The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[Danwichmann]

The international community is taking weeks to decide whether to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. Meanwhile, in the eerie quiet of a Bahraini afternoon a deployment of 1,000 soldiers from the Saudi Arabia who are part of the Pensinsula Shield Force entered the country.

Bahrain TV proudly aired clips showing cheering Saudi soldiers in their tanks and armoured personnel carriers as they rolled across the 16-mile causeway between the two countries. Tellingly, a man at the parapet of a tank sits behind his machine gun waving a peace sign at the camera. This is a snapshot of the regime's current strategy, smile sweetly and say peace for the cameras – and bring in the big guns.

While pro-government commentators allege Iranian support of the current uprising, US defence secretary Robert Gates, who visited Bahrain on March 12, said there is no evidence of interference from Tehran. Unsurprisingly though, the White House issued a statement on Monday saying it does not consider the entry of Saudi troops on to Bahraini land an invasion.

Since the beginning of this uprising – which calls for constitutional reform, an investigation into theft of public land worth billions of dollars, and an end to systematic discrimination, among other things – the regime has implemented a soft-talk big-stick strategy. Its security personnel killed two protesters, and the king appeared on national television to speak of his regret, promising an independent investigation to hold those responsible accountable. Two days later, government security personnel stormed the encampment of protesters at the now-famous Pearl roundabout, killing four more. Later the same day, the crown prince appeared on TV urging calm, while the Bahraini army opened fire on unarmed demonstrators, killing another two.

The government then said it was open to dialogue with protesters (who are understandably sceptical). Distrust of the government emerges from a history of state oppression and reneged promises much longer than this long month of protest in Bahrain.

Our mothers and fathers, teachers, lawyers, activists and unionists were among the people of Bahrain who expressed their social and political grievances and desires for change in 1954, 1965, 1972, 1994, and 2002. The response of the government has always been the same: unleashing violence against calls for meaningful change, exaggerating the superficial self-imposed changes which include little concession towards sharing of power, and turning to its powerful friends for backing.

Sure enough, almost immediately after announcing the invitation to dialogue, top figures in the government held talks with their counterparts in Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the US, and the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC). In 1965 the British RAF helped the regime oppress its population; today that dishonour belongs to Saudi Arabia and other GCC states.

Almost as disturbing as the military intervention is the government and its supporters' incitement to sectarian violence, and the use of baltajiyya (armed thugs), which has already led to violent attacks among civilians. Since Friday, when protesters marched towards the Royal Court in Riffa (an upscale area also inhabited mainly by members of the royal family) the regime has allowed mob rule to proliferate in the country. Many pro-government supporters and baltajiyya were photographed at the rally, and at subsequent clashes between civilians. In broad daylight with the silent approval of security personnel milling around them, these masked thugs are carrying makeshift weapons including large planks of wood and swords.

To generate support for the deployment of GCC troops – and protect the international reputation that it cares about so much more than its own people – the Bahraini government appears to have begun a media campaign that walks a dangerously thin line between representing the government as a beleaguered advocate of restoring of peace and order and inciting sectarian hatred.

After a day of clashes between civilians and the riot police's use of excessive force against unarmed protesters and the high number of casualties on Sunday, Crown Prince Shaikh Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa issued a statement that spoke again about dialogue, but finished with a warning that "the right of security and safety is above all considerations".

The mouthpiece of the regime, Bahrain TV, spent the day running incendiary, selective and factually skewed coverage of the day's events, portraying protesters as violent thugs, with a caller asking for GCC intervention to "protect" Bahrainis from protesters.

Presumably to impress an international audience, protesters are now being described as "terrorists", "gangsters" and "foreign elements" among government officials and loyalists on web forums.

Bahrain TV is also providing a platform for extreme voices among government loyalists, with one caller reportedly offering demonstrators a "return to the days of Saddam, how he [saddam] dealt with his Shia population". It is worth mentioning that although the Shia make up the majority of protesters because they are the majority of the population and the majority of the disenfranchised have-nots, this is not a "Shia uprising". Amid all this hype, the government emerges as a moderate party, giving it licence to continue its anything-but-moderate practices of violence and suppression of dissent.

But for all the talk and big tanks, the regime's strategy has one major failing; its stubborn myopia. The Bahraini youth it criminalises with false talk and disingenuous action are not terrorists: they are educated, open-minded children of a time in which information is free.

They do not want sweet words, they do not want foreign military intervention, nor a system of Makramah and privileges. What they want is what they know they were born with: rights. And the Bahraini regime would do well to rethink its strategy of good PR and bad policies, because for now the voices of their youthful opposition resonate louder than the rumble of foreign tanks destroying Bahrain's sovereignty and threatening the lives of Bahraini dissenters, because it seems they too have said "kefaya" – enough.

Another wholly unbalanced article (the only sort that exists) about the situation in Bahrain

A friend of mine in Baharain posted this and seems to think it's pretty fair, but looking at the comments from her friends the community over there is clearly heavily divided over what's going on.

[legov]

portraying protesters as violent thugs

Seriously, I don't know how one can say that with a straight face while his colleagues are packing the streets with tanks and tear gas.

[peterms]

So, looks like Gaddafi's going to sweep through Libya, then. A few thousand people shot, or tortured to death. That bit won't be on Twitter.

It's not over yet fella. UK & FRANCE have got to exhaust every possible option for achieving international consensus, but the G8 led by Germany, Russia and China said no yesterday and the UNSC will do the same today - proving, if it were required, what a useless 'organ' the UN really is.

After that we still have a window of about 48 hours (minimum) before Gaddafi could begin attacking Benghazi with ground forces. The rebels still hold port and airfield facilities and Libya isn't far away from Europe. I just hope that when we go it's not then used as a reason to start blabbing about British Imperialism. We're going to do the right thing, of that I'm sure.

If we do, while at the same time many suspect that despite what Clinton says in public the US is conniving in the active repression of demonstrators in Bahrein (home of the US fifth fleet), I wonder how anyone will be able to view the actions of the west as anything other than driven by self-interest rather than genuine concern.

[snowychap]

According to The Daily Poitics, Reuters are reporting that Ghaddafi's army is now at the outskirts of Benghazi.

[Awol]

If we do, while at the same time many suspect that despite what Clinton says in public the US is conniving in the active repression of demonstrators in Bahrein (home of the US fifth fleet), I wonder how anyone will be able to view the actions of the west as anything other than driven by self-interest rather than genuine concern.

Well, quite. Although there are a few points worth mentioning here:

The Persian Gulf north of Hormouz is firmly under US influence so our ability to do much at all there is severely limited without American approval.

The US and the west in general is not going to rock the boat with the Sunni absolute monarchies/dictators because a) we need (as in can't function without) their oil and gas and the last time we toppled a dictator in the heart of the Gulf it unleashed a Sunni/Shia conflict that had been kept in check by Saddam and seriously increased the influence of Iran. Fear of that being replicated - in Washington especially - is high.

Those dictators have also learned a lesson from Libya (and you can bet Mubarak is kicking himself now, but expect the Egyptian military to have taken note) and that is the US will not interfere if they use massive armed force against their own population. Obama's Cairo speech in which he pledged to support Arab people who wanted to pursue democracy and secure their freedom was manifestly a lie. He is a weak and indecisive leader, in fact I'd go so far as to say he's been a disaster. Obama has called for Gaddafi to go and then refused to support the UK and France when we said 'let's make it happen'. He's a useless, spineless turd, even after the Arab League has virtually begged for western intervention.

I know for a fact that the UK has placed numerous assets in terms of men and material on standby in forward locations but it may be that Cameron makes the calculation that it's already too late. He'd also have to commit to spending a lot of money and probably reversing the latest round of defence cuts. Would this potential campaign still be as popular with the Guardian then, because that is the logical trajectory of what would have to happen.

Finally it's nice to see that the Chinese, Russians and Germans have already been publically told by Gaddafi that their procastination will be rewarded with oil and business deals. I hope Frau Merkel is proud of herself.

[maqroll]

Here come the Allies to save the day......and then once we save them, they'll want to kill us all.

[peterms]

If we do, while at the same time many suspect that despite what Clinton says in public the US is conniving in the active repression of demonstrators in Bahrein (home of the US fifth fleet), I wonder how anyone will be able to view the actions of the west as anything other than driven by self-interest rather than genuine concern.

Well, quite. Although there are a few points worth mentioning here:

The Persian Gulf north of Hormouz is firmly under US influence so our ability to do much at all there is severely limited without American approval.

The US and the west in general is not going to rock the boat with the Sunni absolute monarchies/dictators because a) we need (as in can't function without) their oil and gas and the last time we toppled a dictator in the heart of the Gulf it unleashed a Sunni/Shia conflict that had been kept in check by Saddam and seriously increased the influence of Iran. Fear of that being replicated - in Washington especially - is high.

Those dictators have also learned a lesson from Libya (and you can bet Mubarak is kicking himself now, but expect the Egyptian military to have taken note) and that is the US will not interfere if they use massive armed force against their own population. Obama's Cairo speech in which he pledged to support Arab people who wanted to pursue democracy and secure their freedom was manifestly a lie. He is a weak and indecisive leader, in fact I'd go so far as to say he's been a disaster. Obama has called for Gaddafi to go and then refused to support the UK and France when we said 'let's make it happen'. He's a useless, spineless turd, even after the Arab League has virtually begged for western intervention.

I know for a fact that the UK has placed numerous assets in terms of men and material on standby in forward locations but it may be that Cameron makes the calculation that it's already too late. He'd also have to commit to spending a lot of money and probably reversing the latest round of defence cuts. Would this potential campaign still be as popular with the Guardian then, because that is the logical trajectory of what would have to happen.

Finally it's nice to see that the Chinese, Russians and Germans have already been publically told by Gaddafi that their procastination will be rewarded with oil and business deals. I hope Frau Merkel is proud of herself.

In fairness to Bahrein, it must be admitted they've only killed about as many unarmed demonstrators as the US managed at Kent State University, at least so far.

On the Sunni-Shia point, several Bahreini protesters interviewed on Al Jazeera are firmly stating that this is a tactic played by the regime to divide and rule, and the protest is not Shia against Sunni but people against the dictatorship.

Yes, I'm certain that Gaddafi will have been carefully watching for signs of what response might come - who wouldn't - and calibrating his offensive accordingly. From that point of view, it was helpful that Cameron said something even before he had secured support. It might possibly have given a little more time before the offensive.

Let's see what happens.

UN debate streaming here.

[peterms]

Vote passed, China and Russia abstaining.

[peterms]

Finally it's nice to see that the Chinese, Russians and Germans have already been publically told by Gaddafi that their procastination will be rewarded with oil and business deals. I hope Frau Merkel is proud of herself.

German rep to the UN being quite unequivocal that Gaddafi must go, and they will support tightening sanctions in order to hasten the transition. They don't support military action and won't contribute towards it. Sounds like a reasonable and principled position to me.

They could have voted against, and China and Russia could have vetoed it. That they didn't is the reason it went through. If anyone gets oil deals out of this, after tonight's vote it's more likely to be the ones who supported the eventual winners, which looks like us and the USA. I think you are unfairly critical of those who don't support our preferred action, but didn't stand in the way of it either.

[privateer]

This will get very interesting if things actually happen quickly enough to make any difference.

What I'm expecting to see happen, if there is to be any chance of success, is:

Various Special Forces are already in there performing training, co-ordination and recon roles. Our SAS will have been in there for weeks. Some of them were the guys that went in on Hercules a while back to get those oil workers out.

US carrier-based aircraft take out air defences - and **** soon. Special Forces act as FAC, where necessary, but the static targets will already be planned for a hit.

Various nations hit mobile targets, bridges and other strategic targets from the air as the Loyalists advance on Benghazi. Again, Special Forces as FAC. Hopefully some of those will be Arab League pilots but I'm sure some will be French and British. The Arab pilots won't have ever done it before but they will be well trained.

The French send in the Foreign Legion to do any dirty on the ground shit - they don't ever send their own troops in if they can avoid it. If anyone is coming back in a bag they don't want it being one of their own.

Yanks send in Apaches to annihilate the retreating forces and do some blue on blue.

Ghadaffi does a runner on a plane and gets shot down by an F-16.

Britain is seen as the saviour of Libya and we get oil concessions and the price of petrol comes down. Total result all round.

[Awol]

Vote passed, China and Russia abstaining.

Amazing and against the odds. I've no time for Obama as an indivdual but not so with Uncle Sam generally. With US carrier aviation on board plus the UK & French assets already committed, it's fair to say Gaddafi is now in deep shit. Let's hope his whole family meet the business end of a JDAM very soon.

As for the UK's role, Cameron has performed exceptionally. His instincts were spot on from the very start, he's battled on despite opposition from within his own Cabinet and even managed to get the Americans on side.

Credit where it's due, well done 'Dave'.

[peterms]

Vote passed, China and Russia abstaining.

Amazing and against the odds. I've no time for Obama as an indivdual but not so with Uncle Sam generally. With US carrier aviation on board plus the UK & French assets already committed, it's fair to say Gaddafi is now in deep shit. Let's hope his whole family meet the business end of a JDAM very soon.

As for the UK's role, Cameron has performed exceptionally. His instincts were spot on from the very start, he's battled on despite opposition from within his own Cabinet and even managed to get the Americans on side.

Credit where it's due, well done 'Dave'.

Yes, well done Cameron.

On Obama, I've heard two opinions. One is that the delay in the US supporting this was vacillation, the other that it was helpful that the US didn't jump in at the start and tell everyone what to do, as this would have made it more likely for China and Russia to oppose it, and harder for the Arab League to support intervention. Of course both could be correct.

[jonno_2004]

Any chance they can divert a little payload to Al-Megrahi's house?

[snowychap]

Yes, well done Cameron.

Is it?

Do we stop with Libya or do we continue on to Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia?

For how long are we now committed to Libya? What are the aims of the action and what are the aims and intentions post military action?

[mjmooney]

I'll bet 7th Armoured Brigade are raring to go.

[peterms]

Yes, well done Cameron.

Is it?

Do we stop with Libya or do we continue on to Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia?

Good question. We're there already of course, in as much as we've been interfering for many, many years.

I would hope we would try to find appropriate ways to try to stop countries massacring their populations, where that happens. Often there will be nothing we can practically do. Where we can do something, whether that is diplomatic methods or on rare occasions military, I think it's appropriate that we and other countries do so. We should also aim to act together with other countries rather than seeing ourselves as a moral arbiter and global policeman, neither of which we have the moral authority or practical wherewithal to support. But we should have a moral view, as should other countries, and we should discuss this, take note of the different views quite legitimately expressed by eg Germany, and try to build some sort of shared view.

That seems to have worked in respect of last night's vote, though often it doesn't.

It would also be nice to see the UN and other groupings doing a little more in the Ivory Coast.

[mjmooney]

And Zimbabwe.

[snowychap]

It would also be nice to see the UN and other groupings doing a little more in the Ivory Coast.

Or the countries I mentioned or Zimbabwe as Mike mentioned or Sri Lanka before that and on and on.

Might that not direct one to take the view that it isn't about the people of Benghazi or indeed any of the other reasons put forward but it is a means to facilitate regime change in Libya without explicitly acknowledging that?

Indeed Cameron just said as much in answer to Arbuthnot by saying agreeing with him that, even though the resolution is not calling for regime change, the aims of the resolution will not be achieved without regime change.

He also seems to be repeating that there are limitations (the occupying forces bit) upon the actions permitted by the UN resolution. I am interested to see or know how that fits with the previous point he made. Are we going to see endless debates in the future as to the definition of 'occupying force'?

[peterms]

Yes, of course Cameron and the US want regime change. That their motives are suspect doesn't make me think that we should not try to prevent Gaddafi from butchering thousands.

The aim of the resolution could of course be achieved without regime change, for example if the regime tried to have a brokered negotiation with its opponents rather than kill them, but it doesn't seem like that's an approach they want to pursue.

Yes, we should be bringing pressure to bear on repressive regimes like Saudi and Bahrein, but we would rather sell them arms and get their oil. Hypocrisy on that score doesn't make it wrong to intervene in Libya, though it does make our position inconsistent.

I think I would rather have inconsistency than have it consistently wrong.

[snowychap]

Hypocrisy on that score doesn't make it wrong to intervene in Libya...

It may, at the very least, make that action questionable.

It may also bring up the question of what happens after this security action (which doesn't appear to have been discussed at all, as usual) and the motives of the actors involved are surely at the heart of that?

It would appear to me that we are in another situation of deciding that we don't like someone (which is fair enough) and therefore becoming a friend of their enemy; the extent to which we become involved then seems driven mainly by self interest.

The west didn't like Iran and therefore became (for a time) a friend of Saddam; the west didn't much like the Russians and therefore we became friends of Bin Laden and the Taliban; the west doesn't seem to dislike the Saudi leadership and therefore ignores them murdering protestors and going in to another country to do some more murdering.

It's not trying to get a resolution that I disagree with (it's a shame we don't try for that kind of thing more often) but the apparent differences in attitudes in various conflicts and situations.