Display team hits repressive kingdom amid negotiations over fighter jets contract

Red Arrows hit Bahrain as Britain bids to sell weapons to royal family
By Padraig Reidy – 4 November, 2013 – Index on Censorship

Britain is to send the Royal Air Force Red Arrows display team to perform Bahrain, just weeks after negotiations opened on the sale of BAE Eurofighter jets to the tiny Gulf Kingdom.

Bahrain’s ruling family has been engaged in brutal repression of protesters since a democratic uprising began i n February 2011. Britain has been repeatedly criticised for selling weapons and other military hardware to the regime while the crackdown continues.

Earlier today, Index reported the awarding of yet another international prize to the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, which has been battling peacefully for democracy in Bahrain under increasing repression since the uprising. The campaign group won the Norwegian Rafto Human Rights Prize.

Center leader Nabeel Rajab was imprisoned not long after accepting an Index on Censorship Free Expression Award in 2012, and remains in jail.

There have been dozens of violent deaths in Bahrain since the beginning of the uprising, many put down to the regime forces’ indiscriminate use of tear gas, which it is reported to be stockpiling.

A press release published on the Bahrain News Agency Portal today says:

” One of the world’s premier aerobatic teams, Britain’s famous Red Arrows, is to display in Bahrain as part of a Middle East tour.

The team, which currently fly BAE Systems Hawk aircraft, consists of nine display pilots, all of whom are from frontline squadrons. Each has previously operated other Royal Air Force fast jets, such as the Tornado or the Typhoon multi-role combat aircraft. ”

Bahrain has a great interest in the excellence of British hardware and expertise. As well as looking to buy an “unspecified number of Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets”, Bahrain already imports hardware including weapons from Britain. Meanwhile, former senior Metropolitan police officer John Yates was engaged to advise the government on policing and dealing with civil unrest. …more

Without Snowden leaks, the president wouldn’t even know that the NSA spies on world leaders.

President Obama: Incompetent or Liar?
4 November, 2013 – By Steven Hill

If what they are saying is true, then President Obama is either lying or his top aides did not inform him and they are not stepping forward to take responsibility.

“What did he know, and when did he know it?” A firestorm is gathering under the Obama presidency that imperils its future. First there was the fiasco over his HealthCare.gov web site – which the president was unaware of until after its launch, it has been claimed. Now the most recent case of “not in the loop-itis” is over the revelation that the National Security Agency has been spying on the telephones of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and 34 other world leaders.

This is in addition to previous leaks that the U.S. government spies on the phone logs, Internet activity and credit card transactions of virtually every U.S. citizen, of Spanish and French citizens, and that the United States has bugged European Union offices as well as the United Nations and world leaders at international conferences of the G-20.

It is a startling admission to say that President Barack Obama was in the dark on this one. If that’s true, does he realize that means that even the President of the United States needed leaks from whistleblower Edward Snowden in order to know what his own top spies are doing?

But hold on—current and former U.S. intelligence officials are saying that, in fact, top-ranked officials in the White House and State Department signed off on the surveillance of phone conversations of friendly foreign leaders. If what they are saying is true, then President Obama is either lying or his top aides did not inform him and they are not stepping forward to take responsibility. It also raises troubling questions about how honest—or informed—Obama has been in his previous defenses of the surveillance state.

So while the chief executive and the nation’s top spies engage in a “he said, she said” spat over who knew what when, the rest of the nation is left puzzling over whether their president didn’t know what he should have known, or is lying. No matter how one answers that question, it reflects badly on Obama. And for U.S. stature on the world’s stage.

Upping the ante, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank has invoked that notorious echo of Watergate, “What did President Obama know, and when did he know it?” Because it’s just not credible to claim, as White House officials are trying to do, that the NSA has so many eavesdropping operations under way that it wouldn’t have been practical to brief the president on all of them. How could it possibly make national security sense that the man in the Oval Office did not have to approve or at least be informed about a decision on bugging the phones of most of the free world’s leaders?

But let’s keep our bafflement bipartisan, shall we? Thanks again to the whistleblower Snowden, it was reported in the German publication Der Spiegel that the monitoring of Merkel’s cell phone began back in 2002, when President George W. Bush was chief of the spies. What did he know, and when did he know it?

Congressional “Dimwit of the Season” award has to go to U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein. As chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which was established in 1976 as a result of the Church Committee investigation into CIA abuses to provide oversight and serve as a restraint on such espionage activities, Feinstein has been chief Democratic Party cheerleader of the national security state. She has previously insisted that the NSA is subject to stringent congressional oversight and monitoring from the executive branch.

Yet now even she’s backtracking. Recently she stated, “It is abundantly clear that a total review of all intelligence programs is necessary. … It is clear to me that certain surveillance activities have been in effect for more than a decade and that the Senate Intelligence Committee was not satisfactorily informed.”

This is the same clueless Senator from my home state of California who in June condemned Snowden as a traitor, saying, “I don’t look at this as being a whistleblower. I think it’s an act of treason. … He violated the law. It’s treason.” And yet if it wasn’t for his “treasonous” acts, Chairwoman Feinstein would still be clueless.

So flip a coin: heads Obama is incompetent, tails he’s a first-rate liar. My coin flip says he’s incompetent, but he also has terrible judgment over the danger posed by his national security policies and priorities. He’s advancing the instruments of surveillance that future presidents will use. Imagine a Dick Cheney in the Oval Office, with an even more developed nest of zealous spies. The current moment has some of the same feel as the out-of-control days during the Reagan administration, when Lt. Col. Oliver North and his accomplices ran gun- and drug-running operations to support the Contras in Nicaragua, and co-authored with Attorney General Edwin Meese a plan for imposing martial law during national emergencies, called Rex 84 (Readiness Exercise 1984). It seems the off-the-shelf rogues, goons and spooks are back. Regardless of which party has the presidency, they lurk in the White House basement, making vital decisions regarding the nation’s foreign policy and remaining unaccountable to the nation’s elected leaders. The promise of Obama’s election in 2008 has been replaced by “Yes We Scan.”

If Obama truly wants to regain his footing, he must reverse not just specific policies but also his direction. He can partially redeem his tattered reputation by firing whichever of the head spooks that gave these orders. But that seems unlikely. White House spokesman Jay Carney has said that “the president has full confidence in General [Keith] Alexander and the leadership at the NSA.” …more

The U.S. Role and Iran in Southwest Asia
2 November, 2013 – Rachel Eliasi Kohan, Ph.D. – Iran.com

Déjà vu all over again, the U.S. foreign policy has once again arrived at a critical historical crossroad. It is either faced with the prospect of continuingto escalate the geopolitical stability of Southwest Asia aka the Middle East, through its unilateral and preemptive military interventions and the unwavering support of unpopular dictatorial regimes in the region on the one hand, or to commit to a multilateral dialogue and achieve our strategic security, and economic and political objectives in the context of the aspirations of the people in the region for sovereignty, democracy, freedom, equality, justice and peace, on the other. Whereas one might argue that the first option will in the short run lead to a quasi-stability and economic and political concessions by the regimes in the region, it is the latter paradigm that in the long run will ensure the organic acceptance of our leadership for the mutually sustainable economic development and trades that benefit all parties concerned.

After spending up to four trillion dollars and losing thousands of precious American lives in Afghanistan and Iraq within the past ten years-never mind the catastrophic miseries inflicted on the locals- the question still remains as to whether such a heavy toll endured by all sides, has enhanced our strategic objectives or the daily lives of the indigenous. The so-called Arab Spring, which led to a degree of reforms in Tunisia and Egypt and the current stalemate in Syria, seems to have subsided. The struggle of the majority Shiite population in Bahrain, governed by the Saudi-transplanted Sunni clan the Al-Khalifa, for democracy and equality, is quenched (with U.S. approval as the U.S. Fifth Fleet is stationed in Bahrain by the heavy-handed Saudi military forces essentially occupying the “pearl” archipelago. Similar to all other Sheikdoms in the Persian Gulf, Bahrain is a new island nation set up by the British in the early 70’s, which, for the preceding millennium was an integral province of then Persia aka Iran.

After having no diplomatic relations since 1979, the prospect of a possible rapprochement between the U.S.-West and Iran seems most promising. The Islamic Republic regime, IRI, isolated from the international community for thirty five years, is increasingly faced with some of the most serious existentialist dilemmas. Sanctions spearheaded by the U.S. have now impacted every segment of the society, including the acquirement of medicine and food. Overpopulation, unemployment, underemployment, monetary devaluation, corruptions, a systematic violation of civil and human rights, a multitude of shadow government organs, pillage and rampage of natural and financial resources, and repressions of dissent and civil society are exacerbated due to sanctions. The IRI government, acting schizophrenic for its very legitimacy, should take most blame for such blatant failures. The IRI’s political rhetoric inside and outside Iran has faded away into oblivion and its economic and socio-political agenda has miserably failed. The IRI’s mistrust of the West-the U.S., especially after having witnessed the fatal demise of the uncooperative regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Egypt, is understood. By the same token, the U.S. animosity toward Iran has only been bolstered by events as taking the American diplomats hostage in 1979, which in relation led to provocation and western support of Iraq in a prolonged border dispute skirmish against Iran of inclusive end. It brought up to one million lives lost, Iraqi extensive use of chemical weapons against Iranian civilians, and a half trillion economic loss for both sides. The Americans should finally move beyond the loss of Iran’s Pahlavi monarchy as the closest strategic ally in region; the Shah stretched the green Islamic belt along the southern Soviet borders and served as the gendarme of the west preventing the Russian longing to stretch its feet into the warm waters of the Persian Gulf. Ironically, the Pahlavi dynasty was overthrown due in part to their return to power and erosion of democratic principles back in 1953 when the only nationally elected Prime Minster Dr. Mohammad Mosadegh was overthrown by a coup orchestrated by the CIA.

With the election of Hassan Rouhani as President in Iran and his recent UN address and conversation with President Obama, the question has emerged as to whether the IRI is genuinely interested in joining the international community while allowing the civil society and the rule of law to take hold inside the country. If so, what does the future role of the U.S. in Southwest Asia, to be manifested through Iran, look like?

Iran to outsiders in the occident looks like a theocratic monolithic State. Upon closer examination, however, one can discern a broad spectrum of socio-political forces, not only among the grassroots populace, but also among the so-called establishment oligarchs, that are in a power struggle with one another (see the endnote). The clergies of the religious minorities: the quarter of a million Armenian and Assyrian Christians, thirty thousand Jewish, fifty thousand Zoroastrians and the nearly ten million Sunnis remain apolitical. Nonetheless, as recognized in the IRI Constitution, they have representatives in the Majles, the Iranian Parliament. Up to a half million followers of the Baha’i faith, founded by the Shirazi merchant Mohammad Ali Bab (Bab, means gate to paradise) who claimed to be the last emerging 12th Imam, and his successor ironically a Shiite clergy, Bahau’llah in Iran in the mid-19th century, are not recognized and in fact persecuted by the government. Baha’ism coincided with the national movement for modernization, reformation, and the rule of law and civil society in the mid to latter part of the 19th century. Such progressive movements led to the establishment of the Constitutional Monarchy in 1907 replacing the absolute monarchy 2,500 years in the making. Violation of human and civil rights, imprisonment, torture and execution of political prisoners of conscience remain grave concerns in Iran. Baha’i followers are particularly singled out and more harshly persecuted, discriminated, imprisoned, tortured, exiled and sometimes executed. …more

Obama Pushes for Return of Iraq’s Tribal Militias
4 November, 2103 – Military.com – by Richard Sisk

President Obama and embattled Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki agreed Friday to coordinate on reviving the “Sons of Iraq” Sunni militias to counter a growing Al Qaeda insurgency as part of an overall effort to bolster the Shiite-led Baghdad government.

U.S. and Iraq officials said in a joint statement that Maliki’s forces would stress “security operations coordinated with local officials, and renewed efforts to empower local security structures, such as the Sons of Iraq, to mitigate extremist infiltration.” The statement was issued after Maliki’s meeting with Obama.

The Sons of Iraq were local militias recruited by tribal sheikhs and paid by the U.S. Many considered the Sons of Iraq as a major factor in the success of the U.S. troop surge in 2007 in beating back Al Qaeda insurgents in Anbar province and other Sunni majority areas.

The two sides also agreed to press ahead with a major arms package for Iraq to include attack helicopters to combat Al Qaeda in Iraq, now known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

While backing the arms deal, Obama called on Maliki to mend fences with the restive Sunni and Kurd minorities, and to assure the path to national elections scheduled for next April despite a terror campaign that the United Nations estimated has killed at least 7,000 in Iraq this year.

Obama hosted Maliki in the Oval Office nearly two years after the last U.S. combat soldier left Iraq at Maliki’s insistence following more than eight years of war that killed nearly 4,500 U.S. troops, wounded more than 30,000, and cost more than $800 billion.

“We had a lot of discussion about how we can work together to push back against that terrorist organization that operates not only in Iraq, but also poses a threat to the entire region and to the United States,” Obama said.

Obama also called on Maliki to work for political reform “to ensure that all people inside of Iraq — Sunni, Shia and Kurd — feel that they have a voice in their government. And one of the most important expressions of that will be elections next year.”

Speaking through a translator, Maliki stressed his “common vision” with the U.S. on the way forward for Iraq despite major past differences on the U.S. presence in the region and Syria.

The U.S. and Iraq were especially in sync “when it comes to diagnosing the return of terrorism and we talked about how to counter terrorism,” Maliki said.

“We discussed details of our cooperation,” Maliki said without giving specifics. “What we want is for Iraq and the region to be able to work together, and we are working at the security, intelligence and social and all levels in order to counteract terrorism.”

Maliki also did not give details on how he intends to heal the rifts with the Sunni and Kurd communities.

“We do know that the democratic experience in Iraq is nascent and fragile, but it was born very strong,” said Maliki, who pledged to hold national elections on schedule next April, when he was expected to run for a third term as prime minister. …source

The media coverage of the war in Syria examines only military, diplomatic and humanitarian action. It ignores profound transformation. However, one does not survive a sea of ​​violence without changing profoundly. From Damascus, where he has lived for two years, Thierry Meyssan describes this evolution.

Syria has Changed
by Thierry Meyssan – 4 November, 2013 – Voltaire Network

While in Damascus, the Special Envoy of the Secretaries General of the Arab League and the UN, Lakhdar Brahimi, presented “his” draft peace conference project, Geneva 2. A conference whose objective would be to end the “civil war”. This terminology rehashes the analysis of one side against another, of those who argue that this conflict is a logical continuation of the “Arab Spring” against those who argue that it has been manufactured, fueled and manipulated from the outside.

The war according to the armed opposition

For Westerners and the majority of the National Coalition, Syria is experiencing a revolution. Its people have supposedly risen up against a dictatorship and aspire to live in a democracy like the United States. However, this view is contradicted by the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Syrian National Council and the Free Syrian Army. For them, the problem is not one of freedom, but the personality of Bashar al-Assad. They would be willing to keep the same institutions if the President agreed to step aside for one of his vice-presidents. However, this version is in turn contradicted by the fighters on the ground, for whom the problem is not the personality of the president, but the tolerance that he stands for. Their goal is to establish a Wahhabi system where religious minorities would be subdued or destroyed, and where the Constitution would be replaced by Sharia law.
Freedom of expression

At first, when snipers were killing people, it was said that it was the regime gunmen who were trying to impose fear. When cars exploded, it was said it was a false flag attack by the secret services. When a massive attack killed members of the Security Council, Assad was accused of having eliminated his rivals. Today, nobody doubts that these crimes were the work of jihadists and they continue to commit more.

In the beginning, there was emergency law. From 1963 on, demonstrations were banned. Only a trickle of foreign journalists was allowed entry and their activities were closely monitored. Today, emergency law has been lifted. There are still few demonstrations because of the fear of terrorist attacks. Numerous are the foreign journalists in Damascus. They move freely without any supervision. Yet most continue to report that the country is a horrible dictatorship. They are allowed to go on in hopes that they will tire of lying when their governments cease to preach the “overthrow of the regime.”

Initially, Syrians did not watch national television channels. They considered these to be propaganda and their preferred source was Al- Jazeera. On live TV, they followed the exploits of the “revolution” and the crimes of the “dictatorship”. But with time, they found themselves confronted directly with events. They saw for themselves the atrocities of the peudo-revolutionaries and they often owed their survival solely to the national army. Today, people watch national television much more, and especially Al- Mayadeen, a Lebanese-Iraqi channel that recovered the audience of Al Jazeera in the Arab world and who is developing an openly nationalist point of view.
Freedom of conscience

At first, the armed opposition claimed to be multi-denominational. People from religious minorities supported it. Then came the Islamic Courts sentencing to death and slitting the throats of the “bad” Sunni “traitors” to their community, the Alawites and Shiites, tortured in public, and Christians expelled from their homes. Today everyone understands that one is always a heretic when one is judged by “the pure ones”, the Takfirists.

While intellectuals argue that Syria was destroyed and needs to be redefined, people know what it is and are often willing to die for it. Ten years ago, every family had a teenager they were trying to exempt from military service. Only the poor were considering a career in the armed forces. Today, many young people enrol in the army and their elders join the popular militias. They all defend eternal Syria where various religious communities live side by side and they all venerate the same God when they have one.

During the conflict, many Syrians themselves evolved. At first they mostly watched events from the sidelines, most declaring not seeing themselves in any camp. After two and a half years of terrible suffering, everyone who remained in the country had to choose to survive. War is but an attempt by the colonial powers to blow on the embers of obscurantism to incinerate civilization. …more

Syria says Kerry statements threaten peace talks
3 November, 2013 – Agence France Presse

DAMASCUS: The Syrian foreign ministry Sunday denounced statements by US Secretary of State John Kerry on Syria saying they could cause proposed peace talks on the 31-month conflict to fail.

A statement said that repeated comments by Kerry “threaten to cause the failure of the Geneva conference, are a flagrant violation of Syrian affairs and an aggression against the Syrian people’s right to decide their future.”

Kerry, who is pressing a peace conference in Geneva, said in Cairo on Sunday that Washington and its allies may differ over “tactics” on the Syrian conflict but they shared the goal of a handover of power.

…source

Leading FSA commander quits, lashes out at lack of support
4 November, 2013 – By Marlin Dick – The Daily Star

BEIRUT: A leading rebel commander from the mainstream Free Syrian Army announced his resignation Sunday, in the wake of infighting among rebel groups, battlefield setbacks and a lack of political support. Col. Abdel-Jabbar Ukaidi, the head of the Aleppo Revolutionary Military Council of the FSA, had harsh words for the international community and the Syrian opposition-in-exile for failing to offer sufficient support for the uprising against Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Ukaidi has been one of the most prominent FSA commanders based inside Syria, leading rebel assaults in Aleppo and, most notably, personally showing up in Qusair earlier this summer in a failed bid to defend the central Syrian town against an offensive by regime troops and Hezbollah fighters.

Ukaidi’s resignation comes amid a flurry of discussion and meetings in preparation for a proposed Geneva II peace conference, with the opposition National Coalition continuing to insist on guarantees for Assad’s departure from power.

But Western countries have been exerting heavy pressure on the Coalition to attend Geneva, an option that most rebel groups and civilian activists reject.

Ukaidi said the international community had proven that it had been “conspiring against the people and the uprising,” and had even more scathing words for the political opposition based outside the country, as he offered sarcastic congratulations “for your hotels and your political posts.”

“You hardly represent yourselves,” Ukaidi said, adding that politicians were more interested in carrying out foreign agendas rather than seeing to the needs of the Syrian people.

Ukaidi also blamed a number of rebel leaders for in-fighting and focusing on seizing power in rebel-held areas rather than focusing on the drive to topple the regime, but did not single out particular rebel groups by name.

Ukaidi said he took the decision to resign because of the lack of responses to the latest flurry of pleas for inter-rebel unity, “which has led to retreats on various battlefronts, the last one being [the town of] Safira,” southeast of Aleppo.

Government troops last week managed to take the town, which is expected to help re-supply government forces fighting rebels in Aleppo.

In a Facebook post after the rebel withdrawal from Safira and prior to his resignation, Ukaidi said the town fell, “but not because a lack of ammunition – may God witness that we put all of the Revolutionary Military Council’s capabilities in the hands of the operations room on the Safira front.”
…more

Saudis, allies to boost aid to Takfiris, report says
3 November, 2013 – Shia Post

Saudi Arabia and its Arab allies in the Persian Gulf region will ‘strengthen military support’ for the foreign-backed Takfiri militants in Syria, says a US daily.

The Washington Post reported on Sunday that the move came after a decision by US President Barack Obama “not to launch airstrikes against Syria.”

“Persian Gulf countries, led by Saudi Arabia, are moving to strengthen their military support for Syrian rebels and develop policy options independent from the United States,” the Poststated.

The US daily also said that the Saudis plan to “expand training facilities they operate in Jordan.”

The report came as US Secretary of State John Kerry was scheduled to arrive in Saudi Arabia on Sunday as part of efforts to repair Washington’s frayed relations with Riyadh.

Saudi Arabia’s spy chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al Saud said last month that Riyadh’s ties with Washington have been deteriorating for a while over several issues including Syria.

According to some Persian Gulf officials whose names were not mentioned in the Post article, a parallel operation independent of US efforts is being discussed by the Saudis with other countries in the region.

In September, Saudi Arabia guaranteed to continue its financial and logistic support for the militants, including terrorist al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front, during a meeting held in the Jordanian capital, Amman.

Syria has been gripped by deadly unrest since March 2011. According to statistics compiled by the United Nations, more than 100,000 people have been killed and a total of 7.8 million of others displaced due to the turmoil. …source

Saudi Arabia – Various Munitions and Support
15 October, 2013 – Defense Security Cooperation Agency

Media/Public Contact: Lorna Jons Transmittal No: 13-49

WASHINGTON, Oct. 15, 2013 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress on Oct. 11 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Saudi Arabia of various munitions and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $6.8 billion.

The Government of Saudi Arabia has requested a possible sale of 650 AGM-84H Standoff Land Attack Missiles-Expanded Response (SLAM-ER), 973 AGM-154C Joint Stand Off Weapons (JSOW), 400 AGM-84L Harpoon Block II missiles, 1000 GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bombs (SDB), 40 CATM-84H Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM), 20 ATM-84H SLAM-ER Telemetry Missiles, 4 Dummy Air Training Missiles, 60 AWW-13 Data Link pods, 10 JSOW CATMs, 40 Harpoon CATMs, 20 ATM-84L Harpoon Exercise Missiles, 36 SDB Captive Flight and Load Build trainers, containers, mission planning, integration support and testing, munitions storage security and training, weapon operational flight program software development, transportation, tools and test equipment, support equipment, spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics support. The estimated total cost is $ 6.8 billion.

This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been and continues to be an important force for political stability in the Middle East.

This proposed sale will improve Saudi Arabia’s capability to meet current and future regional threats. These munitions will strengthen the effectiveness and interoperability of the air force of a potential coalition partner, enhancing the coalition operation. In December 2011, Saudi Arabia signed a letter of offer and acceptance (LOA) to purchase 84 new and 70 refurbished F-15SA multi-role fighter aircraft and associated weapons. The armaments in this request are separate and distinct from those in the F-15SA LOA, but are intended for that platform. Saudi Arabia will have no difficulty absorbing these weapons into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of these weapon systems will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractors will be The Boeing Company in St. Louis, Missouri; Raytheon in Indianapolis, Indiana; and Raytheon in Tucson, Arizona. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

Implementation of this sale will require the assignment of approximately 2-4 additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Saudi Arabia. The actual number and duration will be determined in joint negotiations as the program proceeds through the development, production, and equipment installation phases. …more

The Inevitability of the US-Saudi Rift
By Wayne Madsen – Strategic Culture Foundation

TEHRAN (FNA)- A number of seasoned observers of Middle Eastern affairs agree that US-Saudi relations are at their lowest ebb since US President Franklin D. Roosevelt established America’s “special relationship” with the Saudi monarchy on February 14, 1945, just a few months before FDR’s death.

Subsequent to the Yalta Conference, Roosevelt met Saudi King Ibn Saud on board the USS Quincy on Great Bitter Lake in the Suez Canal in Egypt. Roosevelt and Saud inked the “Quincy Agreement”, by which the United States would provide Saudi Arabia with military equipment and training in return for the US establishing a military base at Dhahran in the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia guaranteeing the United States a steady flow of Saudi oil. Except for the Arab oil embargo instituted against the West in the 1970s, the Quincy Agreement has survived six Saudi kings.

However, the Quincy Agreement is in trouble. There are a number of reasons why US-Saudi relations have fractured. They include:

• The decision by the Barack Obama administration to cancel a US military strike against Syria in return for a US-Russian concordat to oversee the removal from Syria and ultimate destruction of chemical weapons.

• The Obama administration’s decision to engage Iran through direct diplomatic negotiations.

• Increasing evidence by US intelligence of Saudi links to Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-linked terrorists operating around the world.

• Reduced US dependency on Saudi oil as a result of increased US carbon fuel output from the fracking of shale reserves in the United States.

• The closeness of the head of the Ri’asat Al-Istikhbarat Al-‘Ama, the Saudi General Intelligence Agency, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, to the Bush family and other leading Republicans, including former Vice President Dick Cheney.

• Saudi concern that the US has turned its “Arab Spring” resources against Saudi Arabia in a low-level manner through the “Car Key Revolution”, a widespread protest by Saudi women who broke Saudi law by driving cars.

After the US supported the Arab Spring “Jasmine Revolution” in Tunisia that toppled longtime Tunisian strongman President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali – who received refuge in Saudi Arabia — and the “Lotus Revolution” that ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak from power, Riyadh grew increasingly concerned that the mass demonstrations against unpopular regimes would spread to “the Kingdom”. In fact, Saudi forces quickly suppressed a few demonstrations in Saudi Arabia and sent in military forces to ruthlessly put down a pro-democracy uprising in neighboring Bahrain. The Saudis were never comfortable with the accession to power in Egyptian elections of the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly the presidency of Mohamed Morsi. The Saudis, therefore, instructed the pro-Saudi Nour Party in Egypt to support the military coup that toppled Morsi and replaced him with General Abdel Fattah Saeed Hussein Khalil el-Sisi.

Although Sisi has Nasserite sympathies, the Saudis view him much more favorably than they do the Muslim Brotherhood. Morsi’s establishing of closer relations with Iran was viewed as a threat to the Saudi regime and a breakdown of the established balance of power in the region. Obama’s decision to curtail the supply of military weaponry to Egypt following the ouster of Morsi further inflamed relations between Riyadh and Washington. To make up for the cut-off in US assistance to Cairo, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates pledged $12 billion in aid to Cairo in July of this year. The Saudis also joined Israel in voicing opposition to the cut off of American military assistance to Cairo, evidence of the growing relationship between Saudi Arabia and the nation that Saudi King Faisal once referred to as the “Zionist regime” as he presented beautifully-bound copies of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” to visiting dignitaries. …more

Bahraini court sentences four activists to life
3 November, 2013 – PressTV

A court in Bahrain has sentenced four anti-regime activists to life in prison and six others to 15-year jail terms, as the country’s prosecutors begin interrogation of opposition leader Sheikh Ali Salman.

Bahraini opposition sources said on Sunday that the activists were handed prison sentences for taking part in anti-regime protests.

Earlier this week, ten protesters were also imprisoned over similar charges.

The court rulings are issued at a time when Bahraini regime forces have intensified their crackdown on opposition leaders.

Reports say the Manama regime has begun the interrogation of Sheikh Ali Salman, the secretary-general of the main opposition group, al-Wefaq.

The Saturday summoning of Sheikh Salman sparked protests across Bahrain.

The demonstrators expressed solidarity with the al-Wefaq leader.

The Bahraini opposition group believes the summoning of Salman “to be part of the political blackmail and revenge against the peaceful opposition that is asking for democracy.”

The Manama regime is under fire for its heavy-handed crackdown on protests.

On October 30, Bahraini regime forces stormed and shut down an exhibition, dubbed the revolution museum, which was opened by al-Wefaq.

The party says it will lodge a complaint with the United Nations over the raid on the exhibition, which had been organized in an effort to portray the brutal regime clampdown on peaceful protests.

In September, Wefaq’s deputy leader, Khalil al-Marzouq, was arrested on charges of “inciting protests” against the ruling Al Khalifa family. The opposition party said the detention was “a clear attack on political activism in Bahrain.”

Scores have been killed, many of them under torture while in custody, and thousands more detained since the popular uprising began in Bahrain in early 2011. …source

Bahrain: Intensified judicial harassment faced by Mr. Mohammed Al-Maskati and other members of BYSHR
4 November, 2013 – fidh

The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a joint programme of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), has received new information and requests your urgent intervention in the following situation in Bahrain.

The Observatory has been informed by the Gulf Centre for Human Rights and Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR) about intensified judicial harassment faced by Mr. Mohammed Al-Maskati, President of the Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights (BYSHR), and other members of BYSHR.

According to the information received, on October 22, 2013, Mr. Mohamed Al-Maskati was summoned to Al-Khamis Police Station where he was interrogated on charges of “inciting hatred against the regime”, based on a speech he made on September 8, 2013 in Jidhafs Town, where he spoke on the concept of non-violence and the importance of peacefully demanding the respect of rights as well as on the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). He was released only after signing a pledge to appear before the Public Prosecution upon request. The police investigation is therefore ongoing.

The Observatory recalls that two other BYSHR members are currently in detention. BYSHR co-founder and blogger Naji Fateel has been detained since May 2013 and was sentenced on September 29, 2013 to 15 years in prison for “the establishment of a group for the purpose of disabling the constitution” under Article 6 of the Terrorism Act. His trial on appeal is due to start on November 18, 2013. Mr. Hussain Abdulnabi has been in pre-trial detention since September 6, 2013 on charges of “illegal gathering” and “rioting”. The next hearing will take place on November 7, 2013.

The Observatory condemns these acts of harassment against Mr. Al-Maskati and the arbitrary detention of Messrs. Naji Fateel and Hussain Abdulnabi, which merely aim at curtailing their human rights activities. The Observatory also notes that several human rights defenders remain in arbitrary detention or are subject to judicial harassment in the country.

Background information:

On October 17, 2012, Mr. Al-Maskati appeared before Bahrain’s public prosecution on charges of “participation in illegal protests” in relation to a peaceful gathering held in Manama on October 12, 2012. He had been summoned the day before to Al Hoora police station, where he had been kept overnight before being referred to the prosecutor’s office. He was released on bail on the same October 17, 2012 but charges against him have remained pending since then. On June 19, 2013, Mr. Maskati appeared before the Lower Criminal Court under these same charges Mr. Maskati’s lawyers asked for the case file, and the judge decided to adjourn the case to July 9, 2013 and then to December 9, 2013.

Previously, on September 23, 2012, Mr. Al-Maskati and other Bahraini human rights defenders who had cooperated with the United Nations (UN) had received threats of reprisals while they were in Geneva to participate in the 21st session of the UN Human Rights Council. Mr. Al-Maskati was notably threatened with death through more than a dozen anonymous phone calls.

Mr. Naji Fateel was arrested without warrant by security men in civilian clothes at his home in the village of Bani-Jamra at dawn of May 2, 2013 and held incommunicado for three days, during which time it is reported that he was severely tortured. He was allegedly subjected to severe torture at the Criminal Investigation Directorate. According to reports he was subjected to electrical shocks to his genitals, left foot and back in addition to simulated drowning, severe beatings, threats to publish his wife’s photographs (taken from a camera confiscated by the security forces when his house was raided), verbal abuse using uncivilized words, hanging by his hands from the ceiling, sexual harassment and threats of rape, standing for hours, and sleep deprivation. He was taken to the Ministry of Interior hospital twice for treatment due to the torture.

Mr. Fateel had been arrested last year on February 14, 2012 while he was participating in a peaceful march toward the Pearl Roundabout area, the now restricted centre of the 2011 protests for rights and democracy. He was previously detained between December 2007 and April 2009, a period during which he was also reportedly tortured.

On May 22, 2013, Naji Fateel was sentenced to six months imprisonment on charges of attending illegal gatherings. He was charged in another case with the establishment of a group for the purpose of disabling the Constitution under Article 6 of the controversial Terrorism Act. …more

The 2013 Rafto Prize to Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR) – the fight for “inconvenient” human rights in the Gulf
24 October, 2013

The 2013 Rafto Prize is awarded to the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR) for their long and courageous fight for fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of association in Bahrain. By awarding the Rafto Prize to BCHR, we turn the spotlight on the systematic violations of human rights in a region where abuse is too often met with silence from western governments. …more