
	by Finian Cunningham
	
	September 18, 2011
	from 
	GlobalResearch Website
	
	 
	
	 
	
		
			| 
			Finian Cunningham is a Global 
			Research Correspondent based in Belfast, Ireland. He was expelled 
			from Bahrain  
			for his critical journalism on 
			18 June 2011.cunninghamfin@yahoo.com
 | 
	
	
	
	 
	
	The persistence of pro-democracy protests in Bahrain in the face of 
	brutal 
	repression may be giving Washington second thoughts about its unwavering 
	support for the royal rulers of the strategically important Persian Gulf 
	kingdom. 
	
	 
	
	Are we about to witness a cosmetic ‘regime change’ 
	- not so much 
	for the genuine sake of democratic rights in Bahrain, but more to save 
	Washington’s vital interests across the region?
	
	The tiny island situated between Saudi Arabia and Qatar serves as the base 
	for the 
	
	U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet. The Fifth Fleet, comprising 16,000 personnel 
	and 30 vessels, is a staging ground for U.S. military projection across the 
	Middle East and Central Asia. It also monitors the sealanes of the Persian 
	Gulf through which some 30 per cent of the world’s total supply of traded 
	oil passes every day.
	
	Since the mainly Shia population of Bahrain took to the streets on 14 
	February in protest against the unelected Sunni monarchy of the 
	
	Al Khalifa 
	dynasty, Washington has given unrelenting support to the regime - invariably 
	describing Bahrain as “an important ally”.
	
	Apart from the U.S. Fifth Fleet, the U.S. has a free trade agreement with 
	Bahrain, it sells some $20 million in weapons every year to the kingdom, and 
	Bahrain is a financial hub for American and global capital.
	
	Bahrain returned all these favors by lending Washington and its NATO allies 
	diplomatic cover for the military intervention in Libya to oust Muammar 
	Gaddafi. Bahrain, along with the other Gulf monarchies of Saudi Arabia, 
	Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, lined up dutifully behind the U.S./NATO 
	intervention to give it a veneer of Arab approval, and thus head off charges 
	that the aerial bombardment of Libya is a Western imperialist war of 
	aggression. 
	
	 
	
	The Gulf Arab monarchies have also performed the same political 
	function of providing diplomatic cover for the U.S./NATO sanctions and threats 
	of intervention against Syria.
	
	Bahrain and the other Gulf dictatorships (despite the irony of that) have 
	thus played an important propaganda function. They have helped underpin the 
	premise that the U.S. and NATO involvement in Libya and Syria is guided by 
	"defence of human rights and democratic freedoms."
	
	But now here’s the rub. Bahrain stands out as a glaring contradiction to 
	stated U.S. government claims regarding its interventions in Libya and Syria.
	
	The fact that some 40 people have been killed in Bahrain for peacefully 
	demanding democratic freedoms and basic human rights is an unmitigated 
	damning indictment of the U.S.-backed regime. Thousands have been injured - many horribly mutilated 
	- from regime forces firing at unarmed peaceful 
	demonstrators.
	
	The apparent glaring contradiction between U.S. foreign policy towards Bahrain 
	and its espoused concerns for the people of Libya and Syria makes Bahrain 
	under the Al Khalifa regime a serious liability to Washington’s 
	“humanitarian” credibility.
	
	Given,
	
		
			- 
			
			the ongoing persecution against Shia workers (over 3,500 sacked) 
- 
			
			the 
	preposterous use of military show trials to prosecute dozens of doctors, 
	nurses, teachers, lawyers and athletes 
- 
			
			the widespread condemnation by human 
	rights groups of illegal mass detention and torture 
- 
			
			the targeting of 
	independent journalists and bloggers 
- 
			
			the expulsion of hundreds of students 
	and academics, 
	
	...the liability of the Al Khalifa regime to Washington’s 
	foreign policy credibility grows ever more unwieldy by the day.
	
	Added to these barbarities against peaceful civilians is the recent massive 
	teargas deployment in Shia villages that are deemed to be supportive of the 
	pro-democracy movement. Every night, villages are smothered in teargas by 
	regime forces firing thousands of canisters into streets and homes. Local 
	people have described the deployment a deliberate policy of “toxic 
	terrorism” and “collective punishment”.
	
	At least eight people have died from asphyxiation after regime forces fired 
	teargas into homes. 
	
	 
	
	The latest victim was Jawad Ahmed (36). He died on 14 
	September, succumbing to teargas fired into his home in the village of Sitra. 
	Relatives did not want to take the victim to the hospital out of fear that 
	he would be arrested by regime forces - as is common in Bahrain where the 
	hospitals have been under military command ever since the Saudi-led invasion 
	to crackdown on the protesters in March. 
	
	 
	
	Only days before Jawad Ahmed’s 
	death, a boy, Ali Jawad (14) was killed when he was shot in the head at 
	close range with a teargas canister. [1]
	 
	
	
	
	
	 
	
	The insoluble dilemma for the regime is that such fierce repression has 
	signally failed to quash the pro-democracy protests. 
	
	 
	
	After nearly six months 
	of state terrorism, the Bahraini protests against the regime have become 
	more determined with 200,000-300,000 out of a population of less than 
	600,000 participating in demonstrations every week.
	
	In June, Bahrain’s King Hamad Al Khalifa promised a return to “normal” with 
	a raft of initiatives that were hailed, and quite possibly formulated, by 
	Washington as a positive move for reform: these included,
	
		
			- 
			
			the official 
	lifting of the state of emergency 
- 
			
			a process of “national dialogue” 
- 
			
			an 
	independent probe into human rights violations 
- 
			
			the transfer of all prosecutions from 
			military to civilian courts 
	
	However, unfortunately for the U.S.-backed monarchy, these initiatives have 
	not bought off the opposition, which continues to take to the streets 
	calling for the downfall of the regime. 
	
	 
	
	Hence the regime has reneged on its 
	initiatives and is resorting to full-on repression, which in turn is only 
	emboldening the pro-democracy movement even more.
	
	The unreformable Bahraini regime thus presents Washington with a thorny 
	problem. 
	
	 
	
	Not only is the U.S. government being shown to be on the side of 
	tyrants in Bahrain, but its support of such a regime is exposing a chasm in 
	Washington’s rhetoric about human rights in Libya, Syria and elsewhere 
	across the Middle East. Bahrain may only be a tiny territory, but the 
	reality of state terror and repression against unarmed civilians is blowing 
	a huge hole in the U.S. façade of protecting human rights and democratic 
	freedom.
	
	In this way, is the Al Khalifa regime in Bahrain in danger of hitting a 
	threshold, which the U.S. government can no longer tolerate because of its 
	public relations liability? 
	
	 
	
	Recall how Washington supported to the last hour 
	the dictatorships of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Ben Ali in Tunisia. But when 
	the public relations conundrum of supporting these tyrants became 
	insufferable they were duly dispensed with. 
	
	 
	
	Could we be about to witness the 
	same cynical abandonment of Washington’s tyrants in Bahrain?
	
	The first sign of this shift may be gleaned from the remarkably critical 
	coverage recently of the Bahraini regime in the New York Times and 
	Washington Post. Given that these papers, along with other mainstream media, 
	have so far given scant coverage to the violations in Bahrain, it is notable 
	that these organs of U.S. government thinking have come out with such 
	unvarnished description of repression in the “important ally”.
	
	 
	
	On 15 
	September, the New York Times
	
	ran a front-page story headlined: 
	
	 
	
		
		Bahrain 
	Boils Under the Lid of Repression
		
		“American willingness to look the other 
	way has cast Washington as hypocritical,” bemoans the Times as it goes on to 
	list a litany of human rights violations. 
		 
		
		“Backed by the armed intervention 
	of Saudi Arabia, King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa declared martial law in 
	March, and though it was repealed June 1, the reverberations of the 
	repression still echo across the island.”
	
	
	In an editorial piece on 10 September, the Washington Post
	
	went further and 
	hinted at official U.S. strategic concerns over Bahrain:
	
		
		“The regime… hasn’t 
	delivered - and now it is risking a new explosion of unrest that could 
	destabilize not just Bahrain but the region around it… If Bahrain blows up, 
	vital U.S. interests will be at risk. The [Obama] administration should use 
	its influence now.”
	
	
	The vital U.S. interests at stake under the increasingly unreliable Al Khalifa 
	regime in Bahrain are high. 
	
	 
	
	They include the U.S. naval command of the Persian 
	Gulf oil trade; the spillover of Shia unrest in Bahrain into top oil 
	producer Saudi Arabia; and the boost that this would give Iran’s influence 
	in the region.
	
	But just as important is the ongoing damage that the Al Khalifa regime is 
	inflicting on Washington’s carefully crafted claims of supporting human 
	rights and democracy across the region - and in Libya and Syria in 
	particular. Bahrain nails the lie in Washington’s rhetoric; it throws a 
	clunking big spanner in U.S. foreign policy wheels.
	
	We shouldn’t be surprised therefore if the U.S. Air Force is loading gold 
	bullion for the hasty departure of King Hamad to Saudi Arabia.
	
	Ralph Schoenman, author of a 
	
	Hidden History of Zionism, points out: 
	
		
		“The Al Khalifa feudal kleptocracy in Bahrain stinks in the nostrils of all 
	fair-minded people.
		 
		
		Its barbaric mode of rule has reached a point where the 
	imperial masters shop furtively for a bourgeois surrogate to calm the storm 
	before the mass struggle assumes armed and revolutionary proportions.
		
“Yet every tenuous attempt by U.S. rulers to locate less tainted and 
	detestable, if pliable figures, to extend the life of a fragile imperial 
	hegemony will but hasten the mass uprising that this classic maneuver is 
	designed to forestall.”
	
	
	
	
	NOTES
	
		
		[1] 
		
		Bahrain: U.S. Ally Kills Children… So When Is NATO Intervening?