is the result of a political reconciliation process that is going nowhere and is radicalizing the Bahraini population in the process. The Interior Ministry’s Oct. 30 decision to ban all protests and the Nov. 7 decision to strip 31 activists of citizenship are just the latest in a series of measures taken in the kingdom that appear oppressive, and serve only to further harden the political battle lines in this deeply divided country.

There is, fortunately, a silver lining amidst this grim news. Some of the reforms proposed by the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI), which the monarchy commissioned to investigate the abuses committed during last year’s uprising, have been implemented: Security reforms have been comprehensive, and some police units’ performance has improved significantly — instances of police brutality have dropped significantly in recent months. Furthermore police units still acting irresponsibly will have to face an independent ombudsman who will judge their actions without political or ministry interference. Additionally, five Shia mosques that were inexplicably razed to the ground last year are also in the process of being rebuilt, with two more scheduled for reconstruction, though there are still 32 lying in rubble. …more

The opposition societies in Bahrain (AlWefaq National Islamic Society, National Democratic Assembly Society (AlQawmi), National Democratic Action Society (Waad), Unity Democratic Gathering Society (Wahdawy), National Brotherhood Society (Ekhaa) and Democratic Progressive Tribune (AlTaqadumy), have issued today a ‘Declaration of Non-Violence Principles’.

Bahrain Opposition Societies Issue ‘Declaration of Non-Violence Principles’
7 November, 2012 – ABNA

Nonviolence Principles Declaration

This declaration represents the principles we hold and the position we have adopted since the formation of our societies, confirmed since 14th February 2011 and reiterated now.

We consider peaceful means as our strategic direction in our political work, attitudes and practices, in order to achieve the demands of our people of real participation in political decisions and planning the future of our homeland with principles of freedom, democracy, social justice, equal citizenship, social and civil peace. Our continuous call for tolerance, diversity, and plurality, is originated from our deep and sincere believe that this is the ideal path to enforce national unity between all different elements of our people.

The political and social movements in Bahrain have a long-standing history aging around one century. This history witnessed old and recent political powers and personalities, those who have struggled and those who are struggling currently for the legitimate political, social and economical rights of the people via civilized and peaceful movements.

The struggle is driven from the integral right and full freedom, as preserved in human, international and common constitutional principles, to achieve legitimate political, social, economical rights through peaceful and civilized means and holding of national unity. These principles have formed the basis of our struggle throughout history, through which the people have achieved political independence and got their first constitution and national assembly.

We, the undersigned of this declaration, are launching principles to uphold ourselves, and encourages others to adopt, to provide an umbrella framework to all community powers, personalities, activists and elements, in spite of differences in visions and positions. This shall be the national umbrella framework that are driven by faith, human, international and common constitutional principles, that are never be subjected to be broken apart, via conflict, nor confiscation.

From then on,

We reference, resolution A/RES/61/271 that was adopted by United Nations General Assembly on 27 June 2007 regarding Nonviolent International day.

And to UN general assembly resolutions 53/243 A and B dated 13 September 1999, which embrace the declaration of peace culture and Program, and resolution 55/282 dated 7 September 2001 regarding the international day for Peace, and resolution 61/45 dated 4 December 2006 regarding International Agreement for the Culture of Peace and Nonviolence culture for the Sake of the Children of the globe, 2001-2010, and related resolutions.

Putting into our considerations that nonviolence, tolerance, full respect to all human rights, basic rights for all, democracy, development, diversity respect, are coherent matters that complement each other.

Confirming that violence can never be a mean to achieve legitimate demands, nor be used to block legitimate demands, from any party.

Believing that dignity, freedom, security, justice, equality, diversity, plurality, and participation in a modern democratic state, are necessities for individuals and communities that cannot be revoked from individuals or communities under any circumstances or excuse.

Adopting that individuals and communities have the right to take all possible peaceful means or protest, exercise freedom of speech, hold gatherings, and assemble to demand these basic rights, and its not permissible for anyone to object, let alone prevent them with force.

Putting into our considerations that we are today in desperate need more than any time before, and with national and collective action from all elements and from all levels to emphasize the culture of nonviolence and adopting dialogue and acceptance of other opinion and plurality in in opinions.

Thereafter, we present our declaration for nonviolence principles and encourage others to adopt

1- To respect the basic rights of individuals and community groups, and to defend it.
2- To uphold the principles of human rights, democracy, and pluralism.
3- Never to adopt any means of violence or violations to Human rights or democratic means.
4- To condemn violence, in all its forms, sources, and parties.
5- To defend people’s rights for freedom of expression and assembly.
6- To emphasize and urge in our literature, speech, and programs on a culture of nonviolence and adopt peaceful and civilized means.

Political Societies
AlWefaq National Islamic Society (AlWefaq)
National Democratic Assembly Society (AlQawmi)
National Democratic Action Society (Waad)
Unity Democratic Gathering Society (Wahdawy)
National Brotherhood Society (Ekhaa)
Democratic Progressive Tribune (AlTaqadumy)
…source

Bahrain revokes citizenship of 31 nationals
7 November, 2012 – Al Akhbar

Bahrain’s Interior Ministry has revoked the citizenship of 31 activists, including two former members of parliament, for “undermining state security”, according to a statement released Tuesday night.

The statement cited a clause within the country’s Citizenship Law that “permits re-evaluation of nationality when a holder of Bahraini citizenship causes damage to state security.”

Former Wefaq party members of parliament Jawad Fairooz and Jalal Fairooz were among the 31 activists, as were Said al-Shihabi head of the Freemen of Bahrain movement, and Ali Hassan Mushaima, the son of the leader of Al-Haq group.

Three Shia clerics, Hussein Mirza, Khaled Mansour Sanad and Alawi Sharaf, were also listed in the statement.

The Ministry adds that those subject to the decision have the right to appeal.

Bahrain has a history of stripping Bahrainis of nationality and forcing them into exile that dates back to the 1980s, when a 1975 parliament dissolution led to widespread government crackdown. Scores have attempted to return since.

The Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights and the Bahrain Center for Human Rights have issued joint statement calling on authorities to reverse the decision, and for the country’s allies to exercise pressures to that end.

“It is apparent that the actions taken by the Bahraini authorities to revoke the citizenships of 31 individuals is intended to punish them for expressing peaceful dissent and thereby intimidate others from exercising their right to freedom of expression,” said the youth groups.

Bahrain opposition activists have endured a bloody crackdown since an uprising against the country’s monarchy began in February 2011.

According to the International Federation for Human Rights, 80 people have died in Bahrain since the start of the violence on February 14 last year.

Bahrain’s interior ministry says more than 700 people, including a number of police officers, have been wounded in the protests since the beginning of 2012. …source

There is a solution for peace in Syria. All we need is the will to implement it. Yang Jiechi has imagined a way of avoiding France’s hostility to the implementation of the Geneva agreement.

The Chinese solution
by Thierry Meyssan – Voltaire Network – Damascus (Syria) – 7 November 2012

UN-Arab League Special Envoy for Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, and Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi.

The truce that was intended to mark the celebrations for the Muslim feast of the Aid was massively broken in Syria. The government had taken care to block the main roads in order to ensure that any incidents would remain isolated and would not spread. It was a waste of time – a number of brigades of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) had received orders from their sponsors to launch a series of new attacks, and the Syrian Arab Army did not fail to respond. As a result, although certain regions were able to enjoy four days of relative peace, the final assessment at the national level is particularly disappointing.

Whether the truce was a success or a failure therefore depends on where you live. At the diplomatic level, it allows us to evaluate the difficulties that the peace forces will encounter when the Security Council decides to deploy them. The first is the absence of a representative spokesman for the FSA – the second is France’s duplicity.

The FSA is composed of a number of armed groups, each of which obeys its own logic. The whole organisation is supposed to take orders from a central command which is implanted at a NATO base in Turkey. But this is no longer the case, ever since the emergence of bitter rivalry between the different sponsors – France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Each group dedicates more effort to expanding their influence to the detriment of their allies than to overthrowing the regime. The basic brigades obey the groups who directly finance them, and pay no further attention to NATO coordination. Besides this, despite all declarations, the fighters in Syria have never been subordinated to the political councils who meet in Paris, Istanbul and Cairo.

Western leaders are continually calling for a unified FSA command, but in reality, they are afraid of it. Because while unification would provide an interlocutor for peace discussions, it would also discredit and replace the foreign political councils. It would therefore no longer be possible to hide the true nature of this pseudo “revolution” – none of the armed groups are fighting for democracy, and the vast majority of them intend to impose a Sunnite religious dictatorship.

A “Central Command of Syrian Revolutionary Councils” has just been created in Idlib, and it has been approved by about 80% of the FSA forces. It recognises as its spiritual leader Sheikh Adnan al-Arour, who gave a speech on this occasion. Reading a moderate text, whose style was very different from his usual declarations, he praised his listeners for the creation of the central military command, and called for the unification of the three rival foreign political councils, and also for the constitution of a legislative council. This of course means the transfer of legislative power to religious authorities – of which he would humbly accept the leadership – with the aim of imposing Sharia law. He also reminded his listeners that the prime objective of the “revolution” is not to overthrow the institutions but rather the principles of the regime, in other words, secularism and Arab nationalism.

At this point, it must be noted that while the FSA numbers very few Syrian combatants, it has the support of several million civilians, particularly in the North of the country. However, in the various demonstrations which have been organised, the demonstrators have never brandished the portraits of exiled political leaders (Buhran Ghalioum, Abdulbaset Sieda, etc.), but have often chanted the name of Sheikh Al-Arour. They have also notably used his slogans, such as “Christians to Beirut! Alawites to the grave!” The Syrians who support the FSA do not want democracy, but are calling for a Saudi-style dictatorship, which would cleanse Sunnism of its Sufi elements, and repress all religious minorities.

In order to succeed, the truce should have been negotiated by Lakdhar Brahimi, the special envoy of the UN and the Arab League, and Sheikh Adnan Al-Arour. But such an encounter would have marked the end of the dream of the “Arab Spring”, and revealed the fact that the West is financing and arming the most extreme forms of religious sectarianism. …more

Turkey to request NATO missile defense on Syria border
7 November, 2012 – Reuters – The Daily Star

ANKARA: Turkey is to make an imminent official request to NATO to station Patriot missiles along its border with Syria, a senior Turkish foreign ministry official said on Wednesday.

NATO-member turkey has already bolstered its own military presence along the 910-km (560-mile) border and has been responding in kind to gunfire and mortar shells hitting its territory from fighting between Syrian rebels and Syrian government forces.

“Concerning this topic (Patriot missiles), an imminent official request is to be made,” the official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

The official said there was a potential missile threat to turkey from Syria and that turkey had a right to take steps to counter such a threat. He gave no further details.

“The deployment of these type of missiles as a step to counter threats is routine under NATO regulations,” the official said, adding that they had been deployed in turkey during the second Gulf War.

A NATO spokeswoman in Brussels said: “We haven’t received a request. As the Secretary-General said on Monday, the allies will consider any request that is brought to the North Atlantic Council.”
…more

Ban urges Obama to act on Syria, Mideast peace
7 November, 2012 – Agence France Presse

UNITED NATIONS:UN leader Ban Ki-moon urged President Barack Obama Wednesday to act quickly on ending the war in Syria and reviving the Middle East peace process as he congratulated the US leader on his re-election.

The United Nations “will continue to count on the active engagement of the United States” on key global issues “as it strives to meet the hopes and expectations of people around the world,” Ban said through a spokesman.

Ban said: “Many challenges lie ahead — from ending the bloodshed in Syria, to getting the Middle East peace process back on track, to promoting sustainable development and tackling the challenges posed by climate change. All will require strong multilateral cooperation.”

The UN leader looks forward to working with Obama and his second term administration “in the spirit of the enduring partnership between the United States and the United Nations,” the spokesman added.

Obama strived to improve the US reputation at the United Nations and as a multilateral partner during his first term.
…more

Destroyed by Total Capitalism America Has Already Lost Tuesday’s Election
by Jakob Augstein – 5 November, 2012 – Spiegel Online International

Germans see the US election as a battle between the good Obama and the evil Romney. But this is a mistake. Regardless of who wins the election on Tuesday, total capitalism is America’s true ruler, and it has the power to destroy the country.

The United States Army is developing a weapon that can reach — and destroy — any location on Earth within an hour. At the same time, power lines held up by wooden poles dangle over the streets of Brooklyn, Queens and New Jersey. Hurricane Sandy ripped them apart there and in communities across the East Coast last week, and many places remain without electricity. That’s America, where high-tech options are available only to the elite, and the rest live under conditions comparable to a those of a developing nation. No country has produced more Nobel Prize winners, yet in New York City hospitals had to be evacuated during the storm because their emergency generators didn’t work properly.

Anyone who sees this as a contradiction has failed to grasp the fact that America is a country of total capitalism. Its functionaries have no need of public hospitals or of a reliable power supply to private homes. The elite have their own infrastructure. Total capitalism, however, has left American society in ruins and crippled the government. America’s fate is not just an accident produced by the system. It is a consequence of that system.

Obama couldn’t change this, and Romney wouldn’t be able to either. Europe is mistaken if it views the election as a choice between the forces of good and evil. And it certainly doesn’t amount to a potential change in political direction as some newspapers on the Continent would have us believe.

A Powerless President

Romney, the exceedingly wealthy business man, and Obama, the cultivated civil rights lawyer, are two faces of a political system that no longer has much to do with democracy as we understand it. Democracy is about choice, but Americans don’t really have much of a choice. Obama proved this. Nearly four years ago, it seemed like a new beginning for America when he took office. But this was a misunderstanding. Obama didn’t close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, nor did he lift immunity for alleged war criminals from the Bush-era, or regulate the financial markets, and climate change was hardly discussed during the current election campaign. The military, the banks, industry — the people are helpless in the face of their power, as is the president.

Not even credit default swaps, the kind of investment that brought down Lehman Brothers and took Western economies to the brink, has been banned or even better regulated. It is likely the case that Obama wanted to do more, but couldn’t. But what role does that play in the bigger picture?

We want to believe that Obama failed because of the conservatives inside his own country. Indeed, the fanatics that Mitt Romney depends on have jettisoned everything that distinguishes the West: science and logic, reason and moderation, even simple decency. They hate homosexuals, the weak and the state. They oppress women and persecute immigrants. Their moralizing about abortion doesn’t even spare the victims of rape. They are the Taliban of the West. …more

Political Rhetoric and Resignation
by JASON HIRTHLER – November 06, 2012 – CounterPunch

A week before the election Hurricane Sandy hit the Northeast with tremendous force. Millions were thrown back a century in time to an epoch of candles and cold showers, with no indoor plumbing. A world without the 24-hour distraction of the Internet. Coastal homes were blown apart or swamped with seawater. Half of New Jersey, parts of coastal boroughs and all of lower Manhattan were powerless for a week or more.

It occurred to me that the disaster would provide an opportunity for both candidates to ‘look presidential,’ always a critical component when the voting electorate pulled the lever or punched the chad based on their perception of a candidate’s trustworthiness. Subtle cues, like a strong jawline and a confident gaze into the middle distance were the telegraphic indicators the masses craved.

Barack Obama, the incumbent, was caught in the cross-hairs between a need to go on the offensive against his opponent, and to maintain his milquetoast persona so as not to frighten racist Caucasians. It was a delicate balancing act that he achieved finally by ridiculing his white opponent without appearing angry as he did so. Sarcasm and a smile seemed to do the trick.

Still, such was disdain for the general population that Mitt Romney seemed to think he could win by chanting the endless refrain of “twelve million jobs” without explaining how he would create them; and by promising to reduce the exploding federal deficit, without explaining where he’d find the money.

Many Americans, suspecting the perpetually tanned and Bryll creamed Romney was not particularly trustworthy, summed up their feelings by exclaiming, “This is some bullshit.” About a quarter of the voting population put their faith in half-black Obama, who had dutifully funneled twenty trillion dollars to banks without taxpayer bailouts and low-interest loans. Despite his efforts, Wall Street opted to support Romney, who promised to lower taxes on the ‘wealth creators’ while Obama made periodic allusions to asking the rich to pay a little more. Appeals to selfless altruism usually fall flat in America, an ostensibly Christian nation that seems to want to be saved by Christ but not asked to act like him.

The Voting Public

Voters tended to fall into four categories. First, there were the Republicans, a numerous lot of anti-government, anti-immigrant, anti-poor, anti-gay, and anti-abortion xenophobes allied to an even-tempered educated class with a desire to secure and extend its capital gains, entirely remove a tax burden they regarded as theft, and ignore or marginalize the poor.

According to this narrative, the indigent had themselves to blame for their circumstances. A lack of industry, dishonesty bordering on the mendacious, and a persistent belief in their own victimhood conspired to put these people at the bottom of the social ladder, and rightly so.

Liberals comprised the second group. This was an almost rabidly pro-Democrat clan of self-labeled progressives who appeared to cling to the handful of quasi-progressive measures the Obama administration had passed, spotlighting these to the exclusion of the far larger corporate repressive policies that Democrats had enacted.

This frequently resulted in surreal dialogues in which liberals would passionately proclaim minor measures such as young adults being covered on their parents’ insurance until the age of 26, while making no mention of the several proxy wars the President was carrying out abroad, or the dramatic erosion of civil liberties exceeding even the Bush administration, or any number of other regressive initiatives.

In practical terms, both parties had been fatally compromised by money power, funneled into party coffers by the gigantic machinery of lobbyists. Once in office, representatives felt obliged to serve the interests of corporate entities that had put them in office—interests antithetical to those of the general population.

Embittered leftists comprised the third group. Although of entirely oppositional ideologies, I’ve put them in the same group because they occupy similar position along the American political spectrum. Namely, an angry, disempowered fringe that vacillates between voting for third party candidates with zero chance of winning, or submitting to the implacable logic of the lesser of two evils.

Leftists had their quasi-socialist dreams shattered by the capitulation of the Democratic Party to corporate elites, an inevitable shift led by New Democrats under Bill Clinton (and Third Way Laborites in Britain under Tony Blair).

On the far right, tea part activists had become disillusioned by the rudderless policies, government expansion, and indiscriminate spending of George Bush II. …more