Posts from — March 2013

Major medical ethics conference is cancelled in the troubled kingdom

Bahrain hit by doctors’ desertion
Robert Fisk – 24 March, 2013 – Pacific Free Press

Bahrain’s already tarnished reputation for human rights will receive a body blow today with the cancellation of a major conference on medical ethics in the tiny island monarchy, and the resignation of the Irish director of Bahrain’s principal medical school.

At least 20 civilians were killed by government forces – opposition leaders say the figures is four times as great – in the failed uprising by the majority Shia Muslim community against the minority Sunni-led government of King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa two years ago. Security forces stormed hospitals in the kingdom and tortured patients in medical care, tearing apart the hitherto non-sectarian health service. The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) – which trained many of the doctors later arrested by the regime – was bitterly criticised after the violence for not condemning government brutality.

But Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) will today announce its decision to cancel next month’s international meeting – in which medical and human rights experts were to speak for two days on “medical ethics and dilemmas in situations of political discord or violence” – while Professor Tom Collins, president of the Medical University of Bahrain, will tell his 1,100 students and 240 staff at lunchtime that he is resigning in protest at the cancellation. The university is run by the RCSI and was co-sponsor of the conference with MSF.

At least 40 Bahraini doctors, many of them attached to the RCSI medical university on the island, were arrested and charged after the mini-uprising of 2011 – four are still in prison – although Professor Collins has pleaded for their release. A prestigious roster of speakers was to have included Professor Patrick Roe, the president of RCSI, a consultant general surgeon at Beaumont Hospital in Dublin, Anastasia Crickley of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and Baroness Nuala O’Loan, Northern Ireland’s first – and highly controversial – police ombudsman from 2000 to 2007. Many attribute Catholic trust in the new Police Service of Northern Ireland to the work of Lady O’Loan. The organisers were to show a film, Access to the Danger Zone, on MSF doctors in Afghanistan and other wars, narrated by Daniel Day-Lewis …more

Kerry: Iraq helping Syria’s Assad by allowing arms flow
By Anne Gearan – 24 March, 2013 – Washington Post

BAGHDAD — Iraq is helping to shore up the besieged regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad by allowing Iranian arms and fighters to cross into Syria from Iraq, Secretary of State John F. Kerry charged Sunday.

During an unannounced trip to Baghdad, Kerry lobbied Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for greater scrutiny of flights that cross Iraq. He appeared to make little headway with Maliki, a Shiite with long-standing ties to Iran and little inclination to do U.S. bidding 10 years after the American invasion that toppled dictator Saddam Hussein.

Maliki is a prickly leader whose relations with U.S. officials have grown more strained since the departure of American forces and the re-emergence of widespread sectarian violence in Iraq. Maliki’s consolidation of power worries his U.S. backers. His dealings with Shiite Iran worry them more.

“Iraq’s success will take enormous cooperation,” Kerry said. “It’ll take dialogue, and it’ll take courage. It’ll require the resolve to defend the sovereignty of the country and its airspace. . . .

“We all want to see Iraq succeed. There’s such an enormous investment of our treasure, our people and our money in this initiative.”

The Obama administration has been unable to persuade Iraq to block overflights from Iran or even to perform regular inspections.

“We had a very spirited discussion,” Kerry said after the meeting with Maliki, “and I made it very clear to the prime minister that the overflights from Iran are, in fact, helping to sustain President Assad and his regime.”

Kerry began the session with Maliki by joking that he had been assured that the Iraqi leader would “do everything that I say.” Maliki had a good-natured reply: “We won’t do it,” he said through an interpreter. Both men smiled.

Iraq says Iranian flights over its territory carry only humanitarian supplies for the civil war in next-door Syria, and the only two known inspections of Iranian aircraft found just those supplies.

The United States says the sheer volume of flights and overland vehicle traffic to Syria through Iraq points to regular arms shipments. A senior U.S. official traveling with Kerry said there are flights nearly every day. The official would not say how the United States is certain that the planes are carrying weapons for Assad, an Iranian ally, but repeatedly asserted that is the case. …more

The Iraq War: A resolute rebuttal
By Cameron Quinn – 25 March, 2013 – The Oxford Student

This piece was written in response to Harry Gillow’s defence of the Iraq War, also written for OxStu, which can be found here.

Harry Gillow is brave, if nothing else – it takes guts to try to defend the indefensible. But guts don’t guarantee a solid argument, and Mr Gillow’s “tentative defence” of the Iraq War, relying as it does on factual inaccuracies and hubristic assumptions, simply fails to convince.

Mr Gillow begins his article with a preamble lamenting the naïveté of US and British war planners for not understanding “the dangers of military adventures,” yet he remonstrates President Obama for his risky “isolationist” foreign policy. Obama’s “isolationism” apparently encompasses his vast expansion of Bush’s drone killing programme, his cyber-attacks against Iranian nuclear sites (an “act of war” according to the Pentagon), his military build-up in the Pacific, American involvement in Libya and Mali, and plans for military strikes in Syria and Iran.

It isn’t until halfway into his “defence” that Mr Gillow arrives at his arguments for why the Iraq war wasn’t “a disaster”. He informs us that Iraq “is now one of the few functioning democracies in the Middle East.” This will be news to Iraqis. Corruption in the Iraqi government is rife. Torture, rape and executions are practically everyday occurrences. US-installed Prime Minister Maliki, has recently taken steps to consolidate his power, in actions that have been compared with those of Saddam during the 1990s.
Oil: Never far from the centre of the problem

Oil: Never far from the centre of the issue

Another supposed bright spot in post-occupation Iraq is that “[o]il production, the lifeline of its economy, is up one million barrels per year from 2003 levels”. This is a bright spot indeed for the multinational corporations that bought the rights to exploit Iraq’s oil fields, a major objective of the war. The revenues from Iraq’s oil reserves, the largest in the world, will now flow into the pockets of international investors, though not into programmes and services that might improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis.

No matter. The “greatest vindication of the Iraq War,” which “removes the most powerful argument against the invasion” is to be found elsewhere, in (favourably) comparing the US-led invasion and occupation of the country with the tragic bloodletting that has accompanied many of the popular uprisings of the Arab Spring. “[T]hat Iraq would have seen a similar eruption into sectarian violence is almost certain,” Mr Gillow tells us. That is, thanks to the invasion, Iraq did not see such an eruption: “[T]he presence of coalition troops was clearly the only thing preventing a collapse into full-scale anarchy”.

Of course, as anybody familiar with the most basic facts of the Iraq war will know, the majority of the violence in the country after 2006 occurred not between coalition troops and Iraqi insurgents, but between Sunni and Shi’a militia groups in what US intelligence officials – and Mr Gillow himself in his second paragraph – have called a sectarian “civil war”. In other words, three years into the US occupation, Iraq erupted in sectarian violence – violence that caused thousands of Iraqi deaths and displacements, and has continued at varying levels of intensity until today. What’s more, overwhelming evidence shows that top US military officials directly fomented sectarian tensions by organising, training, and commanding a network of brutal Salvadoran-style Shi’a torture squads as early as 2004 to combat a mostly Sunni insurgency.

It is worth noting that under Saddam’s secular dictatorship, sectarian divisions did not play a significant role in Iraqi life: Iraqis were often unaware of and indifferent to their neighbours’ or even their family members’ religious loyalties. Following the invasion, however, these once-ignored Sunni-Shi’a differences have become the major fault-lines in Iraqi society and politics, to the point that the country may one day be torn into three separate states, along ethno-sectarian lines.

It would not be overstating the case, then, to say that the US invasion of Iraq in fact stoked the once-dormant sectarian tensions in the region that have since exploded following the Arab Spring uprisings. We could phrase it this way: the presence of coalition troops was clearly the only thing ensuring a collapse into full-scale anarchy.

In his conclusion, Mr Gillow warns foreign policy elites against the “the temptation to ignore the internal squabbles of the Islamic [sic] states,” lest they be “remembered for allowing the disintegration of society across an entire region”. As we have seen, however, this is precisely what Western governments will be remembered for in Iraq. The disintegration of Iraqi society and of the Middle Eastern region was precipitated not by Western “isolationism,” but by military interventions promising stability and democracy. …more

President Obama’s Second Term: Selling Death and Buying Assassins In the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia
24 March, 2013 – James Petras – thepeoplevoice.org

Introduction

As President Obama enters his second term with a new Cabinet, the foreign policy legacy of the past four years weighs heavily on their strategic decisions and their empire-building efforts. Central to the analysis of the next period is an evaluation of the past policies especially in regions where Washington expended its greatest financial and military resources, namely the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa.

We will proceed by examining the accomplishments and failures of the Obama-Clinton regime. We will then turn to the ongoing policy efforts to sustain the empire-building project. We will take account of the constraints and opportunities, which define the parameters resulting from imperial military ambitions, Israeli-Zionist influence in shaping policy and the ongoing anti-imperialist struggles. We will conclude by examining likely polices and outcomes resulting from current strategies.

The Clinton-Obama Imperial Legacy: The Accomplishments

The greatest success of the Obama-Clinton (OC) imperial legacy was the virtual elimination of organized domestic anti-war dissent, the demise of the peace movement and the co-optation of virtually the entire ‘progressive’ leadership in the US – while multiplying the number of proxy wars, overt and covert military operations and ‘defense’ spending. As a result, the entire political spectrum moved further to the right toward greater militarization abroad and increased police-state measures at home.

Facing mass revolts and the overthrow of long-standing client regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen, the Obama-Clinton (OC) Administration moved rapidly to reconfigure new client regimes while preserving the state apparatus – the military, intelligence, police, judicial and civilian bureaucracy. The empire dumped incumbent regimes in order to save the repressive state, the key guarantor of US strategic interests. Washington reminded its client rulers that ‘There are no permanent alliances, there are only permanent imperial interests’. Washington successfully engineered a political pact between conservative Islamist leaders and parties and the old military elite. The new political blocs in Egypt upheld Israeli annexation of Palestine, the brutal blockade of Gaza and the neo-liberal economic order. Washington repeated the ‘reshuffle of clients’ in Yemen and Tunisia. The OC intervention temporarily aborted the pro-democracy, anti-Zionist and anti-corruption popular revolt. The OC policies secured a temporary respite, but the subsequent effort by Egypt to secure an IMF loan has led to a stalemate amid deteriorating economic conditions and rising political protest. The successful imposition of new client regimes amenable to US hegemony in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen, in the face of popular revolts, marked the beginning of a series of favorable political-military outcomes in the region for the OC regime.

Facing Israeli annexation of ever-widening swaths of Palestinian land and the end of any pretense of ‘peace negotiations’, Washington continued to provide Israel with massive military assistance, modern weapons systems and unconditional political support in the UN. By submitting to Israel the OC regime succeeded in retaining the political support of the domestic Zionist power configuration (ZPC). The OC regime’s economic handouts supported the puppet Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) as it policed the West Bank for Israel. Despite losing the vote to seat the Palestinians as a non-voting member in the UN, Washington succeeded in blocking full membership. The OC regime succeeded in fulfilling its role as Israel’s handmaiden, despite opposition from the vast majority of UN members.

The OC regime succeeded in tightening sanctions on Iran, by securing Russian, Chinese and Arab League support, without provoking a potentially destructive war. The US sanction policy toward Iran is largely designed and implemented by key Zionist appointees in the Treasury (formerly Stuart Levy, now David Cohen) and in Congress, by legislators bought and directed by the powerful America-Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

The US, under Obama-Clinton, destroyed the independent nationalist Gadhafi government via a joint air war with the EU and tried to set up a client regime. In turn, Libya became a key recruiting ground for violent Islamist mercenaries invading Syria and weapons depot supplying Islamist terrorists. The OC regime’s military success in Libya was part of a general strategy to accelerate the expansion of US and European military operations in Africa. This includes setting up drone bases and promoting African mercenary armies from Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia to expand imperial control in Somalia, Mali and elsewhere.

In the Gulf region the US succeeded in propping up the autocratic Bahrain monarchy, as it killed and jailed opponents and outlawed the mass pro-democracy social movement among its oppressed Shi’a majority population. The OC regime successfully secured Gulf state financing for the Libyan and Syrian wars.

In Iraq, the US has succeeded in dividing the devastated nation into fragments of warring fiefdoms, Shi’a, Sunni, Kurd and subsets of each. It succeeded in destroying a once modern and secular society, an advanced economy and independent nationalist regime. Initially the OC regime hoped to establish a client outpost in Iraq from which to secure Washington’s wealthy petro-clients in the Gulf, especially among the patrimonial dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates. …more

While ensuring to perform a simple exercise that was planned long time ago, Moscow has responded to the announcing from Paris and London to send weapons to Syria, by sending a naval fleet on site. Any Franco-British intervention, direct or indirect, would lead to an escalation and confrontation with Russia.

The American plan of the last minute
By Ghaleb Kandil – 25 March, 2013 – Voltairenet.org

The painful truth that the secretary of state John Kerry finally accepted is that any solution in Syria is a defeat for the United States, the West, the petrodollars kings and Turkey. Also, Washington and his allies try to circumvent this solution by announcing their intention to arm the terrorist gangs and threatening to widen the battlefield before sitting down at the negotiating table in a Russian-American summit which date will be soon, according to diplomats.

At the request of Kerry, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of France and Britain, Laurent Fabius and William Hague, called for arming rebels in Syria. Then Prime Minister of Her Majesty, David Cameron, has denied these intentions, while President François Hollande almost stammered at the meeting of the European Union. Knowing that weapons and communications equipment provided by the West are already for months in the hands of terrorists, who are unable to make significant progress on the ground, despite the support of U.S, Western and Arab instructors, in Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq.

After a severe political warning issued by Russia, information was conveyed that promises to provide new weapons designed primarily to boost the morale of armed gangs with the approach of the Russian-American negotiations. Till the last minute, Americans want to use the capacity and energy of those they invented, trained, armed and financed. Is not that the reason they were created?

A dramatic political development took place last week in Syria, when Russia has launched a stern warning to the address of American who maneuver and delay on the principles Geneva agreement. The Franco-British announcement about sending arms to the rebels was an opportunity for Moscow to underline that this decision constitutes a violation of international law. Sergei Lavrov’s remarks, Russian deployment of warships to the Syrian port of Tartous, arfe a reminder of the red lines that the West must not overstep about the type of weapons they send to terrorists.

During his last tour in the Middle East, John Kerry has flip-flopped on the terms of the agreement with Russia in Geneva. But he was finally forced to make a political statement which had the effect of a shock to his allies and auxiliaries, recognizing that President Bashar al-Assad was an unavoidable negotiator. So, Washington finally abandoned the condition of a president’s departure, as a precondition for national dialogue.

Despite this, the United States remains tempted by the plan of the last minute, trying to change the internal balance of power in Syria in preparation for the start of negotiations. This is a desperate move to avoid total political defeat. It is in this context that we should interpret the training of Syrian terrorists by U.S. instructors in Jordan, sending 3,000 tons of weapons purchased in Croatia by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and scenarios on a Israeli intervention in order to build a security zone in Syria, entrusted to terrorists.

But in the opinion of experts, any Israeli military adventure in Syria and Lebanon would be a catastrophe for the that state, for Western interests and for the entire region. The balance of forces is indeed strong and well anchored, and the axis of the Resistance, with its international alliances -Russia, China and the Brics- has the necessary capacity to thwart any offensive and to break U.S. hegemony over the world.

In this context, the experts agree on the fact that despite the war in which it is engaged, the Syrian army still has significant capabilities in addition to anti-air defense and ballistic missiles, which remain intact. …more

Obama warns of extremist threat in Syria
Matthew Lee – Associated Press – 22 March, 2013

AMMAN, Jordan (AP) — Anxious to keep Syria’s civil war from spiraling into even worse problems, President Barack Obama said Friday he worries about the country becoming a haven for extremists when — not if — President Bashar Assad is ousted from power.

Obama, standing side by side with Jordan’s King Abdullah II, said the international community must work together to ensure there is a credible opposition ready to step into the breach.

“Something has been broken in Syria, and it’s not going to be put back together perfectly immediately — even after Assad leaves,” Obama said. “But we can begin the process of moving it in a better direction, and having a cohesive opposition is critical to that.”

He said Assad is sure to go but there is great uncertainty about what will happen after that.

“I am very concerned about Syria becoming an enclave for extremism,” Obama said, adding that extremism thrives in chaos and failed states. He said the rest of the world has a huge stake in ensuring that a functioning Syria emerges.

“The outcome is Syria is not going to be ideal,” he acknowledged, adding that strengthening a credible opposition was crucial to minimizing the difficulties.

STORY: Israel apologizes to Turkey over flotilla deaths

Eager to resolve another source of tension in the region, the president earlier Friday helped broker a phone call between the Israeli and Turkish prime ministers that led to the restoration of normal diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Obama had come to Jordan from Israel, where Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu placed a call to Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan to apologize for the deaths of nine Turkish activists in a 2009 Israeli naval raid on a Gaza-bound international flotilla.

“The timing was good for that conversation to take place,” Obama said.

Obama, at a joint news conference with Abdullah, said his administration is working with Congress to provide Jordan with an additional $200 million in aid this year to cope with the massive influx of refugees streaming into the country from Syria.

Abdullah said the refugee population in his country has topped 460,000 and is likely to double by the end of the year — the equivalent of 60 million refugees in the United States, he said.

Obama also said he would “keep on plugging away” in hopes of getting the Israelis and Palestinians to reach a peace agreement.

“The window of opportunity still exists, but it’s getting more and more difficult,” the president said. “The mistrust is building instead of ebbing.”

On Iran, Obama reiterated that the U.S. is open to “every option that’s available” to keep the country from developing a nuclear weapon.

He said it would be “extraordinarily dangerous” for the world if Iran does become nuclear capable, and he expressed his desire for using diplomatic means to halt Iran’s nuclear aspirations. Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

“My hope and expectation is that among a menu of options, the option that involves negotiations, discussions, compromise and resolution of the problem is the one that’s exercised,” Obama said. “But as president of the United States I would never take any option off the table.”

Obama arrived in Jordan on Friday evening, the final stop on a four-day visit to the Middle East that included his first stop in Israel as president. …more

Iran slams international silence on chemical weapons use in Syria
24 March 2013 – Islamic Invitation Turkey

da6f28c1539e3e56d5f5ee6b230ea053_LAn Iranian deputy foreign minister has criticized the silence of international community following the use of chemical weapons by militants against the people of Syria.

According to Press TV, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hossein Amir-Abdullahian slammed the silence of the international community and said, “Using chemical weapons against Syrian people and police is a very painful event.”

He added: “As the biggest victim of chemical weapons, Iran strongly condemns using of these weapons by terrorists and extremists in Syria who act under the disguise of opposition.”

At least 25 people were killed and 86 others injured after militants fired missiles containing poisonous gas into Aleppo’s Khan al-Assal village on March 19. Women and children were among the victims.

The attack came after Syria’s opposition coalition, known as the Syrian National Coalition, chose a Syrian-born American citizen, Ghassan Hitto, as the prime minister of what they call an interim government.

The Syrian government says the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the militants fighting the Syrian government are foreign nationals. …source

Syria chemical weapons: finger pointed at jihadists
Angry Arab News Service
“However a senior source close to the Syrian Army has given Channel 4 News the first clear account of what he claims is believed to have occurred on Tuesday. He is a trusted and hitherto reliable source who does not wish to be identified. The Syrian military is said to believe that a home-made locally-manufactured rocket was fired, containing a form of chlorine known as CL17, easily available as a swimming pool cleaner. They claim that the warhead contained a quantity of the gas, dissolved in saline solution. The source said that the town of Khan al-Assal has been in government control since March 13 but – like so much of the area – has been much fought over and parts of the area change hands with relative frequency. Rebel Sunni groups with al-Qaeda sympathies have been attacking the town, where the population is predominantly Shia. The military’s version of events is that the home-made rocket was fired at a military checkpoint situated at the entrance to the town. The immediate effects were to induce vomiting, fainting, suffocation and seizures among those in the immediate area. A second source – a medic at the local civilian hospital – said that he personally witnessed Syrian army helping those wounded and dealing with fatalities at the scene. That Syrian soldiers were among the reported 26 deaths has not been disputed by either side.” …source

A Syrian Army source gives the first account of what is believed to have been a chemical attack – and it could mean that one of the West’s biggest fears is about to come true. Channel 4’s Alex Thomson reports. Whatever happened last week in the town of Khan al-Assal, west of Aleppo, it achieved something extraordinary in the Syrian civil war: unity among Washington, Moscow and Damascus

Syria chemical weapons: finger pointed at jihadists
By Alex Thomson, 23 March, 2013, The Telegraph

Whatever happened last week in the town of Khan al-Assal, west of Aleppo, it achieved something extraordinary in the Syrian civil war: unity among Washington, Moscow and Damascus.

All welcomed the rapid decision by Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary-general, to investigate an alleged chemical attack that reportedly killed 26, including Syrian soldiers.

Unusually, the request for that investigation came from the Syrian regime, which claimed that Islamic jihadist rebels launched a chemical weapons attack. Since then, precious little evidence in any way has come from the area despite an awful lot of diplomatic noise around the world.

However a senior source close to the Syrian Army has given Channel 4 News the first clear account of what he claims is believed to have occurred on Tuesday. He is a trusted and hitherto reliable source who does not wish to be identified.

The Syrian military is said to believe that a home-made locally-manufactured rocket was fired, containing a form of chlorine known as CL17, easily available as a swimming pool cleaner. They claim that the warhead contained a quantity of the gas, dissolved in saline solution. …more

The torture and ill-treatment of detainees remains one of Amnesty International’s long-standing and serious concerns in Bahrain. Over the years the organization has documented numerous cases of torture, which have been raised with the government and placed on the public record. The government denies the use of torture in its prisons, and yet continues to deny independent international human rights bodies access to the country to investigate such claims. To Amnesty International’s knowledge, the government has failed to carry out a single independent investigation of its own into allegations of torture. No one has been brought to justice or convicted for such crimes to date.

“No policeman or any other person with authority shall use violence or threats or promise of benefits towards any person during an investigation into the commission of an offence in order to influence the statement he may give”.

Bahrain: A Human Rights Crisis
25 September, 1995 – Amnesty International

INTRODUCTION

In early December 1994, widespread protests erupted in Bahrain as thousands of people took to the streets calling for the restoration of democratic rights – namely, the reconvening of parliament and respect for the country’s Constitution. The Bahraini Government responded by ignoring these demands and attempting to stifle these calls by violating basic human rights.

Over a ten-month period, several thousand people – including women and children – were arrested and many continue to be held without charge or trial. Among them were prisoners of conscience. At least 100 of them were subsequently charged, convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment, and in one case to death, following grossly unfair trials. Scores of detainees are believed to have been tortured under interrogation, and two have died in custody. Security forces and riot police were deployed in large numbers in the streets to quell demonstrators. A variety of weaponry, including live ammunition, was used for this purpose. To date, 10 civilians have been killed in circumstances suggesting that they may have been extrajudicially executed. At least 20 Bahraini nationals were forcibly exiled from the country or were denied entry after attempting to return.

Throughout, the Government of Bahrain has denied that forces under its authority have committed these widespread violations of human rights. It has sought to maintain – both at home and abroad – that it has acted within the law with regard to arrest and detention procedures, that the rights of detainees in custody were respected, and that those convicted received the benefit of fair trials. Furthermore, the government has sought to justify its strong-arm tactics in quelling demonstrators by pointing to acts of violence – the killing of three law enforcement officers and acts of sabotage – which it accused “extremist elements” of having perpetrated. It has stated publicly that such acts of violence were carried at the instigation of hostile foreign powers.

The government, however, has failed to provide the evidence to support its public statements, both with regard to the question of foreign involvement in the current political unrest and with regard to the manner in which the authorities have handled the mass protests. It has failed to make known the names of those arrested and their places of detention, and has denied the vast majority of them access to relatives and defence lawyers. Most of those convicted were tried in camera before the State Security Court, the proceedings of which fall far short of international standards for fair trial. To Amnesty International’s knowledge, the government has failed to set up investigations into any allegations of torture or into incidents involving the killing of demonstrators. No one has been brought to justice for any of these crimes. Moreover, the government continues to deny Amnesty International access to the country to investigate these allegations or to observe ongoing trials. Thousands of appeals sent by Amnesty International members on behalf of individual detainees remain unanswered.

This report addresses the range of Amnesty International’s concerns about human rights violations committed since December 1994. In gathering its information, the organization has interviewed a wide range of victims, including former detainees now abroad as well as others who remain in Bahrain. Amnesty International has obtained testimonies from victims of torture and ill-treatment; some of the allegations of torture made are supported by medical evidence. Testimonies and information were also obtained from numerous eye-witnesses to the killing of demonstrators, from the relatives of those convicted following unfair trials, and from defence lawyers. The fear of further reprisals by the authorities means that some of these sources – particularly those who remain in Bahrain – are not identified at their own request.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL’S CONCERNS IN BAHRAIN

The Government of Bahrain has engaged in a consistent pattern of systematic human rights violations since the early 1980s. These violations included the arbitrary arrest and prolonged administrative and incommunicado detention without charge or trial of suspected political opponents; the torture and ill-treatment of detainees, particularly during pre-trial detention, in order to extract “confessions”; grossly unfair trials before the State Security Court; and the forcible exile from the country of Bahraini nationals. While executions have not been carried out in Bahrain for many years, Amnesty International remains concerned about the introduction by law of new capital offences and the continued passing of death sentences. …more

Zainab Al-Khawaja: Letter From A Bahraini Prison
24 March,2013 – by Zainab Al-Khawaja

Great leaders are immortal, their word s and deeds echo through the years, decades, and centuries. They echo across oceans and borders and become an inspiration that touches the lives of many who are willing to learn. One such leader is the remarkable Martin Luther King Jr. As I read his words, I imagine him reading out to us from another land, another time, to teach us some very important lessons. Above all, he tells us, we should never become bitter or sink to the level of our oppressors; that we should be willing to make great sacrifices for freedom.

As seeds of hope and resistance to oppression started flowering across the Arab world, the people of Bahrain saw the first signs of a new dawn. One that promised an end to a long night of dictatorship and oppression, a long winter of silence and fear, and to spread the light and warmth of a new age of freedom and democracy.

With that hope and determination, the people of Bahrain took to the streets on 14 February 2011 to peacefully demand their rights. Their songs, poetry, paintings and chants for freedom were met with bullets, tanks, toxic tear gas, and birdshot guns. The brutal Al Khalifa regime was determined to end the creative, peaceful revolution, by resorting to violence and spreading fear.

Faced with the regime’s brutality, Bahrainis showed great restraint. Day after long day, protesters held up flowers to soldiers and mercenaries who would shoot at them. Protesters stood with bare chests and arms raised shouting, “peaceful, peaceful” [silmiyya, silmiyya] before they fell onto the ground, covered with blood. Thousands of Bahrainis have since been detained and tortured for so-called crimes such as “illegal gathering” and “inciting hatred against the regime.”

Two years later, the Bahraini regime’s atrocities continue. Bahrainis are still being killed, detained, injured, and tortured for demanding democracy. When I look into the eyes of Bahraini protesters today, too many times I see that bitterness has overtaken hope. The same bitterness Martin Luther King Jr. saw in the eyes of rioters in the slums of Chicago in 1966. He saw that the same people who had been leading non-violent protests, who had risked life and limb without the desire to strike back, were later convinced that violence is the only language the world understood.

I, like King, find myself saddened to find some of the same protesters who faced Bahrain’s tanks and guns with bare chests and flowers, today asking, “What’s the use of non-violence? What’s the point of moral superiority, if no one is even listening?” Martin Luther King Jr. explains that this despair is only natural when people who sacrifice so much see no change in sight and feel their suffering has been worthless.

Ironically, change towards democracy has been so slow in Bahrain largely due to the support that the world’s most powerful democratic nations continue to give to the dictators here. Through selling them arms and providing economic and political support, the United States and other western governments have proven to the people of Bahrain that they stand with the Al Khalifa monarchy against the democratic movement.

As I was reading through Martin Luther King’s words I found myself wishing he were alive. I found myself wondering what he would have to say about the US administration’s support of Bahraini dictators. What he would say about turning a blind eye to the blood and tears being spilt in the quest for freedom. All I had to do was turn a page, and this time Martin Luther King spoke not to me, but to you, to Americans:

John F. Kennedy said ‘those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.’ Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken—the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investment. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. (..) a true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies.

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and new systems of justice and equality, are being born… We in the west must support these revolutions.

It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency… and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the western nations that irritated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace… and justice throughout the world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

The echo of Martin Luther King’s words has travelled across oceans, through the walls and metal bars of a Bahraini prison, and into the overcrowded and filthy cell I live in. I hear the words of this great American leader, whose unbending dedication to morality and justice made him the great leader he was. As I marvel at his wisdom from my tiny cell, I wonder if the people of the United States are also listening.

Being a political prisoner in Bahrain, I try to find a way to fight from within the fortress of the enemy, as Mandela describes it. Not long after I was placed in a cell with fourteen people—two of whom are convicted murderers—I was handed the orange prison uniform. I knew I could not wear the uniform without having to swallow a little of my dignity. Refusing to wear the convicts’ clothes because I have not committed a crime, that was my small version of civil disobedience. Denying my visitation rights, and not letting me see my family and my three-year-old daughter, that has been their punishment. That is why I am on hunger strike.

Prison administrators ask me why I am on hunger strike. I reply, “Because I want to see my baby.” They respond, nonchalantly, “Obey and you will see her.” But if I obey, my little Jude will not in fact be seeing her mother, but rather a broken version of her. I wrote to the prison administration that I refuse to wear the convicts’ uniform because “no moral man can patiently adjust to injustice.” (Thoreau).

What makes jail difficult is that you are living with your enemy, even in the most basic ways. If you want to eat, you stand in front of him with your plastic tray. And every day, one faces the possibility of being ridiculed, shouted at, or humiliated for any reason. Or for no reason. But I have let the words of great men and women help me through these times. When the “specialist” threatened to beat me for telling an inmate that she has a right to call her lawyer, I did not shout back. I repeated King’s words in my head: “No matter how emotional your opponents are, you must be calm.”

Until one day, I had had enough of people telling me that I am getting all my rights and refusing to face that I have responsibilities. After hearing that sentence over and over, I finally got angry. And what is worse, I felt so frustrated that I shouted back.

But then hadn’t a great man once said that in the struggle for justice we, “must not become bitter” and that we should “never to sink to the lever of our oppressors”?

A doctor came to see me and said “you might fall into a coma, your vital organs might stop working, your blood sugar levels are so low, and all this for what… A uniform!”

I replied: “I am glad you weren’t with Rosa Parks on that bus, to tell the woman who sparked the civil rights movement, “that it was all for nothing but a chair.” When the doctor started asking about the African American movement, I offered my Martin Luther King book. If you know me you would know that I very rarely offer to give away my books.

Sometimes, through his words, Martin Luther King has been a companion, a cellmate more than a teacher. He says, “No one can understand my conflict who hasn’t looked into the eyes of those he loves, knowing that he has no alternative but to take a stand that leaves them tormented.” I do understand. He wrote as though he sits beside me. “The jail experience… is a life without the singing of a bird, without the sight of the sun, moon, and stars, without the felt presence of fresh air. In short, it is life without the beauties of life, it is bare existence—cold, cruel, degenerating”.

My father, my hero and my friend, sentenced to life in prison for his human rights work has also refused to wear the grey prison uniform. As usual, the government tries to “put us in our places” by taking away what means most to us. They will not allow my father his family visit. And to further taunt him, they, for the first time, said he would be able to visit me in prison if he wore the uniform. Cruelty is the Al Khalifa regime’s trademark, but unwavering courage and patience is my dad’s. No emotional pressure will break him.

The family visit is the one thing one looks forward to in prison. My father and I will not be seeing our family or each other, but the struggle for our rights will continue. Until we see our family next, we hold them in our hearts.

Yesterday I fell asleep while looking at my prison cell door with its iron bars, and I had a dream. But this time it was a small and simple dream, not of democracy and freedom. I just saw my smiling mother, holding my daughter’s hand, standing at the door of my prison cell. I saw them walk through the metal. My mother sat on my prison bed as my daughter and I lay side by side, our heads in her lap. I tickle Jude and she laughs, and my heart fills with joy. Suddenly I feel we are in a cool and protective shadow, I look up and see my father standing by the bed, looking at the three of us and smiling. I dream of those I love, it is their love that gives me the strength to fight for the dreams of our country.

Zainab Alkhawaja

Isa Town Women Prison
…source

Two jailed Bahraini activists refusing fluids in hunger strike: rights group
25 March, 2013 – Reuters

(Reuters) – Two jailed activists on hunger strike in Bahrain are also refusing fluids in protest at being denied visits from their family, a rights organization said on Monday.

But the Bahraini government said Zainab al-Khawaja was accepting fluids and denied that her father, leading Shi’ite activist Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, was on any form of hunger strike.

Bahrain, the base for the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, has been in turmoil since 2011, when majority Shi’ite Muslims intensified demands for an end to the Sunni monarchy’s political domination and for full powers for parliament.

Zainab al-Khawaja was sentenced to three months in jail this month, accused of insulting a public official, after an appeal court overturned her earlier acquittal.

She has been on hunger strike since March 17 and began refusing fluids on Sunday, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights said in an e-mailed press release. It said her father, who is serving a life sentence for his role in the 2011 uprising, was also on hunger strike.

“Both Abdulhadi al-Khawaja and his daughter Zainab al-Khawaja were denied family visits for the second time this weekend, prompting them to start a dry hunger strike today, 24 March,” the center said in the statement.

The Bahraini government said only Zainab was on hunger strike, which she began on March 18. “But she is taking all kinds of fluid,” Sameera Rajab, Bahrain’s information minister, told Reuters by telephone from Manama.

“She is in good health and is receiving 24-hour health care. Her father is not on hunger strike,” Rajab said, adding the pair had been denied family visits because they refused to wear the prison uniform.

“They break the rules and then they go on hunger strike,” she said.

The human rights center said some detainees, among them Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, had until recently not been required to wear the uniform and that enforcing the rule was “a new tool used to humiliate prisoners of conscience and identify them as criminal prisoners.”

Bahrain’s opposition and government resumed reconciliation talks last month for the first time since July 2011, but little progress has been reported in several sessions of negotiations. …source

Bahrain blocks marches for jailed rights activist
23 March, 2013 – Associated Press – Reuters

MANAMA, Bahrain: Security forces in Bahrain have fired tear gas to prevent protesters from reaching the house of a jailed human rights activist who is the focus of an international campaign seeking his release.

Riot police clashed with hundreds of marchers trying to gather at the home of Nabeel Rajab, who has been sentenced to two years in prison on charges of backing “illegal” protests.

Authorities also set up roadblocks to keep cars from reaching the house.

Rajab, head of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, is among dozens of activists and political figures jailed during the more than two-year unrest in the Gulf kingdom.

Majority Shiites in the Sunni-ruled nation are seeking a greater political voice.

International rights groups have called for Bahrain to release Rajab and other jailed activists.
…source

Bahraini regime forces arrest rights activist Sayed Yousif al-Muhafdah
25 March, 2013 – Shia Post

Bahraini forces have arrested the prominent rights activist, Sayed Yousif al-Muhafdah, during an anti-regime protest rally as the Al Khalifa regime intensifies its brutal crackdown on demonstrations.

According to reports, Bahraini police arrested Muhafdah while he was taking part in a protest held in the village of Saar, located 16 kilometers west of the capital, Manama, on Saturday.

The protest turned violent when regime forces attempted to prevent the demonstrators from marching toward a nearby village by setting up road blocks and firing tear gas at the crowd.

The protesters were reportedly trying to reach the house of the rights activist Nabeel Rajab in the village of Bani Jamrah.

On Friday, thousands of Bahrainis staged a similar demonstration near in the village of Bilad al-Qadeem near Manama, demanding political and voicing support for political prisoners.

The Persian Gulf kingdom was rocked by a popular uprising in mid-February 2011, when the people — inspired by the popular revolutions that toppled the dictators of Tunisia and Egypt — have embarked on massive street protests on an almost daily basis.

The Bahraini government promptly launched a brutal crackdown on the peaceful demonstrations and called in troops from Saudi Arabia and other neighboring Arab states to help Manama quash the popular movement.

Scores of people have been killed in the crackdown, while the security forces have arrested hundreds, among them doctors and nurses accused of treating injured revolutionaries.

A report published by the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry in November 2011 found that the Al Khalifa regime had used excessive force in the crackdown and accused Manama of torturing political activists, politicians, and protesters. …source

Shia Muslims in Saudi Arabia keep the protest movement alive
By Reese Erlich – GlobalPost – 18 March, 2013

Editor’s Note: When Arab Spring protests broke out in Saudi Arabia in 2011, the government reacted quickly. It pumped $130 billion into the economy, including hiring 300,000 new state workers and raising salaries. It also brutally cracked down on dissent, in some cases breaking up peaceful protests with live ammunition. While the carrot and stick approach worked in some cities, the Shia Muslims in the Eastern Province continued to protest. Shia make up some 10-15 percent of the Saudi population and have long rebelled against discrimination and political exclusion.

Demonstrations continued in the city of Qatif but got little publicity because foreign journalists are banned from reporting there. Correspondent Reese Erlich, on assignment for GlobalPost and NPR, managed to get into Qatif, meet with protest leaders and become the first foreign journalist to witness the current demonstrations.

This is his account: QATIF, Saudi Arabia — Night has fallen as the car rumbles down back roads to avoid the Saudi Army’s special anti-riot units. To be stopped at any of the numerous checkpoints leading into Qatif, would mean police detention for a Western journalist and far worse for the Saudi activists in the car. They would likely spend a lot of time in jail for spreading what Saudi authorities deem “propaganda” to the foreign media.

In Saudi Arabia all demonstrations are illegal, but here in Qatif residents have defied the ban for many months. At least once a week the mostly young demonstrators march down a street renamed “Revolution Road,” calling for the release of political prisoners and for democratic rights.

The anti-riot units deploy armored vehicles at strategic locations downtown. The word on this night is that if demonstrators stay off the main road, the troops may not attack.

Foreign journalists are generally denied permission to report from Qatif. Activists said this night was the first time a foreign journalist has been an eyewitness to one of their demonstrations. Asked if the troops will use tear gas, Abu Mohammad, the pseudonym used by an activist to prevent government retaliation, says, “Oh, no. The army either does nothing or uses live ammunition.”

I really hope it will be option #1.

Suddenly, young Shia Muslim men wearing balaclavas appear, directing traffic away from Revolution Road. All the motorists obey the gesticulations of these self-appointed traffic cops.

Minutes later several hundred men march down the street, most with their faces covered to avoid police identification. Shia women wearing black chadors, which also hide their faces, follow closely behind, chanting even louder than the men.

One of their banners reads, “For 100 years we have lived in fear, injustice, and intimidation.”

Despite two years of repression by the Saudi royal family, Shia protests against the government have continued here in the Eastern Province. Though Shia are a small fraction of Saudi Arabia’s 27 million people, they are the majority here. Most of the country’s 14 oil fields are located in the Eastern Province, making it of strategic importance to the government.

Shia have protested against discrimination and for political rights for decades. But the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011 gave new impetus to the movement. Saudi Arabia is home to two of Islam’s most holy cities, and the government sees itself as a protector of the faith. But its political alliances with the US and conservative, Sunni monarchies have angered many other Muslims, including the arc of Shia stretching from Iran to Lebanon.

Saudi officials claim they are under attack from Shia Iran and have cracked down hard on domestic dissent.

Saudi authorities are responsible for the death of 15 people and 60 injured since February 2011, according to Waleed Sulais of the Adala Center for Human Rights, the leading human rights group in the Eastern Province. He says 179 detainees remain in jail, including 19 children under the age of 18.

The government finds new ways to stifle dissent, according to Sulais. Several months ago the government required all mobile phone users to register their SIM cards, which means text messaging about demonstrations is no longer anonymous.
Abu Zaki, another activist requesting anonymity, says demonstrators now rely on Facebook and Twitter, along with good old word of mouth. Practically everyone at the recent Qatif protest march carried iPhones. Some broadcast the demo in near real time by uploading to YouTube.

Organizers hope their sheer numbers, along with government incompetence, will keep them from being discovered. “The government cannot follow everybody’s Twitter user name,” says Abu Zaki. “The authorities have to be selective and, hopefully, they don’t select my name.”
When protests began, demonstrators called for reforms. But now, younger militants demand elimination of the monarchy and an end to the US policy of supporting the dictatorial king.

Abu Mohammad, Abu Zaki and several other militant activists, gather in an apartment in Awamiyah, a poor, Shia village neighboring Qatif. In this part of the world a village is really a small town, usually abutting a larger city. Awamiyah is one such town, chock full of auto repair shops, one-room storefronts, and potholed streets. It is noticeably poorer than Sunni towns of comparable size.

Strong, black tea is served along with weak, greenish Saudi coffee. The protest movement in Qatif, they observe, resembles the tea more than the coffee.

Abu Mohammad tells me protests have remained strong because residents are fighting for both political rights as Saudis, and against religious/social discrimination as Shia.

Shia face discrimination in jobs, housing and religious practices. Qatif has no Shia cemetery, for example. Only four Shia sit on the country’s 150-member Shura Council, the appointed legislature that advises the king.

“As Shia, we can’t get jobs in the military,” says Abu Mohammad. “And we face the same political repression as all Saudis. We live under an absolute monarchy that gives us no rights and steals the wealth of the country.”

The government denies those claims of discrimination and repression. In Riyadh, Major General Mansour Al Turki, spokesperson for the Ministry of Interior, is the point man who often meets with foreign journalists. Al Turki is smooth and affable and practiced at the art of being interviewed by Westerners.

He dismisses Shia charges of discrimination as simply untrue. “These people making demonstrations are very few,” he tells me. “They only represent themselves. The majority [of Shia] are living at a very high level.” …more

Colm O’Gorman: Why we can’t afford to forget about Bahrain
Colm O’Gorman – 14 February, 2013 – thejournal.ie

MAHDI ABU DHEEB has been in prison in Bahrain for almost two years. He is locked up in Jaw Prison, in the country’s capital of Manama, for 18 hours a day. He shares his cell with criminals, but he has committed no crime.

He is a teacher, and until his arrest was the president of the Bahrain Teachers’ Association.

Inspired by what they had seen happen in Egypt and Tunisia, the people of Bahrain took to the streets to demand change, two years ago today.

They wanted democracy, freedom of speech, women’s rights and justice.

They got plastic bullets, tear gas, torture and imprisonment.

The attacks by Bahrain’s security forces on the first peaceful demonstrations in mid-February killed seven people and injured hundreds more.

Mahdi Abu Dheeb and the Bahrain Teachers’ Association felt they could not ignore what was happening in the towns and cities of their country. Five thousand Bahraini teachers went on strike.

“Harassment and intimidation”

They demanded political reforms and an investigation into the deaths of peaceful protests but agreed to end the strike when the government pulled the army off the streets.

But harassment and intimidation of teachers, including violent assaults by pro-government supporters, in their schools, continued. A second strike was called in March 2011, but this time the government would not compromise.

The leadership of the Bahrain Teachers’ Association was arrested. Other teachers were suspended from their jobs or saw their salaries cut. Mahdi went into hiding, but was discovered and arrested on 6 April. He was tried before a military court and is now serving a five-year prison sentence.

His daughter Maryam recently sent this video message calling on people to support her father:

via AmnestyInternational

But Mahdi is just one of dozens of prisoners of conscience in Bahrain.

They include three men serving prison sentences for criticising the King of Bahrain on their Twitter accounts.

They include Dr Ali Al’Ekri, a Bahraini doctor who trained here in Ireland with the Royal College of Surgeons. His crime was to treat protestors who were brought to his hospital after being injured by the security forces.

After the uprising in 2011 the authorities in Bahrain set up an independent commission of inquiry to investigate human rights abuses committed during the crackdown on protests. At least 35 protestors were killed and many more, including Mahdi and Dr Al ‘Ekri were tortured.

Since the commission reported in 2011, the government has introduced some limited reforms. There is now a code of conduct for police officers. CCTV cameras have been installed in police stations to protect detainees.

“Continuing targeting of activists using social media”

But trade unionists, doctors and opposition activists remain behind bars and the authorities still reserve the right to impose total bans on protests at any time.

The continuing targeting of activists using social media to discuss what is happening in Bahrain shows the authorities still refuse to countenance any criticism of their actions and are particularly sensitive about Bahrain’s profile in online media.

In many ways, Bahrain is the forgotten country of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’. The world’s attention has been on the conflict in Syria, the instability in Egypt and the struggle to build a functioning democracy in Libya.

Those men and women who demanded change in Bahrain have been largely forgotten by the international community. This sends a signal, intentionally or not, to Bahrain’s government that their repression of human rights can continue, that they are free to imprison anyone they choose on trumped up charges.

Ireland can help change this. As a member of the UN Human Rights Council, we should be using that position to put pressure on Bahrain to stop human rights abuses and to free prisoners of conscience, uniting Mahdi Abu Dheeb with his daughter after almost two years of imprisonment. …source

Rights and Access Denied: Prisoners Prevented from Seeing Family Members
21 March, 2103 – Bahrain Center for Human Rights

In the wake of World War 2, the international community established standards in regards to civil rights and liberties, with the hope that there wouldn`t be any racial, religious or political discrimination. The world has moved forward to protect human rights, but Bahrain has decided to stay behind.

Bahrain is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), where in Article 10 states that all persons imprisoned and deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. However, these rights are routinely denied.

Since February 2011 human rights activists have been thrown in and out of jail at an alarming pace for acts as small as tweeting or simply because they were standing in a group of more than five people.

Photo: Families waiting outside a prison to visit their loved ones. Visitors never know if they will be allowed to visit their family members, or if the visit will be arbitrarily denied.

Imprisoned activist Zainab Al-Khawaja was supposed to meet with her father, Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, on Sunday, but the visit was denied. To protest these violations of their rights, they both started a hunger strike on the same day, and their strike continues. Zainab was also denied the right to visit with her three year-old daughter during a scheduled visit. Prison authorities would not explain, but only stated that they were following the orders of senior personnel.

The UN adopted the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, and although they are not legally binding, they are certainly a good guide for how governments should treat their prisoners in a democratic society. This guide clearly states that prisoners shouldn`t be cut off from the world as they are in Bahrain. …source

A Qatari Coup Against Saudi Arabia: A Unilateral Decision on the Syrian National Coalition
Al Monitor – Mohammad Ballout – 21 March, 2013

The first fruit of the above is that 12 NCR members froze their memberships a few hours after provisional prime minister Ghassan Hitto presided over his new Syrian “government” in contravention of the deal that Qatar and Saudi brokered among the various wings in the NCR.

The Qataris came out victorious in their struggle to influence a large part of the Syrian opposition abroad and in determining the next course of action. Over the coming days, Qatar may score another victory by granting the “temporary government” Syria’s seat in the Arab League, which meets in Doha on Tuesday [March 26].

Syrian opposition sources said that what happened in Istanbul [on March 19] was a coup against the Qatari-Saudi agreement reached in recent weeks. Under that agreement, Syria’s former agriculture minister, Asaad Mustafa, was to have headed the “temporary government.”

An NCR source said that after 14 hours of closed-door meetings and phone consultations, which Qatar’s Foreign Ministry directed from its headquarters in Doha, Qatar broke the agreement on Mustafa being elected to head the temporary government. Small and independent blocs that had clout were isolated, as was NCR president Moaz Khatib, who was forced to bow to the majority’s choice. He had previously rejected the “temporary government” option and called for avoiding this reckless step. He was against choosing figures with no unanimous support. He said that obtaining Syria’s seat in the Arab League, something Qatar is pushing for, is not worth the risk of harming the NCR.

An NCR source said that Khalid al-Attiyah, the Qatari Foreign Ministry’s office director, intervened to impose Hitto. The electoral committee members were summoned from their hotel rooms after midnight in order to elect Hitto, a naturalized US citizen and Texas resident, to be prime minister of the temporary government.

Several factors combined to pull off the Qatari coup and impose a “sovereign temporary government” instead of an “administrative executive body.” Many NCR members changed positions. In the end, 33 of 66 NCR members voted for Hitto. Muslim Brotherhood leaders had opposed forming a temporary government but changed their minds after the US and Russia reached an understanding over the Geneva Accord. The Muslim Brotherhood is a powerful force within the NCR. The Brotherhood also controls a large part of the Syrian National Council, with 26 seats, and has an ally in NCR Secretary-General Mustafa al-Sabbagh, whose bloc comprises 15 representatives from the revolutionary movement and the “local councils.”
…more

Bahraini Monarchy Desecrating Mosques : Al Wefaq
23 March, 2013 – Jafria News

JNN 23 Mar 2013 Manama : The Bahraini opposition bloc al-Wefaq has heaped scorn on the government for its desecration of mosques, saying the Al Khalifa regime is in a morally downward spiral.

Al-Wefaq made the criticism on Friday, shortly after Bahraini troops targeted a mosque in the northern village of Daih with tear gas, preventing people from praying in the house of worship.

Al-Wefaq said Bahraini security forces have also attacked schools and hundreds of homes, causing deaths by suffocation due to the use of tear gas.

Since mid-February 2011, thousands of pro-democracy protesters have staged numerous demonstrations in the streets of Bahrain, calling for the Al Khalifa royal family to relinquish power.

On March 14, 2011, troops from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates invaded the country to assist the Bahraini government in its crackdown on the peaceful protesters.

According to local sources, scores of people have been killed and hundreds arrested.

Physicians for Human Rights says doctors and nurses have been detained, tortured, or disappeared because they have “evidence of atrocities committed by the authorities, security forces, and riot police” in the crackdown on anti-government protesters. …source

Hezbollah’s Role in Syria
By: Ibrahim al-Amin – 22 March 22, 2013 – Al Akhbar

For quite some time there has been a great deal of talk and speculation in Lebanon, Syria, and the Arab and Western worlds about Hezbollah’s true role in the Syrian crisis. The anti-Hezbollah propaganda machine has, as usual, been particularly active, issuing a daily stream of news and reports about the party’s supposed involvement in the conflict.

This machine – which has Lebanese, Syrian, and other operators – has announced the deaths of hundreds of Hezbollah fighters in Syria, and the capture of dozens by Syrian rebels. An official security agency in Beirut plays a central role on this front by leaking factual information that is then embellished. This deluge, these people believe, is a useful means of helping generate as much public anger as possible against Hezbollah.

Hezbollah, for its part, has offered no further clarification of what Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah has said about the party’s role in aiding its Lebanese supporters who live in villages inside Syria, though he has reiterated that Hezbollah had not so far taken part in the fighting in Syria.

A deliberate strategy of incitement and exaggeration is being employed against Hezbollah by regional and foreign intelligence agencies, including Israel’s. But the focus was, and remains, on trying to understand Hezbollah’s place in the Syrian crisis as it starts its third year. These agencies know many details of what is really happening on the ground in terms of fighting between regime and opposition forces. They are aware of each side’s capabilities, and keep a constant watch on all activities undertaken in support of the regime, including by Hezbollah.

But for others, it may be necessary to clarify the outlook on which Hezbollah’s attitude to the crisis is based. This could help many understand the ideological, political, and operational underpinnings of its stance.

Hezbollah continues to view things from the perspective of its central role in confronting Israel. It may not often elaborate about the ultimate objective of that struggle, but the party behaves as though it is part of a long-term campaign aimed at getting rid of Israel, a battle for which much preparedness is required. While a majority of the Arab and Islamic peoples would not mind being rid of Israel, only a minority are willing to fight such a battle to the end.

A minority of the unwilling think such talk is insane or delusional and can have no bearing on history. This influential group sees no need for a battle of this kind. It therefore views Hezbollah as a bunch of lunatics who are not only endangering their own people and themselves, but also the interests of the peoples of the region. This minority thus finds itself in alliance, with or without any actual agreement, with Hezbollah’s real foes, namely Israel, the US, and certain Arab and Western capitals

Hezbollah’s commitment to resistance against occupation obliges it to do many things, including to avoid making other enemies. Its position on Syria is consistent with its attitude to the protest movements in the Arab world as a whole.

Nobody from the outset could ever have imagined Hezbollah taking a stand against the regime in Syria. While the party does not disregard the domestic causes of the crisis, it does not condone the battles that are taking place.
Nobody from the outset could ever have imagined Hezbollah taking a stand against the regime in Syria. While the party does not disregard the domestic causes of the crisis, it does not condone the battles that are taking place. Its view of the bigger picture prevents it from adopting a neutral posture, as does the fact that it has a clearer and stronger following in Syria than many of the groups involved in the fighting.

Hezbollah warned early on about the foreign connections and agendas of groups leading the protests. It had clear evidence of the ideological persuasions of some of the most influential of these groups. It noticed how, from the start of the protests, demonstrators in Homs and Deraa set fire to pictures of Nasrallah and Hezbollah flags, and how the campaign of sectarian incitement against the party went into full-gear.

This was before the party had made any comment on developments in Syria – indeed, while it was working with various Arab Islamist movements, including Hamas, on trying to broker contacts aimed at avoiding the current catastrophe.

Hezbollah’s view, simply put, is that the war in Syria aims at shifting the country politically and strategically to a position of opposing its existence. That makes it see the current regime led by Bashar al-Assad as a forward line of defense for the resistance movement in Lebanon and Palestine. This alone is grounds for the party to be at the heart of the crisis.

There have been many questions and claims about the role Hezbollah is playing in Syria. Its detractors say it is heavily engaged in the ongoing military operations. The facts of the matter do not need much explanation:

– Hezbollah trains, arms, and provides sufficient logistical support to Lebanese inhabitants of border villages.

– Hezbollah took over the task of protecting the Sayida Zainab shrine south of Damascus after its Iraqi guards left. Party members are deployed there under a plan that restricts their responsibility to the immediate vicinity of the shrine.

– Hezbollah received delegations from a considerable number of Druze, Christian, Shia, and Ismaili groups who felt their minority communities were under serious threat. It did not comply with their training and arming requests, but provided them with the means to prevent their displacement.

– Hezbollah, which has security and military ties to the regime, assists Syrian forces in providing protection to scientific academies and missile factories that were built over the past decade largely with aid from Iran.

– Hezbollah operates a major scheme, perhaps the biggest, to help Syrian refugees in Lebanon and even inside Syria. This is not aimed at repaying the Syrians for taking in refugees from Lebanon in 2006. It is done quietly, out of conviction that refugees and displaced people are entitled to all possible humanitarian aid regardless of political views.

Attitudes to Hezbollah are linked to a whole host of calculations. Yet some are desperate to not just drag the party into the Syrian crisis, but into a similar battle in Lebanon. The party is conscious of this. It appears to be discussing procedures for an operation aimed at putting sectarian strife back into a coma, though its leaders fear much blood will flow before that happens.

Real liars go to Tehran
By Pepe Escobar – The Roving Eye – 21 March, 2013

Uncle Marx never thought about this one: history repeating itself as double tragedy after already being a farce in the first place. Let’s examine the case in hand. First of all, take a close look at this Wall Street Journal op-ed from September 2002, in the hysterical run-up towards the invasion of Iraq.

Title: The Case for Toppling Saddam. Author: Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu – then out of the Israeli government.

It’s all here: a “dictator who is rapidly expanding his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons” and “who is feverishly trying to
acquire nuclear weapons”; the Saddam equals Hitler parallel; the portrayal of (de facto nuclear power) Israel as helpless victims of Palestinian “terror”; the claim that Saddam could produce nuclear fuel “in centrifuges the size of washing machines that can be hidden throughout the country – and Iraq is a very big country”; the cheerleading of a unilateral pre-emptive strike; and the inevitable conclusion that “nothing less than dismantling his regime will do”.

Fast-forward over 10 years to this week in Israel. The scene: press conference of Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and visiting US President Barack Obama. Anyone watching it live on al-Jazeera, from the Middle East to East Asia, must have thought they were watching a geopolitical Back to the Future – and frankly, Michael J Fox at least oozed charm.

No charm here; this was more like an eerie, suit-and-tie Return of the Living Dead. Bibi and Obama were at pains to stress the US-Israel bond was “eternal”. Actually Bibi preferred to stress that Iran’s (non-existent) nuclear weapons posed an existential threat to Israel. He repeated, over and over again, that Obama was adamant; Israel was entitled to do anything to defend itself, and its security would not be anyone’s responsibility, even Washington’s.

Obama, for his part, once again stressed that Washington’s official policy towards Iran was not containment – but to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. He stressed the “window of opportunity” was getting narrower; and, of course, that all options were on the table.

The thought that the president of the United States (POTUS) willfully ignores the verdict of his own alphabet soup of intel agencies on Iran might raise eyebrows in a rational world. But this is not reality; more like a trashy reality show.

Dream, dream, wet settler dream
The powers that be in Israel – neocon-infested US corporate media avalanche of denials notwithstanding – were absolutely essential in the whole Iraq War cheerleading operation; Ariel Sharon, at the time, boasted that the strategic coordination between Israel and the US had reached “unprecedented dimensions”.

Bibi was just a cog in the wheel then – as Jim Lobe details here – quoting Bibi’s pearls of wisdom dispensed to a misinformed-to-oblivion US Congress in 2002.

Every usual “Israeli official” suspect at the time was breathlessly spinning that Saddam was only months away from a nuclear weapon. The bulk of WMD “intelligence” presented to Congress and faithfully parroted by corporate media was filtered if not entirely fabricated by Israeli intelligence – something duly detailed, among others, by Shlomo Brom in his study An Intelligence Failure, published by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies of Tel Aviv University in November 2003.

Of course it didn’t matter that UN inspectors found no nuclear weapon program evidence on site. Of course it didn’t matter that Saddam son-in-law Hussein Kamel, who had defected to Jordan in 1995, had told UN inspectors in detail there had been no WMDs whatsoever since 1991. …more

Obama in Israel
21 March, 2013 – Mostly Water – by Stephen Lendman

His visit bodes ill, not good. He left late Tuesday night. On March 20, he arrived around noon Israeli time.

Secretary of State John Kerry came earlier. Scores of officials, aides and security personnel accompanied him and Obama.

Around 15,000 Israeli police provide security. So do US secret service and its Israeli counterpart.

Trips like this reflect more show than substance. They cost of millions of dollars. Taxpayers cover the expense. They gain nothing from doing so.

Obama’s entire visit is scripted. His entourage is extensive. His motorcade includes 60 vehicles. Ambulances, fire-fighting trucks and various security vehicles are involved. Contingency plans are readied just in case.

When Obama travels by car, all streets along his route are closed and sealed. Normal life is disrupted.

During his brief Ramallah visit, PA security will protect him. Ahead of his arrival, Palestinians rallied against him. He’s no friend of Palestine.

He’s persona non grata. Signs said so. Others called him an “AIPAC Poodle.” One in Arabic and English said “Obama: Return your Nobel Peace Prize.”

His first address began saying “it’s good to be in Israel again. We stand together because we share a common story, patriots determined to be free people in our lives.”

“We stand together because peace must come to the Holy Land. Even as we are clear eyed about the difficulties, we will never lose sight of the vision of an Israel at peace with its neighbors.”

No two nations spurn peace more than America and Israel. They prioritize war. They’re partners in crime. They menace humanity. Obama’s words ring hollow.

They entirely ignored Palestine. He said nothing about land for peace, Palestinian self-determination, East Jerusalem as their legitimate capital, the right of return, militarized occupation, stolen land, dispossessions, bulldozed homes, illegal settlements, or thousands of Palestinian political prisoners unjustly in gulag hell.

Netanyahu thanked him for coming and “for standing by Israel at this time of historic change.” What exactly, he didn’t explain.

Shimon Peres greeted Obama. We “welcome you with open arms,” he said.

“Thank you Mr. Mr. President. Thank you America. Thank you for what you are. Thank you for what you do.”

“Israeli spirit is inspired by American exceptionalism. A world without America would be a darker world. Obama is a historic friend of Israel.”

“The greatest danger is a nuclear Iran. We trust your policy. You have made it clear that your intention is not to contain but to prevent.”

A previous article said Obama and Netanyahu will discuss three issues: Iran, Syria and Palestine. Expectations are low. Expect more show than substance. Most trips turn out that way. …more