From Jeremy Corbyn's 2017 Labour conference speech in Brighton:
"[W]e also know that terrorism is thriving in a world our governments have helped to shape, with its failed states, military interventions and occupations where millions are forced to flee conflict or hunger. We have to do better and swap the knee-jerk response of another bombing campaign for long-term help to solve conflicts rather than fuel them. And we must put our values at the heart of our foreign policy. Democracy and human rights are not an optional extra to be deployed selectively.
"So we cannot be silent at the cruel Saudi war in Yemen, while continuing to supply arms to Saudi Arabia, or the crushing of democracy in Egypt or Bahrain, or the tragic loss of life in Congo. And I say to Aung San Suu Kyi - a champion of democracy and human rights - : end the violence now against the Rohingya in Myanmar and allow the UN and international aid agencies in to Rakhine state. The Rohingya have suffered for too long!
"We should stand firm for peaceful solutions to international crises. Let's tone down the rhetoric, and back dialogue and negotiations to wind down the deeply dangerous confrontation over the Korean Peninsula. And I appeal to the UN secretary general, Antonio Guterres to use the authority of his office and go to Washington and Pyongyang to kick start that essential process of dialogue.
"And let's give real support to end the oppression of the Palestinian people, the 50-year occupation and illegal settlement expansion and move to a genuine two-state solution of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
"Britain's voice needs to be heard independently in the world. We must be a candid friend to the United States, now more than ever. The values we share are not served by building walls, banning immigrants on the basis of religion, polluting the planet, or pandering to racism."
A genuine two-state solution of the Israel-Palestine conflict???
Meanwhile, back in occupied Palestine, in the illegal Gush Etzion settlement bloc, to be precise, Netanyahu and 5,000 guests have just celebrated 50 years of Israeli occupation... 'There will be no more uprooting of settlements in the land of Israel,' [Netanyahu] said to applause." (Israel holds controversial ceremony marking 50 years of settlement, Michael Blum, yahoo.com/news, 28/9/17)
Showing posts with label Bahrain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bahrain. Show all posts
Friday, September 29, 2017
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Big Brother is Alive & Well &...
... living in Sydney, Australia:
"A leading Australian intelligence company is selling state-of-the-art surveillance technology to Bahrain amid concerns it could be used to target pro-democracy campaigners, according to an investigation by international human rights advocates. Published on Thursday, the report by London-based non-government organisation Bahrain Watch found that iOmniscient, which has its headquarters in Sydney, has since April partnered with US company Pelco and Bahrain's LSS Technologies to provide the Bahrain Interior Ministry with enhanced surveillance equipment. This includes 2000 CCTV cameras and facial recognition software. 'The rollout of this technology means at least one camera for every 650 Bahrainis, allowing nationwide, real-time tracking of the population,' said Bahrain Watch's Travis Brimhall, noting prior use of police video to indict protesters in the Gulf kingdom. 'Given the government's well-established record of targeting opposition and human rights defenders, we fear this will provide an advanced dissident-capture system where anyone found to be speaking out can be recognised and intercepted on a scale previously unseen.'
"Bahrain, home of the US Fifth Fleet, was in 2011 the site of mass demonstrations demanding political reform by the country's Shiite majority population. The protests were violently put down by security forces with assistance from neighbouring states [namely, Saudi Arabia], but dissent and repression have persisted...
"A global leader in video analytics, iOmniscient confirmed that it has projects with Bahrain's Interior Ministry to the value of 'several million dollars'. In particular, the company's chief executive, Rustom Kanga, noted the company's facial recognition software provides unique capacities to identify individuals in crowds. However, Dr Kanga said concerns about the misuse of iOmniscient's technology are unwarranted. 'If a person of interest shows up, he can be apprehended by the authorities while the general public is totally protected and their privacy is never compromised,' he said. 'The system essentially helps the human operator to be more effective more quickly, especially in emergencies. Innocent citizens have nothing to worry about'." (Warnings over abuse of Aussie technology, Zoe Holman, Sydney Morning Herald, 25/6/16)
"A leading Australian intelligence company is selling state-of-the-art surveillance technology to Bahrain amid concerns it could be used to target pro-democracy campaigners, according to an investigation by international human rights advocates. Published on Thursday, the report by London-based non-government organisation Bahrain Watch found that iOmniscient, which has its headquarters in Sydney, has since April partnered with US company Pelco and Bahrain's LSS Technologies to provide the Bahrain Interior Ministry with enhanced surveillance equipment. This includes 2000 CCTV cameras and facial recognition software. 'The rollout of this technology means at least one camera for every 650 Bahrainis, allowing nationwide, real-time tracking of the population,' said Bahrain Watch's Travis Brimhall, noting prior use of police video to indict protesters in the Gulf kingdom. 'Given the government's well-established record of targeting opposition and human rights defenders, we fear this will provide an advanced dissident-capture system where anyone found to be speaking out can be recognised and intercepted on a scale previously unseen.'
"Bahrain, home of the US Fifth Fleet, was in 2011 the site of mass demonstrations demanding political reform by the country's Shiite majority population. The protests were violently put down by security forces with assistance from neighbouring states [namely, Saudi Arabia], but dissent and repression have persisted...
"A global leader in video analytics, iOmniscient confirmed that it has projects with Bahrain's Interior Ministry to the value of 'several million dollars'. In particular, the company's chief executive, Rustom Kanga, noted the company's facial recognition software provides unique capacities to identify individuals in crowds. However, Dr Kanga said concerns about the misuse of iOmniscient's technology are unwarranted. 'If a person of interest shows up, he can be apprehended by the authorities while the general public is totally protected and their privacy is never compromised,' he said. 'The system essentially helps the human operator to be more effective more quickly, especially in emergencies. Innocent citizens have nothing to worry about'." (Warnings over abuse of Aussie technology, Zoe Holman, Sydney Morning Herald, 25/6/16)
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Kafka in the Gulf 7
This is the final article in Bernard Levin's St. Helena prisoners saga, happily titled The Ex-Prisoners of St. Helena (The Spectator, 16/6/61):
"'Your call from St. Helena on the line,' said the operator. But my call from St. Helena was not on the line, the connection having been lost just as I had picked up the telephone. 'Are you there, Accra?' repeated the operator patiently, trying to re-establish it. But Accra was not there, either. So the long wait went on for another hour, and a very long hour it was, too. But not as long, after all, as the four years of wrongful imprisonment on St. Helena which three innocent men have undergone, and which has now come formally and officially to an end. For the first words that came, clear as a voice in the same room, down the line from St. Helena were, 'We've won.' What we had won was an application for a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that the prisoners had been illegally taken to St. Helena from Bahrain. The decision was given by Mr Justice Abbott, formerly of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, who has now become forever confused in my mind with Anatole France's M. Justice Chaussepied. It was Chauseppied who finally righted the scandalous wrong done to the inoffensive Pyrot in France's immortal satire on the Dreyfus case ('He cracked their indictments like nuts'), and although this case is not on the level of enormity reached by that monstrous piece of wickedness, there are places in the long story at which it seems at any rate more squalid.
"The story is not only long, but complex. And Heaven knows - or my readers do, even if Heaven does not - that I have told it often and at length. Still, in case there is any citizen newly arrived among us this morning, I hope I may be forgiven if I go over the outline of it once more. It will, after all, be the last time."
[To spare the faithful reader, I will omit at this point Levin's "outline."]
"A case brought earlier by the prisoners failed, having gone all the way to the judicial committee of the Privy Council, after a singularly disgraceful intervention by the then Foreign Secretary (Mr Selwyn Lloyd); this case hinged largely on the question of jurisdiction, and of the quality of the original 'trial'. But then a new wonder came to light: somebody on the Government side slipped, and let out of the bag two vital pieces of information. These were the time at which the warrant for the men's removal was handed to the captain of HMS Loch Insh, and the time at which the Order in Council sanctioning the removal was promulgated in Bahrain. And lo! the warrant, it appeared, was executed before promulgation, and was therefore invalid.
"And thus, on a second application for a writ of habeas corpus, has the good M. Justice Chaussepied now ruled. He declared on Tuesday of this week, in a judgment reserved from the end of the previous week, when the pleadings had been secured, that a valid warrant was necessary for the removal of the prisoners under the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act. Further, he found that such a warrant had been drawn up by the Ruler and handed over with the prisoners at 6 am on December 26, 1956, although - one of the more charming refinements of this case - the actual document had since been lost. (Or possibly 'lost.') But at that time the Order in Council sanctioning the warrant was not in force, and was only put into force by promulgation on the notice-board of the British Agency in Bahrain, which took place at 8 am, the same day - two hours late. The warrant was therefore a nullity.
"The judge made one other major point in his judgment - a point, as it turned out, of crucial importance. It was that the Ruler, by his invocation of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, had waived his own jurisdiction over the prisoners who, from the moment they went on board HMS Loch Insh (despite the fact that she was still then in Bahraini territorial waters), thus fell under British jurisdiction. And so the invalidity of of the warrant made the removal illegal, for if they had still been technically under the jurisdiction of the Ruler the embarkation would not have been illegal, and before the ship sailed out of Bahraini waters the Order had been promulgated.
"It was, in fact, a damned near-run thing. And now that it has been run to a successful conclusion, I think it is time to draw up a rough balance-sheet of credit."
[What follows is quite remarkable. Try imagining today's Australian ms press (or part thereof) not only taking up the case of a group of unjustly treated Arabs, but also advertising an appeal for funds on their behalf to its readers. And further, imagine the readers taking up the challenge.]
"We might begin, I think, with the readers of the Spectator, whose generous response to the appeal fund launched by a small committee of interested parties made it initially possible to start the legal ball rolling for the second time. Sums ranging from 2s. 6d. to 50 pounds came in, very many with apologetic notes saying that the sender wished it could be more. A striking feature of the stream of money was the number of contributions that came from clergymen - surely one of the worst-paid body of men in the land. Several readers gave twice, some thrice, and one four times. (Costs were awarded by the judge, in freeing the men, against the Government; but it is not yet clear how complete their footing of the bill will be, and in any case the considerable debts incurred over the first case - costs of which are not included - are still to some extent outstanding: the Appeal Committee is therefore holding the money collected, but will do nothing with it before putting its proposals to the contributors.)"
"Secondly, the Members of Parliament who have moved mountains: chief among them are Mr John Stonehouse and Mr Woodrow Wyatt, and valuable help has come from others, particularly Mr Jeremy Thorpe. For a moment, the eccentric Tory MP Mr William Yates looked as though he was on the side of justice in this matter, but soon declined into giving personal assurances of his admiration for the Ruler of Bahrain. (The Tory Party has behaved throughout disgracefully: one of the most unlovely sights I have seen in the House of Commons was the scene when - just as the prisoners were about to be sent back to Bahrain, beyond all hopes of legal rescue - the adjournment of the House was moved to discuss the transfer immediately. When the Speaker called on those Members supporting the adjournment to signify, the whole of the Labour and Liberal parties stood as one man: with the single exception of Mr Yates, who was to renege later, not one Tory rump left a bench.)
"The lawyers, of course, are bedevilled by their professional rules when it comes to the limelight. But one who is now beyond such questions, and whose tireless and devoted action in the case from the beginning has been exemplary, is Mr Roland Brown, recently appointed Attorney-General of Tanganyika. Mr Brown was thus prevented, by his official appointment, from seeing the second case through to the end; but his work certainly played a major part in turning the scale.
"The various newspapers which helped to keep the case alive include the Guardian (which was the first paper in point of time to uncover the matter), the Observer, Reynolds News, and even the Times, which has had two notable leaders on the case, both sharply critical of the Government.
"But above all, thanks must go to one man who has neither sought nor received attention, but of whom it can be said, as it cannot of any other single figure in this case, that without him it could never have been done. He is Mr Donald Chesworth, a Labour London County Councillor. It was he who first began to burrow into the case, about which he had heard by accident; it was he who got lawyers looking into it; it was he who brought it to the attention of the Spectator. To him goes the credit for starting the snowball on its path.
"The path has been a long one, and at times disheartening. According to my account, there were moving scenes in St. Helena when the decision was announced. The court was full on the last day, mainly of Europeans, most of whom seemed pleased at the result. The Crown counsel did not object to the release of the three prisoners, but reserved the right (subject to instructions) to appeal to the Privy Council: fortunately no such right exists, and even if it did I can hardly envisage its being exercised.
"When the proceedings were over, an air of gentlemanliness set in all round. The men, through their counsel, made a statement in which they formally declared that they had no complaint to make about their treatment on St. Helena, either by the Governor or the prison authorities: difficulties in communications had led to misunderstanding on this point. 'Sir Robert Alford,' said Counsel, 'is not Sir Hudson Lowe' (and three innocent Bahrainis, I might add, are not Napoleon). Toasts to freedom were drunk in champagne. 'We have always believed in British justice,' said the three, 'and our belief is vindicated.' Then they gave a luncheon, to which counsel and solicitors on both sides were invited, as was the Superintendant of Prisons, the men's gaoler. The lunch consisted of chicken followed by Bahraini melons grown by the prisoners in their scrap of prison garden. And they ended by declaring that their wish was now to come to the United Kingdom.
"So all ended happily for these three unfortunate men - though, as a leading article points out on another page, there are still two more on the prison island in Bahrain, out of reach of British justice. It is, for all its shaming quality, a heartening story. It is heartening not only because justice was vindicated and the Executive brought to heel, but because it demonstrates once again that the 'infamous thing' can be crushed. Force is not all, wrongdoing is not efficient, at the end of the longest tunnel shines the light. Once again, I am reminded that the most comforting thing about Mussolini is that he did not make the trains run on time."
[The following telegram from St. Helena appeared at the head of the letters page for the above issue of the Spectator:
ON OCCASION OF OUR RELEASE WE ARE DEEPLY INDEBTED TO YOU AND OTHER FRIENDS MAGNIFICENT EFFORT AND GENEROSITY NAMING CHESWORTH STONEHOUSE LEVIN AND ALL OTHER NOBLE SUPPORTERS WITH GREAT CREDIT TO OUR LEGAL ADVISERS FOR THEIR HISTORICAL ACHIEVEMENT SALAAMS AND BEST WISHES
SHAMLAN BAKAR AND ALIWAT]
I'll conclude this series with a post containing the letters which appeared in the next (23/6/61) issue of the Spectator.
"'Your call from St. Helena on the line,' said the operator. But my call from St. Helena was not on the line, the connection having been lost just as I had picked up the telephone. 'Are you there, Accra?' repeated the operator patiently, trying to re-establish it. But Accra was not there, either. So the long wait went on for another hour, and a very long hour it was, too. But not as long, after all, as the four years of wrongful imprisonment on St. Helena which three innocent men have undergone, and which has now come formally and officially to an end. For the first words that came, clear as a voice in the same room, down the line from St. Helena were, 'We've won.' What we had won was an application for a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that the prisoners had been illegally taken to St. Helena from Bahrain. The decision was given by Mr Justice Abbott, formerly of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, who has now become forever confused in my mind with Anatole France's M. Justice Chaussepied. It was Chauseppied who finally righted the scandalous wrong done to the inoffensive Pyrot in France's immortal satire on the Dreyfus case ('He cracked their indictments like nuts'), and although this case is not on the level of enormity reached by that monstrous piece of wickedness, there are places in the long story at which it seems at any rate more squalid.
"The story is not only long, but complex. And Heaven knows - or my readers do, even if Heaven does not - that I have told it often and at length. Still, in case there is any citizen newly arrived among us this morning, I hope I may be forgiven if I go over the outline of it once more. It will, after all, be the last time."
[To spare the faithful reader, I will omit at this point Levin's "outline."]
"A case brought earlier by the prisoners failed, having gone all the way to the judicial committee of the Privy Council, after a singularly disgraceful intervention by the then Foreign Secretary (Mr Selwyn Lloyd); this case hinged largely on the question of jurisdiction, and of the quality of the original 'trial'. But then a new wonder came to light: somebody on the Government side slipped, and let out of the bag two vital pieces of information. These were the time at which the warrant for the men's removal was handed to the captain of HMS Loch Insh, and the time at which the Order in Council sanctioning the removal was promulgated in Bahrain. And lo! the warrant, it appeared, was executed before promulgation, and was therefore invalid.
"And thus, on a second application for a writ of habeas corpus, has the good M. Justice Chaussepied now ruled. He declared on Tuesday of this week, in a judgment reserved from the end of the previous week, when the pleadings had been secured, that a valid warrant was necessary for the removal of the prisoners under the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act. Further, he found that such a warrant had been drawn up by the Ruler and handed over with the prisoners at 6 am on December 26, 1956, although - one of the more charming refinements of this case - the actual document had since been lost. (Or possibly 'lost.') But at that time the Order in Council sanctioning the warrant was not in force, and was only put into force by promulgation on the notice-board of the British Agency in Bahrain, which took place at 8 am, the same day - two hours late. The warrant was therefore a nullity.
"The judge made one other major point in his judgment - a point, as it turned out, of crucial importance. It was that the Ruler, by his invocation of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, had waived his own jurisdiction over the prisoners who, from the moment they went on board HMS Loch Insh (despite the fact that she was still then in Bahraini territorial waters), thus fell under British jurisdiction. And so the invalidity of of the warrant made the removal illegal, for if they had still been technically under the jurisdiction of the Ruler the embarkation would not have been illegal, and before the ship sailed out of Bahraini waters the Order had been promulgated.
"It was, in fact, a damned near-run thing. And now that it has been run to a successful conclusion, I think it is time to draw up a rough balance-sheet of credit."
[What follows is quite remarkable. Try imagining today's Australian ms press (or part thereof) not only taking up the case of a group of unjustly treated Arabs, but also advertising an appeal for funds on their behalf to its readers. And further, imagine the readers taking up the challenge.]
"We might begin, I think, with the readers of the Spectator, whose generous response to the appeal fund launched by a small committee of interested parties made it initially possible to start the legal ball rolling for the second time. Sums ranging from 2s. 6d. to 50 pounds came in, very many with apologetic notes saying that the sender wished it could be more. A striking feature of the stream of money was the number of contributions that came from clergymen - surely one of the worst-paid body of men in the land. Several readers gave twice, some thrice, and one four times. (Costs were awarded by the judge, in freeing the men, against the Government; but it is not yet clear how complete their footing of the bill will be, and in any case the considerable debts incurred over the first case - costs of which are not included - are still to some extent outstanding: the Appeal Committee is therefore holding the money collected, but will do nothing with it before putting its proposals to the contributors.)"
"Secondly, the Members of Parliament who have moved mountains: chief among them are Mr John Stonehouse and Mr Woodrow Wyatt, and valuable help has come from others, particularly Mr Jeremy Thorpe. For a moment, the eccentric Tory MP Mr William Yates looked as though he was on the side of justice in this matter, but soon declined into giving personal assurances of his admiration for the Ruler of Bahrain. (The Tory Party has behaved throughout disgracefully: one of the most unlovely sights I have seen in the House of Commons was the scene when - just as the prisoners were about to be sent back to Bahrain, beyond all hopes of legal rescue - the adjournment of the House was moved to discuss the transfer immediately. When the Speaker called on those Members supporting the adjournment to signify, the whole of the Labour and Liberal parties stood as one man: with the single exception of Mr Yates, who was to renege later, not one Tory rump left a bench.)
"The lawyers, of course, are bedevilled by their professional rules when it comes to the limelight. But one who is now beyond such questions, and whose tireless and devoted action in the case from the beginning has been exemplary, is Mr Roland Brown, recently appointed Attorney-General of Tanganyika. Mr Brown was thus prevented, by his official appointment, from seeing the second case through to the end; but his work certainly played a major part in turning the scale.
"The various newspapers which helped to keep the case alive include the Guardian (which was the first paper in point of time to uncover the matter), the Observer, Reynolds News, and even the Times, which has had two notable leaders on the case, both sharply critical of the Government.
"But above all, thanks must go to one man who has neither sought nor received attention, but of whom it can be said, as it cannot of any other single figure in this case, that without him it could never have been done. He is Mr Donald Chesworth, a Labour London County Councillor. It was he who first began to burrow into the case, about which he had heard by accident; it was he who got lawyers looking into it; it was he who brought it to the attention of the Spectator. To him goes the credit for starting the snowball on its path.
"The path has been a long one, and at times disheartening. According to my account, there were moving scenes in St. Helena when the decision was announced. The court was full on the last day, mainly of Europeans, most of whom seemed pleased at the result. The Crown counsel did not object to the release of the three prisoners, but reserved the right (subject to instructions) to appeal to the Privy Council: fortunately no such right exists, and even if it did I can hardly envisage its being exercised.
"When the proceedings were over, an air of gentlemanliness set in all round. The men, through their counsel, made a statement in which they formally declared that they had no complaint to make about their treatment on St. Helena, either by the Governor or the prison authorities: difficulties in communications had led to misunderstanding on this point. 'Sir Robert Alford,' said Counsel, 'is not Sir Hudson Lowe' (and three innocent Bahrainis, I might add, are not Napoleon). Toasts to freedom were drunk in champagne. 'We have always believed in British justice,' said the three, 'and our belief is vindicated.' Then they gave a luncheon, to which counsel and solicitors on both sides were invited, as was the Superintendant of Prisons, the men's gaoler. The lunch consisted of chicken followed by Bahraini melons grown by the prisoners in their scrap of prison garden. And they ended by declaring that their wish was now to come to the United Kingdom.
"So all ended happily for these three unfortunate men - though, as a leading article points out on another page, there are still two more on the prison island in Bahrain, out of reach of British justice. It is, for all its shaming quality, a heartening story. It is heartening not only because justice was vindicated and the Executive brought to heel, but because it demonstrates once again that the 'infamous thing' can be crushed. Force is not all, wrongdoing is not efficient, at the end of the longest tunnel shines the light. Once again, I am reminded that the most comforting thing about Mussolini is that he did not make the trains run on time."
[The following telegram from St. Helena appeared at the head of the letters page for the above issue of the Spectator:
ON OCCASION OF OUR RELEASE WE ARE DEEPLY INDEBTED TO YOU AND OTHER FRIENDS MAGNIFICENT EFFORT AND GENEROSITY NAMING CHESWORTH STONEHOUSE LEVIN AND ALL OTHER NOBLE SUPPORTERS WITH GREAT CREDIT TO OUR LEGAL ADVISERS FOR THEIR HISTORICAL ACHIEVEMENT SALAAMS AND BEST WISHES
SHAMLAN BAKAR AND ALIWAT]
I'll conclude this series with a post containing the letters which appeared in the next (23/6/61) issue of the Spectator.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Kafka in the Gulf 6
This is vintage Bernard Levin. You could be watching the Australian federal parliament in action. Nothing has changed:
"George Orwell tells, in Homage to Catalonia, of the occasion when, on sniper-duty in the front line only a few score yards from the Fascist positions, he saw one of the enemy sprinting across some open ground while holding up his trousers with one hand. Orwell deduced that the man had been summoned to take a message that could wait even less than he could, and raised his rifle to fire. But he found he could not; the great, good disillusionment had set in. For, as he said, 'A man holding up his trousers is not a Fascist; he is just a man holding up his trousers.'
"I find myself in much the same position where Mr Edward Heath is concerned. A strictly objective observer might well conclude that the Conservative Chief Whip at the time of Suez could hardly fail to be a dastard, and he might go on to presume, not without some evidence, that the Lord Privy Seal who made two separate speeches in the same evening on a subject of which, as the speeches in question made abundantly clear, he knew nothing whatever, was a bit of an ass.
"Yet every time I raise my rifle and draw a bead on Mr Heath, something happens to show me he is as human as I am, and I let it fall. Here was I, appearing to give him stick for his deplorable showing in the case of the Bahraini prisoners, and just as I am on my way to do it, I discover that he buys his chocolates at Charbonnel and Walker, as I do, and leaves his Christmas shopping as late as I do, and we are brothers beneath the skin.
"In the event, the Cadi in me just gets the upper hand, and the bastinado is ordered, though with reluctance. Mr Heath's showing in the Bahraini prisoners debate was lamentable, after all, and like Cinna the poet, he will bear me a bang for that, I fear. And surely Orwell would have sympathised: for if ever a man was caught with his trousers down it was Mr Heath in the week before Christmas.
"To begin with, Mr Heath had to learn the hard way - as, in their time, did Mr Milligan and Mr Henry Hopkinson and even Mr Macmillan, that you must never, never, never, say never. On Monday, he ended a Question-Time exchange on the subject of the Bahraini prisoners with the memorable words, 'I shall have nothing further to say to the House before we rise for the Recess.' But the following day, his braces having burst asunder in the interim and his well-creased trousers having descended around his ankles, he had a total of something like eleven columns of Hansard to say to the House before they rose for the Recess, and was told in no uncertain fashion to behave himself, too - and even, to some extent, promised that he would.
"But I realise that it is most unlikely that anybody around here knows what I am talking about. I must therefore recapitulate the gist of a long, complex and deeply shameful story, the whole of which I told in the Spectator on July 1 last."
[I'm skipping Levin's "gist" from this post. Those who've persevered with the series this far will be in the know. The rest will just have to read the first 5 posts in the series. A word about Edward 'Ted' Heath (1916-2005), who went on to become Conservative PM (1970-74). The bugger had some real form when it came to ignoring British colonial crimes. In 1948, British troops in Malaysia massacred 24 villagers during the so-called Malayan Emergency in an incident known as the Batang Kali massacre. The matter was finally scheduled for investigation by the Wilson Labor government of the day in 1970. However, when Heath came to power later that year he halted the investigation. Relatives of the victims are currently in the British High Court seeking to overturn Heath's decision. (See Heath halted probe into Malay massacre, David Sanderson, The Times/The Australian, 10/5/12) And how's this from his Wikipedia entry: "In January 2006, it was announced that Heath had left 5 million pounds in his will, most of it to a charitable foundation to conserve his 18th century house, Arundells, opposite Salisbury Cathedral, as a museum to his career."]
"The Ruler has asked that the three prisoners be sent back from St. Helena to Bahrain. Now, displeasing though their imprisonment on St. Helena is to them, the prospect of being sent back to Bahrain must make St. Helena seem positively agreeable. For at any rate in St. Helena they can be sure of fair and proper treatment; in Bahrain they have no guarantee that they will be released at the end of their sentence, if indeed they have not been tortured or killed or both, long before.
"Yet Mr Heath was proposing to send them back to the Ruler's pleasure, and was planning to do so without consulting the House either, and if Mr John Stonehouse had not spotted what he was up to, and asked questions, and then moved the emergency adjournment of the House, he would have done it, too.
"Which brings us, as I knew it would, to Mr Heath's showing in the debate. It was deplorable, as I have said; he clearly knew nothing whatever about the case, and was merely relying on what his advisers had told him when the thing blew up in the House, and on what they managed to ferry to him from the Civil Servants' Box behind the Speaker's chair during the debate itself. But if Mr Heath will not work a little harder, I will have to reprove him for it; he said, in his first speech of the evening: 'After the sentence, the Ruler made a request... that these three men should be detained somewhere outside Bahrain.' I am very sorry to have to tell this to Mr Heath, but that statement is false, and he had better start inquiring how it came to be put into his hand for reading out; the Ruler made this request before the sentence, and indeed before the 'court' which was to decide it was set up. Mr Heath went on to make it a good deal worse by saying, when questioned on this point: 'Yes - before the trial, and the wording shows that it was 'in the event of conviction' - that is why the request was made - Surely, it is in order to ask for facilities in the event of their being required.' Which is doubly false, first because it repeats the earlier statement, and second because the words he quoted do not occur in the Ruler's request in which there is no question of an 'if' or a conditional.
"I think, nice man though he is, that Mr Heath owes the House of Commons a withdrawal of these remarks, and an apology for making them without investigating what degree of veracity was to be found in them.
"But what do some of the other speakers owe the House - let alone the question of what they owe simple decency? There is a man called Kershaw, for instance, who said, among other things, some of which were even worse, that 'It was further said that this particular order cannot apply to these prisoners on the grounds, among others, that the arrangements for their reception at St Helena were made before the sentences were passed. That was surely an administrative convenience.' I suppose that there are people in the world - indeed, there is certainly one, called Kershaw - who believe that to arrange a man's sentence before his trial comes under the heading of nothing more than 'an administrative convenience,' but I am glad that I am not among their number. I am even more glad that I am not another fellow, this one called Mott-Radclyffe (who are these people who have been crawling into Parliament, and why have I not been kept informed?), who, when he was told about the Ruler's document arranging for the transportation of men who had not even been tried, let alone convicted, let alone sentenced, said, 'I doubt whether he said anything of the kind.' Why does Mott-Radclyffe doubt whether the Ruler said anything of the kind? There is nothing secret about most of the documents in this case: how dare he take decent wages for making speeches about subjects on which he has not bothered to get himself informed before making them?
"Indeed, the Tory Party on this occasion behaved disgracefully; the only Conservative to stand in support of the request for an emergency debate was Mr William Yates, to whom be honour. Most of the rest sat about, apparently neither knowing nor caring what was being done in Britain's name, and ready to march through the lobby, if the occasion had arisen, still neither knowing nor caring.
"As it happens, the occasion did not arise. Mr Heath, properly shaken, gave an undertaking that these prisoners would not be sent back to Bahrain before the end of the recess, that the House would be kept informed, when it resumed, of the situation, and that the Ruler of Bahrain would be further urged to exercise clemency in the case. Mr Heath, clearly, will bear watching; a man who can spout the kind of stuff he spouted without, apparently, bothering to check it, is clearly going to need a good deal of keeping in line. But meanwhile, the fact remains that in a British colony there have been since the end of 1956 three men who were convicted in a fake-trial by a fake-court set up by a fake-ruler (and put aboard their prison-ship, I may add - though this is another story - with a fake-warrant), and whose conviction, sentence and place of imprisonment were decided before the trial began; and also that this has all been done with the active participation of the British Government. I think that when the House of Commons resumes next month it should have something more important to talk about than the Human Tissue Bill."
This post marks the end of Levin's The Prisoners of St. Helena: Part 2. The next post in this series will begin with his concluding article, The Ex-Prisoners of Saint Helena.
"George Orwell tells, in Homage to Catalonia, of the occasion when, on sniper-duty in the front line only a few score yards from the Fascist positions, he saw one of the enemy sprinting across some open ground while holding up his trousers with one hand. Orwell deduced that the man had been summoned to take a message that could wait even less than he could, and raised his rifle to fire. But he found he could not; the great, good disillusionment had set in. For, as he said, 'A man holding up his trousers is not a Fascist; he is just a man holding up his trousers.'
"I find myself in much the same position where Mr Edward Heath is concerned. A strictly objective observer might well conclude that the Conservative Chief Whip at the time of Suez could hardly fail to be a dastard, and he might go on to presume, not without some evidence, that the Lord Privy Seal who made two separate speeches in the same evening on a subject of which, as the speeches in question made abundantly clear, he knew nothing whatever, was a bit of an ass.
"Yet every time I raise my rifle and draw a bead on Mr Heath, something happens to show me he is as human as I am, and I let it fall. Here was I, appearing to give him stick for his deplorable showing in the case of the Bahraini prisoners, and just as I am on my way to do it, I discover that he buys his chocolates at Charbonnel and Walker, as I do, and leaves his Christmas shopping as late as I do, and we are brothers beneath the skin.
"In the event, the Cadi in me just gets the upper hand, and the bastinado is ordered, though with reluctance. Mr Heath's showing in the Bahraini prisoners debate was lamentable, after all, and like Cinna the poet, he will bear me a bang for that, I fear. And surely Orwell would have sympathised: for if ever a man was caught with his trousers down it was Mr Heath in the week before Christmas.
"To begin with, Mr Heath had to learn the hard way - as, in their time, did Mr Milligan and Mr Henry Hopkinson and even Mr Macmillan, that you must never, never, never, say never. On Monday, he ended a Question-Time exchange on the subject of the Bahraini prisoners with the memorable words, 'I shall have nothing further to say to the House before we rise for the Recess.' But the following day, his braces having burst asunder in the interim and his well-creased trousers having descended around his ankles, he had a total of something like eleven columns of Hansard to say to the House before they rose for the Recess, and was told in no uncertain fashion to behave himself, too - and even, to some extent, promised that he would.
"But I realise that it is most unlikely that anybody around here knows what I am talking about. I must therefore recapitulate the gist of a long, complex and deeply shameful story, the whole of which I told in the Spectator on July 1 last."
[I'm skipping Levin's "gist" from this post. Those who've persevered with the series this far will be in the know. The rest will just have to read the first 5 posts in the series. A word about Edward 'Ted' Heath (1916-2005), who went on to become Conservative PM (1970-74). The bugger had some real form when it came to ignoring British colonial crimes. In 1948, British troops in Malaysia massacred 24 villagers during the so-called Malayan Emergency in an incident known as the Batang Kali massacre. The matter was finally scheduled for investigation by the Wilson Labor government of the day in 1970. However, when Heath came to power later that year he halted the investigation. Relatives of the victims are currently in the British High Court seeking to overturn Heath's decision. (See Heath halted probe into Malay massacre, David Sanderson, The Times/The Australian, 10/5/12) And how's this from his Wikipedia entry: "In January 2006, it was announced that Heath had left 5 million pounds in his will, most of it to a charitable foundation to conserve his 18th century house, Arundells, opposite Salisbury Cathedral, as a museum to his career."]
"The Ruler has asked that the three prisoners be sent back from St. Helena to Bahrain. Now, displeasing though their imprisonment on St. Helena is to them, the prospect of being sent back to Bahrain must make St. Helena seem positively agreeable. For at any rate in St. Helena they can be sure of fair and proper treatment; in Bahrain they have no guarantee that they will be released at the end of their sentence, if indeed they have not been tortured or killed or both, long before.
"Yet Mr Heath was proposing to send them back to the Ruler's pleasure, and was planning to do so without consulting the House either, and if Mr John Stonehouse had not spotted what he was up to, and asked questions, and then moved the emergency adjournment of the House, he would have done it, too.
"Which brings us, as I knew it would, to Mr Heath's showing in the debate. It was deplorable, as I have said; he clearly knew nothing whatever about the case, and was merely relying on what his advisers had told him when the thing blew up in the House, and on what they managed to ferry to him from the Civil Servants' Box behind the Speaker's chair during the debate itself. But if Mr Heath will not work a little harder, I will have to reprove him for it; he said, in his first speech of the evening: 'After the sentence, the Ruler made a request... that these three men should be detained somewhere outside Bahrain.' I am very sorry to have to tell this to Mr Heath, but that statement is false, and he had better start inquiring how it came to be put into his hand for reading out; the Ruler made this request before the sentence, and indeed before the 'court' which was to decide it was set up. Mr Heath went on to make it a good deal worse by saying, when questioned on this point: 'Yes - before the trial, and the wording shows that it was 'in the event of conviction' - that is why the request was made - Surely, it is in order to ask for facilities in the event of their being required.' Which is doubly false, first because it repeats the earlier statement, and second because the words he quoted do not occur in the Ruler's request in which there is no question of an 'if' or a conditional.
"I think, nice man though he is, that Mr Heath owes the House of Commons a withdrawal of these remarks, and an apology for making them without investigating what degree of veracity was to be found in them.
"But what do some of the other speakers owe the House - let alone the question of what they owe simple decency? There is a man called Kershaw, for instance, who said, among other things, some of which were even worse, that 'It was further said that this particular order cannot apply to these prisoners on the grounds, among others, that the arrangements for their reception at St Helena were made before the sentences were passed. That was surely an administrative convenience.' I suppose that there are people in the world - indeed, there is certainly one, called Kershaw - who believe that to arrange a man's sentence before his trial comes under the heading of nothing more than 'an administrative convenience,' but I am glad that I am not among their number. I am even more glad that I am not another fellow, this one called Mott-Radclyffe (who are these people who have been crawling into Parliament, and why have I not been kept informed?), who, when he was told about the Ruler's document arranging for the transportation of men who had not even been tried, let alone convicted, let alone sentenced, said, 'I doubt whether he said anything of the kind.' Why does Mott-Radclyffe doubt whether the Ruler said anything of the kind? There is nothing secret about most of the documents in this case: how dare he take decent wages for making speeches about subjects on which he has not bothered to get himself informed before making them?
"Indeed, the Tory Party on this occasion behaved disgracefully; the only Conservative to stand in support of the request for an emergency debate was Mr William Yates, to whom be honour. Most of the rest sat about, apparently neither knowing nor caring what was being done in Britain's name, and ready to march through the lobby, if the occasion had arisen, still neither knowing nor caring.
"As it happens, the occasion did not arise. Mr Heath, properly shaken, gave an undertaking that these prisoners would not be sent back to Bahrain before the end of the recess, that the House would be kept informed, when it resumed, of the situation, and that the Ruler of Bahrain would be further urged to exercise clemency in the case. Mr Heath, clearly, will bear watching; a man who can spout the kind of stuff he spouted without, apparently, bothering to check it, is clearly going to need a good deal of keeping in line. But meanwhile, the fact remains that in a British colony there have been since the end of 1956 three men who were convicted in a fake-trial by a fake-court set up by a fake-ruler (and put aboard their prison-ship, I may add - though this is another story - with a fake-warrant), and whose conviction, sentence and place of imprisonment were decided before the trial began; and also that this has all been done with the active participation of the British Government. I think that when the House of Commons resumes next month it should have something more important to talk about than the Human Tissue Bill."
This post marks the end of Levin's The Prisoners of St. Helena: Part 2. The next post in this series will begin with his concluding article, The Ex-Prisoners of Saint Helena.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Kafka in the Gulf 5
The Defence Begins
The scene now changes to Britain where, early in 1957, a number of citizens began to feel a little disturbed by reports of the way in which this case had been handled, and by the part played in it by the British Government. No appeal could be made to any British court from the decision of the Ruler's relatives, but there was a glimmer of light to be seen in the section of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act which provided that prisoners serving their sentence in a colony other than that in which they had received it were subject to all the same laws and regulations as if they had been sentenced there. This gave an opportunity to bring habeas corpus proceedings against the Governor and Prison Superintendent of St. Helena.
At first, everybody was most unhelpful. To get the authority of relatives of the prisoners living in Bahrain proved extremely difficult; fear of reprisals by the Ruler made them very wary, and a great deal of cloak-and-dagger stuff had to be resorted to. Finally, a relative of one of the prisoners - Al Bakir - was found in Cairo, and agreed to act. But it was maintained that the prisoners could bring such proceedings themselves if they wanted to, and since they had not it was to be presumed that they did not want to. (The fact that they were quite unaware that any such proceedings were possible, and that there is no lawyer on St. Helena, rather spoilt the judicial tone of this argument.) But eventually it proved possible to get in touch with the prisoners themselves, and Al Bakir signed an application for a writ of habeas corpus.
The next problem was: where was the hearing to take place? Funds were very short for those acting on behalf of the prisoners, and St. Helena was a long way away. Moreover, one of the respondents on the writ of habeas corpus was the Governor who, by a happy arrangement, is also the Chief Justice of St. Helena. And if it comes to that, the other respondent on the writ is the Superintendent of Prisons who, by an equally happy arrangement, is also Registrar of the Court there. It was then suggested that the application might be heard by post; that the arguments could be sent to St. Helena, there heard, and a decision granted in this way. The Colonial Office refused to co-operate with this plan, either. Finally, after protracted argument, it was agreed that the case would be heard in St. Helena, but by a judge from another territory: Mr Justice Brett of Nigeria. The British Government at this point did its one good deed of the entire miserable affair; it arranged for a frigate - HMS Puma - to take to St. Helena not only Mr Justice Brett and Crown Council, but also the barrister acting on behalf of the prisoners. This curious boatload set off for St. Helena early in 1959 (so long had the proceedings taken); there were no shipboard romances.
The arrival of HMS Puma in St. Helena caused a sensation such as the island had not seen since HMS Northumberland brought Napoleon. They even held a ball in honour of the visitors, and I daresay that the sound of revelry by night could be heard as far away as the Nissen huts of Munden's. But the appeal failed, for all that. Not that there was much concern in the defence camp over this: what they wanted was a hearing before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to which an appeal could be made from a decision of the court in St. Helena. They asked leave to appeal, which was granted, on the advice of the Judicial Committee, by as motley a Council as can ever have given its assent to such an application; the decision is signed by The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Chamberlain, Mr Secretary Maclay, Sir Michael Adeane and (what the devil was he doing in that galley?) Dr Nkrumah.
The Two Questions
The appeal was heard before three judges of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. At the end of the hearing, the three judges declared that they wanted it heard again, before a full bench of five judges. Between the two hearings, however, they submitted to the Foreign Secretary (whose stoning in Bahrain, all those years before, might be said to have started the whole chain of events) two questions for his answer, since it was upon these questions that - as they read the law - the case hung. They asked him: 1. Did Her Majesty, on December 19, 1956, hold, exercise and enjoy legislative jurisdiction in Bahrain over persons being subjects of the Ruler of Bahrain and/or Qatar? 2. If so, at what date did Her Majesty acquire such jurisdiction and what was its extent? Mr Selwyn Lloyd made answer, and an astonishing answer he made. He declared that Her Majesty did have jurisdiction in Bahrain over subjects of Bahrain and Qatar, not only (as might seem proper) when they were on British ships and aircraft, not only in Mixed Cases (cases involving both persons subject to the Bahrain Order and persons not subject to it - ie, roughly speaking, British and Bahraini citizens respectively), but also, from December 19, 1956, over other subjects of the Ruler of Bahrain. And, added Mr Selwyn Lloyd, 'On December 19, 1956, Her Majesty exercised that jurisdiction by making the Bahrain (Removal of Prisoners) Order, 1956, and the Prisoners Removal (Bahrain and St. Helena) Order, 1956'.
Now it is to be doubted whether two more disgraceful Orders in Council have ever been made by Her, or anybody Else's, Majesty. They lent the full force of the British Government to a judicial farce on which the curtain had not even gone up; for at the risk of seeming wearyingly repetitious, I must say again that the trial of the men whose transportation was arranged in these Orders of December 19 did not begin until the 23rd, and the 'court' which was to 'try' them did not come into being until the 22nd. So the Foreign Secretary was acting, at the request of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as judge in his own cause. Not surprisingly, he found in his own favour.
The Privy Council declared their hands tied by Mr Lloyd's replies. What is more, they declared 'immaterial' the fact that the British Government's shady part in this shady business had been acted out nearly a week before the rest of the cast took the stage. And, accordingly, they dismissed the appeal. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that they were wrong in law, and more difficult still to resist the conclusion that, if they were right in law, the law is a bad and a silly and a pernicious one, and should be changed.
On the other hand, there are three prisoners on St. Helena, who are liable to be released in 1969 just in time for Christmas, a festival they do not recognise. What is to be done about them? I repeat that nobody connected with the case has seriously suggested that the men were guilty; and even if they were they were clearly not found guilty in a manner that would satisfy a British court, or indeed any court anywhere in the civilised or semi-civilised world. Yet this fake-trial, the verdict of which was decided before it took place, sentenced men to terms of imprisonment ranging from 10 to 14 years, and the British Government has not so much turned a blind eye to the business as gazed full upon it in approval. It may not, or it may, be possible for the British Government to persuade the Ruler of Bahrain to take note of the arrival of the twentieth century; possibly if he had not had Sir Charles Belgrave to advise him for so many years in the ways of the nineteenth, the Ruler may have made the discovery for himself much earlier. But even if we must decide that there is nothing we can do about the way in which the Ruler of Bahrain exercises his rule, surely we are under an obligation, before providing prisons for those of his subjects to whom the Ruler from time to time takes a dislike, to satisfy ourselves that there is some good and sufficient reason - good and sufficient to British ideas of justice - for us to provide such services? The repute of Britain in the Middle East, especially with the forces of Arab nationalism, is low. Actions such as this one are not likely to increase our good standing in the Middle East, or indeed anywhere else in the world. We can do nothing about the other two 'convicted' men, who are serving their sentences in Bahrain. But we can do something about the three on St. Helena.
Does it matter? Does it matter that a few men are unjustly imprisoned in a British colony at the unchallenged demand of an autocratic ruler who faked their trial? I think it does. Though it may be too fanciful to imagine that we can hear the bell tolling in this case, it remains true that no man is an island, even if he is imprisoned on St. Helena. Britain does not, these shrinking days, have much say in what goes on in the world. But she has some say still in what goes on in St. Helena. And what goes on in St. Helena is unjust and wrong. The least we can do is to right the wrong while we have the power.
***
Here ends Bernard Levin's feature article in The Spectator of July 1, 1960, The Prisoners of St. Helena. Part 2, of December 30, 1960, will be the next in my series Kafka in the Gulf.
The scene now changes to Britain where, early in 1957, a number of citizens began to feel a little disturbed by reports of the way in which this case had been handled, and by the part played in it by the British Government. No appeal could be made to any British court from the decision of the Ruler's relatives, but there was a glimmer of light to be seen in the section of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act which provided that prisoners serving their sentence in a colony other than that in which they had received it were subject to all the same laws and regulations as if they had been sentenced there. This gave an opportunity to bring habeas corpus proceedings against the Governor and Prison Superintendent of St. Helena.
At first, everybody was most unhelpful. To get the authority of relatives of the prisoners living in Bahrain proved extremely difficult; fear of reprisals by the Ruler made them very wary, and a great deal of cloak-and-dagger stuff had to be resorted to. Finally, a relative of one of the prisoners - Al Bakir - was found in Cairo, and agreed to act. But it was maintained that the prisoners could bring such proceedings themselves if they wanted to, and since they had not it was to be presumed that they did not want to. (The fact that they were quite unaware that any such proceedings were possible, and that there is no lawyer on St. Helena, rather spoilt the judicial tone of this argument.) But eventually it proved possible to get in touch with the prisoners themselves, and Al Bakir signed an application for a writ of habeas corpus.
The next problem was: where was the hearing to take place? Funds were very short for those acting on behalf of the prisoners, and St. Helena was a long way away. Moreover, one of the respondents on the writ of habeas corpus was the Governor who, by a happy arrangement, is also the Chief Justice of St. Helena. And if it comes to that, the other respondent on the writ is the Superintendent of Prisons who, by an equally happy arrangement, is also Registrar of the Court there. It was then suggested that the application might be heard by post; that the arguments could be sent to St. Helena, there heard, and a decision granted in this way. The Colonial Office refused to co-operate with this plan, either. Finally, after protracted argument, it was agreed that the case would be heard in St. Helena, but by a judge from another territory: Mr Justice Brett of Nigeria. The British Government at this point did its one good deed of the entire miserable affair; it arranged for a frigate - HMS Puma - to take to St. Helena not only Mr Justice Brett and Crown Council, but also the barrister acting on behalf of the prisoners. This curious boatload set off for St. Helena early in 1959 (so long had the proceedings taken); there were no shipboard romances.
The arrival of HMS Puma in St. Helena caused a sensation such as the island had not seen since HMS Northumberland brought Napoleon. They even held a ball in honour of the visitors, and I daresay that the sound of revelry by night could be heard as far away as the Nissen huts of Munden's. But the appeal failed, for all that. Not that there was much concern in the defence camp over this: what they wanted was a hearing before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to which an appeal could be made from a decision of the court in St. Helena. They asked leave to appeal, which was granted, on the advice of the Judicial Committee, by as motley a Council as can ever have given its assent to such an application; the decision is signed by The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Chamberlain, Mr Secretary Maclay, Sir Michael Adeane and (what the devil was he doing in that galley?) Dr Nkrumah.
The Two Questions
The appeal was heard before three judges of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. At the end of the hearing, the three judges declared that they wanted it heard again, before a full bench of five judges. Between the two hearings, however, they submitted to the Foreign Secretary (whose stoning in Bahrain, all those years before, might be said to have started the whole chain of events) two questions for his answer, since it was upon these questions that - as they read the law - the case hung. They asked him: 1. Did Her Majesty, on December 19, 1956, hold, exercise and enjoy legislative jurisdiction in Bahrain over persons being subjects of the Ruler of Bahrain and/or Qatar? 2. If so, at what date did Her Majesty acquire such jurisdiction and what was its extent? Mr Selwyn Lloyd made answer, and an astonishing answer he made. He declared that Her Majesty did have jurisdiction in Bahrain over subjects of Bahrain and Qatar, not only (as might seem proper) when they were on British ships and aircraft, not only in Mixed Cases (cases involving both persons subject to the Bahrain Order and persons not subject to it - ie, roughly speaking, British and Bahraini citizens respectively), but also, from December 19, 1956, over other subjects of the Ruler of Bahrain. And, added Mr Selwyn Lloyd, 'On December 19, 1956, Her Majesty exercised that jurisdiction by making the Bahrain (Removal of Prisoners) Order, 1956, and the Prisoners Removal (Bahrain and St. Helena) Order, 1956'.
Now it is to be doubted whether two more disgraceful Orders in Council have ever been made by Her, or anybody Else's, Majesty. They lent the full force of the British Government to a judicial farce on which the curtain had not even gone up; for at the risk of seeming wearyingly repetitious, I must say again that the trial of the men whose transportation was arranged in these Orders of December 19 did not begin until the 23rd, and the 'court' which was to 'try' them did not come into being until the 22nd. So the Foreign Secretary was acting, at the request of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as judge in his own cause. Not surprisingly, he found in his own favour.
The Privy Council declared their hands tied by Mr Lloyd's replies. What is more, they declared 'immaterial' the fact that the British Government's shady part in this shady business had been acted out nearly a week before the rest of the cast took the stage. And, accordingly, they dismissed the appeal. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that they were wrong in law, and more difficult still to resist the conclusion that, if they were right in law, the law is a bad and a silly and a pernicious one, and should be changed.
On the other hand, there are three prisoners on St. Helena, who are liable to be released in 1969 just in time for Christmas, a festival they do not recognise. What is to be done about them? I repeat that nobody connected with the case has seriously suggested that the men were guilty; and even if they were they were clearly not found guilty in a manner that would satisfy a British court, or indeed any court anywhere in the civilised or semi-civilised world. Yet this fake-trial, the verdict of which was decided before it took place, sentenced men to terms of imprisonment ranging from 10 to 14 years, and the British Government has not so much turned a blind eye to the business as gazed full upon it in approval. It may not, or it may, be possible for the British Government to persuade the Ruler of Bahrain to take note of the arrival of the twentieth century; possibly if he had not had Sir Charles Belgrave to advise him for so many years in the ways of the nineteenth, the Ruler may have made the discovery for himself much earlier. But even if we must decide that there is nothing we can do about the way in which the Ruler of Bahrain exercises his rule, surely we are under an obligation, before providing prisons for those of his subjects to whom the Ruler from time to time takes a dislike, to satisfy ourselves that there is some good and sufficient reason - good and sufficient to British ideas of justice - for us to provide such services? The repute of Britain in the Middle East, especially with the forces of Arab nationalism, is low. Actions such as this one are not likely to increase our good standing in the Middle East, or indeed anywhere else in the world. We can do nothing about the other two 'convicted' men, who are serving their sentences in Bahrain. But we can do something about the three on St. Helena.
Does it matter? Does it matter that a few men are unjustly imprisoned in a British colony at the unchallenged demand of an autocratic ruler who faked their trial? I think it does. Though it may be too fanciful to imagine that we can hear the bell tolling in this case, it remains true that no man is an island, even if he is imprisoned on St. Helena. Britain does not, these shrinking days, have much say in what goes on in the world. But she has some say still in what goes on in St. Helena. And what goes on in St. Helena is unjust and wrong. The least we can do is to right the wrong while we have the power.
***
Here ends Bernard Levin's feature article in The Spectator of July 1, 1960, The Prisoners of St. Helena. Part 2, of December 30, 1960, will be the next in my series Kafka in the Gulf.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Kafka in the Gulf 4
Orders in Council
But other things had happened before then. On December 18, the day on which the Ruler's grossly improper appeal for the transportation of men who had not even been tried, let alone convicted, was made, the Governor of St. Helena (5,000 miles away as the crow flies) submitted an address to Her Majesty which read as follows: Whereas the Ruler of Bahrain has expressed his desire that arrangements should be entered into between Bahrain and St. Helena for removal of certain prisoners from Bahrain to St. Helena; and Whereas it is proposed to make provision for the extension of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1869, to Bahrain; now therefore I, the Governor of St. Helena, do hereby respectfully submit to Her Majesty this my humble Address praying that sanction be given by Order of Her Majesty in Council that the desired arrangements may be entered into...
So we now have, four days before any court existed for the trial of the prisoners, an appeal from the Ruler of Bahrain to Her Majesty describing them as convicted men and asking for them to be taken to St. Helena, and a submission on the same day by the Governor of St. Helena which entered fully into the spirit of the proceedings in its assumption that men who had not yet been tried would be convicted, and went further in its statement that 'it is proposed to make provision for the extension of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1869, to Bahrain'; no such proposal having been made at that time by anybody.
Worse, however, was to follow. The Ruler of Bahrain is obviously not concerned with justice, and the Governor of St. Helena is a long way away. But Her Majesty, or at any rate her Colonial Secretary, ought to know better. And on December 19, still three days before the court was set up in Bahrain, and four before the trial, two Orders in Council were made. The first said that the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act was extended to Bahrain. The second declared that 'The sanction of Her Majesty is hereby given to order that the Ruler of Bahrain and the Governor of St. Helena may... enter into an agreement for the removal of prisoners... from Bahrain to the Colony of St. Helena...'
And this Order in Council was published in the Extraordinary Issue of the St. Helena Government Gazette which appended to it the announcement quoted in the first paragraph of this article. But it was not published in Bahrain until September 28 (when it was posted on the official noticeboard at the British Political Agency). Therefore the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act did not come into force in Bahrain until that date, for the relevant section of that Act says that it shall be in force 'as soon as such Order in Council has been published in the colony to which it relates'.
On December 26, three days after the 'trial', but two days before the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act came into force in Bahrain (with publication there of the Order in Council), Sir Charles Belgrave handed to the Political Resident a warrant for the removal to St. Helena of the three prisoners sentenced to 14 years imprisonment, and on December 28, under this clearly ineffective warrant, the three men were taken on board HMS Loch Insh and given into the custody of her captain. And off they sailed to St. Helena. (Normally such prisoners are sent to the Seychelles, but - by a fine irony - they were at the time full of Archbishop Makarios and his colleagues.) When they arrived, they were handed over to the Governor, and by him to the Superintendant of Prisons, who is also the Chief of Police, and several other things as well. They were imprisoned, as the notorious announcement, made five days before they were tried, had said they would be, at Munden's. This is a small collection of Nissen huts high up on a cliff, surrounded by barbed wire.
The conditions under which they are imprisoned are curiously unrigorous for desperadoes of the kind they would be if the charges against them had been true. Those who have seen them compare their conditions to those of an officer prisoner-of-war under parole, and the situation lends support to the belief that nobody in this case, from beginning to end, really thinks that they were guilty. They spend much of their time gardening (they have made a fine flower-garden), praying and reading the Koran. For a time, they were allowed out for drives round the island, in a jeep provided by the Ruler of Bahrain to enable the St. Helena Superintendent of Prisons to visit their somewhat inaccessible quarters. But a dispute presently arose as to whether they or their captors should choose the day's route, and the upshot is that they have refused to go at all.
To be continued...
[PS: I know something's been bothering readers who've come this far in the series, so I'll spell it out. Nobody, back in the fifties and sixties, seemed to know or care, not even the Ruler of Bahrain himself, whether the prisoners were Sunni or Shia! These days, however, you can't get through a report on the subject of the People of Bahrain vs the current Ruler of the island without tripping over the two 'S' words. It's amazing what you can do with two such words - like disguise a struggle for basic democratic rights as an age-old sectarian conflict lost in the mists of time. Now who would do such a thing, and why?]
But other things had happened before then. On December 18, the day on which the Ruler's grossly improper appeal for the transportation of men who had not even been tried, let alone convicted, was made, the Governor of St. Helena (5,000 miles away as the crow flies) submitted an address to Her Majesty which read as follows: Whereas the Ruler of Bahrain has expressed his desire that arrangements should be entered into between Bahrain and St. Helena for removal of certain prisoners from Bahrain to St. Helena; and Whereas it is proposed to make provision for the extension of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1869, to Bahrain; now therefore I, the Governor of St. Helena, do hereby respectfully submit to Her Majesty this my humble Address praying that sanction be given by Order of Her Majesty in Council that the desired arrangements may be entered into...
So we now have, four days before any court existed for the trial of the prisoners, an appeal from the Ruler of Bahrain to Her Majesty describing them as convicted men and asking for them to be taken to St. Helena, and a submission on the same day by the Governor of St. Helena which entered fully into the spirit of the proceedings in its assumption that men who had not yet been tried would be convicted, and went further in its statement that 'it is proposed to make provision for the extension of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, 1869, to Bahrain'; no such proposal having been made at that time by anybody.
Worse, however, was to follow. The Ruler of Bahrain is obviously not concerned with justice, and the Governor of St. Helena is a long way away. But Her Majesty, or at any rate her Colonial Secretary, ought to know better. And on December 19, still three days before the court was set up in Bahrain, and four before the trial, two Orders in Council were made. The first said that the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act was extended to Bahrain. The second declared that 'The sanction of Her Majesty is hereby given to order that the Ruler of Bahrain and the Governor of St. Helena may... enter into an agreement for the removal of prisoners... from Bahrain to the Colony of St. Helena...'
And this Order in Council was published in the Extraordinary Issue of the St. Helena Government Gazette which appended to it the announcement quoted in the first paragraph of this article. But it was not published in Bahrain until September 28 (when it was posted on the official noticeboard at the British Political Agency). Therefore the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act did not come into force in Bahrain until that date, for the relevant section of that Act says that it shall be in force 'as soon as such Order in Council has been published in the colony to which it relates'.
On December 26, three days after the 'trial', but two days before the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act came into force in Bahrain (with publication there of the Order in Council), Sir Charles Belgrave handed to the Political Resident a warrant for the removal to St. Helena of the three prisoners sentenced to 14 years imprisonment, and on December 28, under this clearly ineffective warrant, the three men were taken on board HMS Loch Insh and given into the custody of her captain. And off they sailed to St. Helena. (Normally such prisoners are sent to the Seychelles, but - by a fine irony - they were at the time full of Archbishop Makarios and his colleagues.) When they arrived, they were handed over to the Governor, and by him to the Superintendant of Prisons, who is also the Chief of Police, and several other things as well. They were imprisoned, as the notorious announcement, made five days before they were tried, had said they would be, at Munden's. This is a small collection of Nissen huts high up on a cliff, surrounded by barbed wire.
The conditions under which they are imprisoned are curiously unrigorous for desperadoes of the kind they would be if the charges against them had been true. Those who have seen them compare their conditions to those of an officer prisoner-of-war under parole, and the situation lends support to the belief that nobody in this case, from beginning to end, really thinks that they were guilty. They spend much of their time gardening (they have made a fine flower-garden), praying and reading the Koran. For a time, they were allowed out for drives round the island, in a jeep provided by the Ruler of Bahrain to enable the St. Helena Superintendent of Prisons to visit their somewhat inaccessible quarters. But a dispute presently arose as to whether they or their captors should choose the day's route, and the upshot is that they have refused to go at all.
To be continued...
[PS: I know something's been bothering readers who've come this far in the series, so I'll spell it out. Nobody, back in the fifties and sixties, seemed to know or care, not even the Ruler of Bahrain himself, whether the prisoners were Sunni or Shia! These days, however, you can't get through a report on the subject of the People of Bahrain vs the current Ruler of the island without tripping over the two 'S' words. It's amazing what you can do with two such words - like disguise a struggle for basic democratic rights as an age-old sectarian conflict lost in the mists of time. Now who would do such a thing, and why?]
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Kafka in the Gulf 3
The Act of 1869
Before coming to the next event in the story, it will be necessary to say something of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, because it is on this and attendant British statutes that so much of the legal side of this affair depends. The Act, passed in 1869, was designed to deal with cases in which citizens of British colonies, sentenced to imprisonment, could not very well serve their terms in the colony of sentence; either because their continued presence there, imprisoned, might cause unrest, or because facilities for secure long-term imprisonment were lacking in some colonies. The Act therefore provided that, with the sanction of an Order in Council, a prisoner convicted in one colony might be transferred to serve his sentence in another. It was provided that the sanction of the Order in Council, under which the 'transfer' was affected, should come into force as soon as it had been published in the appropriate colony, and that when the sanction had been given the actual transfer of the prisoner might be effected under a warrant signed by the governor of the 'exporting' colony and addressed to the master of the ship that was to take the prisoner, or to some other appropriate person. And finally the Act declared that prisoners should be subject in the 'importing' colony to all laws and regulations, and should be dealt with in exactly the same manner, as would be applicable if they had been tried and sentenced in the 'importing' country.
Now this Act did not, of course, apply to foreign countries, not even those under British protection. By the Foreign Jurisdiction Act of 1890, however, it was provided that various existing Statutes applying to Britain and the colonies might be applied to foreign territories in which there was British jurisdiction, and the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1913, adds to the list of such statutes the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act of 1989.
And, to summarise the position regarding British jurisdiction in Bahrain, it extends to cases involving British subjects and cases involving both British and local subjects; these latter cases go, either (with the necessary concurrence of the Political Resident) to the local Bahraini courts, or to the special British Joint Court for hearing such 'mixed' cases.
To return from the general to the particular, the prisoners having been arrested on November 2 and 3, nothing further happened until, on December 1, Sir Charles Belgrave (the Ruler's Officer, not the British Government's) orally asked Sir Bernard Burrows, British Political Resident for the Persian Gulf, whether the British Government would be willing for five men who were about to be tried 'for sedition or treason' to undergo their imprisonment, if they were convicted, in a British possession. On December 18 Sir Bernard Burrows replied that this could be arranged, and that the authorities in St. Helena had expressed willingness to have the prisoners.
But on the same day, December 18, Sir Charles Belgrave, on behalf of the Ruler, handed to the Resident, for transmission to the British Government, the following astonishing document: To Her Majesty the Queen of Britain. May God preserve and keep her. In view of the ancient friendship long existing between Her Majesty's Government and us we request assistance from time to time in removing certain persons sentenced in our court to a safe place outside Bahrain for imprisonment for the appointed sentence. We beseech you to allow us to make arrangements with the Governor of the island of St. Helena for the reception of the persons who will be sent to that island in accordance with the sentence decided. Always, your Majesty, placing confidence in a response to our request. May God keep you in his care.
Now in the first place the Ruler's statement that 'we request assistance from time to time in removing certain persons sentenced in our court to a safe place outside Bahrain for imprisonment...' is simply untrue; he had never before made any such request. Much worse, however, is the implication contained in the reference to the reception in St. Helena of 'the persons who will be sent to that island in accordance with the sentence decided'. For this request was not only made five days before the 'trial' took place; it was made four days before the court set up to convict the prisoners was even called into being. In other words, the Ruler knew perfectly well what the 'verdict' would be, and the 'court' was merely there to rubber-stamp this.
The Family Trial
And a scrutiny of the 'trial' shows that his confidence was not misplaced. To begin with, the Ruler removed the case from the ordinary Bahraini courts and set up a special ad hoc court to deal with it. This court consisted of three judges (there is no trial by jury in Bahrain); they were Sheikh Abdullah, Sheikh Daij, and Sheikh Ali. All three of them are relatives of the Ruler. This family gathering, instead of hearing the case in Manamah, the normal seat of what passes for justice in Bahrain, went to a small place some miles away, called Budeya, ostensibly on the grounds that the disturbances made Manamah unsuitable. The defendants declared that the court was improperly constituted and that the trial should take place in Manamah. These contentions were naturally rejected by the Ruler's relatives, and the defendants therefore refused to enter a defence, call witnesses or address the court. One of the defendants, Al Bakir, said that he wished to make a statement provided that certain people not present (through whom alone he could hope to get the facts of the situation publicised), were brought to the court. The Ruler's relatives refused this, too, and proceeded to convict all five of the defendants of all the charges brought against them. The evidence brought against the prisoners was not of a kind that would have been entertained by any British court. The three now on St. Helena were sentenced to 14 years imprisonment, the other two to 10 years. The only right of appeal they had was to the ruler personally, and having refused the jurisdiction of a court composed of his relatives, they were doubtless not disposed to try their luck with him. At any rate, no appeal was lodged.
To be continued...
Before coming to the next event in the story, it will be necessary to say something of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act, because it is on this and attendant British statutes that so much of the legal side of this affair depends. The Act, passed in 1869, was designed to deal with cases in which citizens of British colonies, sentenced to imprisonment, could not very well serve their terms in the colony of sentence; either because their continued presence there, imprisoned, might cause unrest, or because facilities for secure long-term imprisonment were lacking in some colonies. The Act therefore provided that, with the sanction of an Order in Council, a prisoner convicted in one colony might be transferred to serve his sentence in another. It was provided that the sanction of the Order in Council, under which the 'transfer' was affected, should come into force as soon as it had been published in the appropriate colony, and that when the sanction had been given the actual transfer of the prisoner might be effected under a warrant signed by the governor of the 'exporting' colony and addressed to the master of the ship that was to take the prisoner, or to some other appropriate person. And finally the Act declared that prisoners should be subject in the 'importing' colony to all laws and regulations, and should be dealt with in exactly the same manner, as would be applicable if they had been tried and sentenced in the 'importing' country.
Now this Act did not, of course, apply to foreign countries, not even those under British protection. By the Foreign Jurisdiction Act of 1890, however, it was provided that various existing Statutes applying to Britain and the colonies might be applied to foreign territories in which there was British jurisdiction, and the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1913, adds to the list of such statutes the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act of 1989.
And, to summarise the position regarding British jurisdiction in Bahrain, it extends to cases involving British subjects and cases involving both British and local subjects; these latter cases go, either (with the necessary concurrence of the Political Resident) to the local Bahraini courts, or to the special British Joint Court for hearing such 'mixed' cases.
To return from the general to the particular, the prisoners having been arrested on November 2 and 3, nothing further happened until, on December 1, Sir Charles Belgrave (the Ruler's Officer, not the British Government's) orally asked Sir Bernard Burrows, British Political Resident for the Persian Gulf, whether the British Government would be willing for five men who were about to be tried 'for sedition or treason' to undergo their imprisonment, if they were convicted, in a British possession. On December 18 Sir Bernard Burrows replied that this could be arranged, and that the authorities in St. Helena had expressed willingness to have the prisoners.
But on the same day, December 18, Sir Charles Belgrave, on behalf of the Ruler, handed to the Resident, for transmission to the British Government, the following astonishing document: To Her Majesty the Queen of Britain. May God preserve and keep her. In view of the ancient friendship long existing between Her Majesty's Government and us we request assistance from time to time in removing certain persons sentenced in our court to a safe place outside Bahrain for imprisonment for the appointed sentence. We beseech you to allow us to make arrangements with the Governor of the island of St. Helena for the reception of the persons who will be sent to that island in accordance with the sentence decided. Always, your Majesty, placing confidence in a response to our request. May God keep you in his care.
Now in the first place the Ruler's statement that 'we request assistance from time to time in removing certain persons sentenced in our court to a safe place outside Bahrain for imprisonment...' is simply untrue; he had never before made any such request. Much worse, however, is the implication contained in the reference to the reception in St. Helena of 'the persons who will be sent to that island in accordance with the sentence decided'. For this request was not only made five days before the 'trial' took place; it was made four days before the court set up to convict the prisoners was even called into being. In other words, the Ruler knew perfectly well what the 'verdict' would be, and the 'court' was merely there to rubber-stamp this.
The Family Trial
And a scrutiny of the 'trial' shows that his confidence was not misplaced. To begin with, the Ruler removed the case from the ordinary Bahraini courts and set up a special ad hoc court to deal with it. This court consisted of three judges (there is no trial by jury in Bahrain); they were Sheikh Abdullah, Sheikh Daij, and Sheikh Ali. All three of them are relatives of the Ruler. This family gathering, instead of hearing the case in Manamah, the normal seat of what passes for justice in Bahrain, went to a small place some miles away, called Budeya, ostensibly on the grounds that the disturbances made Manamah unsuitable. The defendants declared that the court was improperly constituted and that the trial should take place in Manamah. These contentions were naturally rejected by the Ruler's relatives, and the defendants therefore refused to enter a defence, call witnesses or address the court. One of the defendants, Al Bakir, said that he wished to make a statement provided that certain people not present (through whom alone he could hope to get the facts of the situation publicised), were brought to the court. The Ruler's relatives refused this, too, and proceeded to convict all five of the defendants of all the charges brought against them. The evidence brought against the prisoners was not of a kind that would have been entertained by any British court. The three now on St. Helena were sentenced to 14 years imprisonment, the other two to 10 years. The only right of appeal they had was to the ruler personally, and having refused the jurisdiction of a court composed of his relatives, they were doubtless not disposed to try their luck with him. At any rate, no appeal was lodged.
To be continued...
Kafka in the Gulf 2
Absolute Rule
The story begins in November, 1956, in Bahrain. Bahrain is not, of course, a British territory, but it is a territory under British protection: it has a British Political Agent (at the material time Mr Charles Alexander Gault) and a British political Officer (a lower rank; at the time, Mr Alfred Francis Ward) who represent the British Government in Bahraini affairs, and exercise the protection of the British Government. Above the Political Agent for Bahrain there is the British Political Resident for the Persian Gulf (then Sir Bernard Burrows).
Bahrain is under the absolute personal rule (subject only to British administration of external affairs, exercised through Resident and Agent) of the Ruler, Sheikh Salman bin Hamed. He had, at the time our story starts, a British Political Adviser, Sir Charles Belgrave: the Adviser, unlike the Resident and the Agent, is in the employ of the Ruler, not of the British Government, and acts exclusively on his behalf. Sir Charles was, in effect, Prime Minister of Bahrain, a post he held from 1926 to 1957, and one of the more touching facts in this history is that he got the post by answering an advertisement the Ruler put in the British press; it is perhaps the only occasion in history when a Prime Minister has been appointed in this fashion. Anyway, Sir Charles Belgrave was not, to say the least, an outstandingly progressive or flexible Prime Minister of Bahrain, and was, for the last years of his appointment at least, rarely in the position of urging the Ruler to go faster and further in modernising the political conditions in Bahrain than the Ruler himself would have been inclined to do. It was the British officials - Resident and Agent - who pressed the Ruler to modernise his regime, and the few concessions he made were almost entirely due to British Government pressure.
The Ruler's Law
There was nothing in Bahrain, at the material time, that would be recognised as a law in this country: what its citizens might, might not and had to do was at any given moment what the Ruler decided. There is now a rudimentary legal code, but the prisoners in this case were not tried according to its provisions (which did not exist) or indeed according to the provisions of any legal code whatever. With the exception of certain cases within the jurisdiction of the British Government (constitutionally speaking, of Her Majesty), all cases go either to the existing Bahraini courts, or to special courts that the Ruler may set up, and how, where, and by whom cases are heard and judged is within the Ruler's absolute discretion.
Cases in which there is British jurisdiction are specified in the Bahrain Order, 1952. This applies to all persons in Bahrain except Bahraini subjects and corporations, and subjects of the Rulers of Saudi Arabia, the Yemen, Muscat and Oman, Kuwait, Qatar or any of the Trucial States. For dealing with everybody else, the Order makes provision in Bahrain for different kinds of British courts. One, called the Joint Court, exists to deal with what are called Mixed Cases: these are cases (civil or criminal) in which persons subject to the Order and persons not subject to the Order are both parties. In other words, if a British citizen in Bahrain is involved in a dispute at law, or a crime, with a Bahraini citizen, the case is heard before the Joint Court; if only British citizens are involved it is heard before what is called the Court for Bahrain, and of course if only Bahrainis (or other local subjects) are involved the British courts have no jurisdiction, and the permanent and special Bahraini courts hear the case. (The reason for this Order is, of course, that the Bahraini courts are very properly considered quite unfit to try British subjects. They are also unfit to try Bahraini subjects, but HMG can hardly do anything about that.)
There is one loophole in this Order, which was to prove of great importance in the present case. The loophole consists of a section which provides that, with the concurrence of the Political Resident, mixed cases may (despite the special Joint Court for dealing with them) be transferred to the ordinary local courts. In an access of generosity, however, the Political Resident, Sir Bernard Burrows, gave a general concurrence in 1953 that all such 'mixed cases' could be heard before the local courts; in effect, therefore, he abolished the Joint Court entirely.
The Committee
There are no political rights in Bahrain, but some years ago an organisation known first as the High Executive Committee, and later as the Committee of National Union, came into being, one of its aims being a less authoritarian system of government in the territory. Three of the members of this Committee of National Union were Abdul Rahman Al Bakir, Abdul Aziz Al Shamlan and Abdullah Al Aliwat. The Committee was well known as the mildest, most inoffensive and least demanding nationalist group in the Middle East. Their objective was no more than to have elected representatives to sit on the advisory committees (for health, education, etc) that were entirely nominated by the Ruler. (These committees in any case had no powers apart from that of advising the Ruler and Sir Charles Belgrave.) Their aim would have been regarded as ludicrously inadequate by a Rural District Council in Britain, yet they were met with protracted delay and opposition from Sir Charles. When a BBC television unit went to Bahrain in June, 1956, there were some revealing exchanges between the interviewer (Mr Woodrow Wyatt) and Al Shamlan (Secretary of the Committee and now one of the three prisoners on St. Helena).
Wyatt: What is it that the Committee wants?
Al Shamlan: The Committee wants reform and wants to participate in the administration of the country.
Wyatt: Does it not participate in the affairs of Bahrain at all at the monent?
Al Shamlan: Not at all at the moment, people are not participating in their own affairs. It is only one-man rule.
Wyatt: What is the system of justice in Bahrain?
Al Shamlan: There is no justice. Actually, we have no rules whatever. We haven't got a code, we haven't got a penal code either.
Wyatt: No laws?
Al Shamlan: No laws. And that's what we are trying to get for this country. We want to get laws for the country.
Wyatt: And why do you want Sir Charles Belgrave to go?
Al Shamlan: Well... he is administrating hospitals, police, customs, finance, justice - that can't be for one man.
On March 2, 1956, when Mr Selwyn Lloyd was visiting Bahrain, there was a demonstration, and stones were thrown at his car. Al Shamlan declared that this demonstration (which had not been organised by his Committee) was not a demonstration against Mr Lloyd personally, or against the British Government - the Committee insisted that they wanted Bahrain to retain its British connection - but 'to give an expression about Sir Charles Belgrave only... the people, as they want him to go, they wanted that Selwyn Lloyd knows this fact'.
Following the launching of the Suez attack at the end of October, 1956, there were disturbances in various parts of the Middle East, in the form of protests and demonstrations against the action, and in Bahrain, in particular (because of the British-protected status of the territory), against the British part in it. Following these disturbances, one man was arrested there on November 2, and four more (including the three mentioned) on November 3. None of these men is a British subject (there is some doubt as to whether Abdul Rahman Al Bakir is a citizen of Bahrain or of Qatar, but he lived in Bahrain). What they were charged with was as follows" The attempted assassination of of the Ruler and of some of his family and of his Adviser (Sir Charles Belgrave); the destruction of the Ruler's palace; setting fire to the airport of Al Moharraq and other places; the overthrow by illegal means of governmental control [there are, of course, no legal means in Bahrain of altering the governmental control]; and the deposition of the Ruler.
This is, it will readily be seen, a pretty full morning's work, and why persons assassinating the Ruler should subsequently wish to depose him may not be entirely clear. Be this as it may, the men were arrested and charged (though it is not clear how long they were held before being charged, and nothing like habeas corpus proceedings exist in Bahrain), and nothing further happened for some weeks.
To be continued...
The story begins in November, 1956, in Bahrain. Bahrain is not, of course, a British territory, but it is a territory under British protection: it has a British Political Agent (at the material time Mr Charles Alexander Gault) and a British political Officer (a lower rank; at the time, Mr Alfred Francis Ward) who represent the British Government in Bahraini affairs, and exercise the protection of the British Government. Above the Political Agent for Bahrain there is the British Political Resident for the Persian Gulf (then Sir Bernard Burrows).
Bahrain is under the absolute personal rule (subject only to British administration of external affairs, exercised through Resident and Agent) of the Ruler, Sheikh Salman bin Hamed. He had, at the time our story starts, a British Political Adviser, Sir Charles Belgrave: the Adviser, unlike the Resident and the Agent, is in the employ of the Ruler, not of the British Government, and acts exclusively on his behalf. Sir Charles was, in effect, Prime Minister of Bahrain, a post he held from 1926 to 1957, and one of the more touching facts in this history is that he got the post by answering an advertisement the Ruler put in the British press; it is perhaps the only occasion in history when a Prime Minister has been appointed in this fashion. Anyway, Sir Charles Belgrave was not, to say the least, an outstandingly progressive or flexible Prime Minister of Bahrain, and was, for the last years of his appointment at least, rarely in the position of urging the Ruler to go faster and further in modernising the political conditions in Bahrain than the Ruler himself would have been inclined to do. It was the British officials - Resident and Agent - who pressed the Ruler to modernise his regime, and the few concessions he made were almost entirely due to British Government pressure.
The Ruler's Law
There was nothing in Bahrain, at the material time, that would be recognised as a law in this country: what its citizens might, might not and had to do was at any given moment what the Ruler decided. There is now a rudimentary legal code, but the prisoners in this case were not tried according to its provisions (which did not exist) or indeed according to the provisions of any legal code whatever. With the exception of certain cases within the jurisdiction of the British Government (constitutionally speaking, of Her Majesty), all cases go either to the existing Bahraini courts, or to special courts that the Ruler may set up, and how, where, and by whom cases are heard and judged is within the Ruler's absolute discretion.
Cases in which there is British jurisdiction are specified in the Bahrain Order, 1952. This applies to all persons in Bahrain except Bahraini subjects and corporations, and subjects of the Rulers of Saudi Arabia, the Yemen, Muscat and Oman, Kuwait, Qatar or any of the Trucial States. For dealing with everybody else, the Order makes provision in Bahrain for different kinds of British courts. One, called the Joint Court, exists to deal with what are called Mixed Cases: these are cases (civil or criminal) in which persons subject to the Order and persons not subject to the Order are both parties. In other words, if a British citizen in Bahrain is involved in a dispute at law, or a crime, with a Bahraini citizen, the case is heard before the Joint Court; if only British citizens are involved it is heard before what is called the Court for Bahrain, and of course if only Bahrainis (or other local subjects) are involved the British courts have no jurisdiction, and the permanent and special Bahraini courts hear the case. (The reason for this Order is, of course, that the Bahraini courts are very properly considered quite unfit to try British subjects. They are also unfit to try Bahraini subjects, but HMG can hardly do anything about that.)
There is one loophole in this Order, which was to prove of great importance in the present case. The loophole consists of a section which provides that, with the concurrence of the Political Resident, mixed cases may (despite the special Joint Court for dealing with them) be transferred to the ordinary local courts. In an access of generosity, however, the Political Resident, Sir Bernard Burrows, gave a general concurrence in 1953 that all such 'mixed cases' could be heard before the local courts; in effect, therefore, he abolished the Joint Court entirely.
The Committee
There are no political rights in Bahrain, but some years ago an organisation known first as the High Executive Committee, and later as the Committee of National Union, came into being, one of its aims being a less authoritarian system of government in the territory. Three of the members of this Committee of National Union were Abdul Rahman Al Bakir, Abdul Aziz Al Shamlan and Abdullah Al Aliwat. The Committee was well known as the mildest, most inoffensive and least demanding nationalist group in the Middle East. Their objective was no more than to have elected representatives to sit on the advisory committees (for health, education, etc) that were entirely nominated by the Ruler. (These committees in any case had no powers apart from that of advising the Ruler and Sir Charles Belgrave.) Their aim would have been regarded as ludicrously inadequate by a Rural District Council in Britain, yet they were met with protracted delay and opposition from Sir Charles. When a BBC television unit went to Bahrain in June, 1956, there were some revealing exchanges between the interviewer (Mr Woodrow Wyatt) and Al Shamlan (Secretary of the Committee and now one of the three prisoners on St. Helena).
Wyatt: What is it that the Committee wants?
Al Shamlan: The Committee wants reform and wants to participate in the administration of the country.
Wyatt: Does it not participate in the affairs of Bahrain at all at the monent?
Al Shamlan: Not at all at the moment, people are not participating in their own affairs. It is only one-man rule.
Wyatt: What is the system of justice in Bahrain?
Al Shamlan: There is no justice. Actually, we have no rules whatever. We haven't got a code, we haven't got a penal code either.
Wyatt: No laws?
Al Shamlan: No laws. And that's what we are trying to get for this country. We want to get laws for the country.
Wyatt: And why do you want Sir Charles Belgrave to go?
Al Shamlan: Well... he is administrating hospitals, police, customs, finance, justice - that can't be for one man.
On March 2, 1956, when Mr Selwyn Lloyd was visiting Bahrain, there was a demonstration, and stones were thrown at his car. Al Shamlan declared that this demonstration (which had not been organised by his Committee) was not a demonstration against Mr Lloyd personally, or against the British Government - the Committee insisted that they wanted Bahrain to retain its British connection - but 'to give an expression about Sir Charles Belgrave only... the people, as they want him to go, they wanted that Selwyn Lloyd knows this fact'.
Following the launching of the Suez attack at the end of October, 1956, there were disturbances in various parts of the Middle East, in the form of protests and demonstrations against the action, and in Bahrain, in particular (because of the British-protected status of the territory), against the British part in it. Following these disturbances, one man was arrested there on November 2, and four more (including the three mentioned) on November 3. None of these men is a British subject (there is some doubt as to whether Abdul Rahman Al Bakir is a citizen of Bahrain or of Qatar, but he lived in Bahrain). What they were charged with was as follows" The attempted assassination of of the Ruler and of some of his family and of his Adviser (Sir Charles Belgrave); the destruction of the Ruler's palace; setting fire to the airport of Al Moharraq and other places; the overthrow by illegal means of governmental control [there are, of course, no legal means in Bahrain of altering the governmental control]; and the deposition of the Ruler.
This is, it will readily be seen, a pretty full morning's work, and why persons assassinating the Ruler should subsequently wish to depose him may not be entirely clear. Be this as it may, the men were arrested and charged (though it is not clear how long they were held before being charged, and nothing like habeas corpus proceedings exist in Bahrain), and nothing further happened for some weeks.
To be continued...
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Kafka in the Gulf 1
Think Britain handing Palestine to the Zionist movement in 1917, or the so-called Act of Free Choice of 1969 which led to West Papua being delivered to the Indonesians. Both were monstrous acts of injustice with the direst of consequences for the peoples of both lands.
And why cite such appalling cases? Well, I've just read this:
"Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Bahrain's capital city of Manama today, condemning King Hamad al-Khalifa for agreeing to enter a formal union with the Saudi royal family. The deal has the island's Shi'ite majority up in arms, interpreting the plan as a thinly veiled attempt by the Saudis to sideline their calls for democratic reforms. Saudi Arabia invaded Bahrain last year to help crush pro-democracy protests. The exact terms of the union have been nebulous so far, but officials have said it would unify the Saudi and Bahraini states on security, economic and diplomatic policies. Considering how much larger Saudi Arabia is, many have criticized it as a de facto annexation." (Tens of thousands protest in Bahrain against 'Saudi union', Jason Ditz, antiwar.com, 18/5/12)
What sort of regime could possibly contemplate, let alone carry out, such a flagrantly anti-democratic move? Obviously, one for whom the will of the people is, and always has been, anathema.
Meet the now 229-year old ruling dynasty of Bahrain, the Al-Khalifas.
One of the best introductions to the nature of this dynastic tyranny and its one-time British 'protectors' is a series of 3 feature articles by one of the UK's top journalists, the late Bernard Levin (1928-2004), published in the then progressive Spectator magazine in the early 1960s. In them Levin tells the story, in his own inimitable, punchy style, of a quite singular Kafkaesque injustice perpetrated on 3 hapless Bahrainis by the island's then ruler, aided and abetted at every turn by a motley crew of truly imbecilic Brits, some at the centre of British political life, some not.
In light of the appalling situation in which the people of Bahrain find themselves today, and the consequent need to background what it is precisely that they are up against. I've decided it'd be useful to resurrect (it's not on the internet) and serialise Levin's 3 articles - The Prisoners of St. Helena (1/7/60), The Prisoners of St.Helena: Part 2 (30/12/60), and The Ex-Prisoners of St. Helena (16/6/61) - under the heading of Kafka in the Gulf.
I'm not sure quite how many posts this will require, nor will they always be in consecutive order - there's simply too much else going on here and in the region - but I advise you to persevere. This surreal story has, in Bernard Levin, found an exceptional voice. Nor are the insights confined to the outrageously medieval politics of Bahrain. Few journalists have served up the politicians of their day on toast as well as Levin. But enough of that. I'll conclude this post with the opening paragraphs of The Prisoners of St. Helena:
On December 22, 1956, there appeared in the island of St. Helena (a British Colony) an Extraordinary Issue of the St. Helena Government Gazette containing the following announcement: An urgent request made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government was recently received by His Excellency the Governor, as to the possibility of arranging for the detention in St. Helena of five subjects of the Ruler of Bahrain in the Persian Gulf, convicted of political offences. After discussing all aspects of this request with the Executive Council, the Governor informed the Secretary of State for the Colonies of his concurrence in the proposed arrangements. It is expected that these persons will be brought to St. Helena in one of Her Majesty's ships in the latter part of January, and that they will be detained at Munden's.
And so indeed they were, and are. But since their trial for 'political offences' did not begin until December 23, the day after the publication in the St. Helena Government Gazette of the announcement that they would shortly be coming there, convicted, it seems to me that the Extraordinary Issue of the St. Helena Government Gazette was Extraordinary in more than the technical sense, and that the case whose outcome it so prophetically referred before it had started will bear investigation. And, as will be seen, the case becomes more extraordinary, and for that matter more disquieting, as investigation proceeds.
To be continued...
And why cite such appalling cases? Well, I've just read this:
"Tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Bahrain's capital city of Manama today, condemning King Hamad al-Khalifa for agreeing to enter a formal union with the Saudi royal family. The deal has the island's Shi'ite majority up in arms, interpreting the plan as a thinly veiled attempt by the Saudis to sideline their calls for democratic reforms. Saudi Arabia invaded Bahrain last year to help crush pro-democracy protests. The exact terms of the union have been nebulous so far, but officials have said it would unify the Saudi and Bahraini states on security, economic and diplomatic policies. Considering how much larger Saudi Arabia is, many have criticized it as a de facto annexation." (Tens of thousands protest in Bahrain against 'Saudi union', Jason Ditz, antiwar.com, 18/5/12)
What sort of regime could possibly contemplate, let alone carry out, such a flagrantly anti-democratic move? Obviously, one for whom the will of the people is, and always has been, anathema.
Meet the now 229-year old ruling dynasty of Bahrain, the Al-Khalifas.
One of the best introductions to the nature of this dynastic tyranny and its one-time British 'protectors' is a series of 3 feature articles by one of the UK's top journalists, the late Bernard Levin (1928-2004), published in the then progressive Spectator magazine in the early 1960s. In them Levin tells the story, in his own inimitable, punchy style, of a quite singular Kafkaesque injustice perpetrated on 3 hapless Bahrainis by the island's then ruler, aided and abetted at every turn by a motley crew of truly imbecilic Brits, some at the centre of British political life, some not.
In light of the appalling situation in which the people of Bahrain find themselves today, and the consequent need to background what it is precisely that they are up against. I've decided it'd be useful to resurrect (it's not on the internet) and serialise Levin's 3 articles - The Prisoners of St. Helena (1/7/60), The Prisoners of St.Helena: Part 2 (30/12/60), and The Ex-Prisoners of St. Helena (16/6/61) - under the heading of Kafka in the Gulf.
I'm not sure quite how many posts this will require, nor will they always be in consecutive order - there's simply too much else going on here and in the region - but I advise you to persevere. This surreal story has, in Bernard Levin, found an exceptional voice. Nor are the insights confined to the outrageously medieval politics of Bahrain. Few journalists have served up the politicians of their day on toast as well as Levin. But enough of that. I'll conclude this post with the opening paragraphs of The Prisoners of St. Helena:
On December 22, 1956, there appeared in the island of St. Helena (a British Colony) an Extraordinary Issue of the St. Helena Government Gazette containing the following announcement: An urgent request made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government was recently received by His Excellency the Governor, as to the possibility of arranging for the detention in St. Helena of five subjects of the Ruler of Bahrain in the Persian Gulf, convicted of political offences. After discussing all aspects of this request with the Executive Council, the Governor informed the Secretary of State for the Colonies of his concurrence in the proposed arrangements. It is expected that these persons will be brought to St. Helena in one of Her Majesty's ships in the latter part of January, and that they will be detained at Munden's.
And so indeed they were, and are. But since their trial for 'political offences' did not begin until December 23, the day after the publication in the St. Helena Government Gazette of the announcement that they would shortly be coming there, convicted, it seems to me that the Extraordinary Issue of the St. Helena Government Gazette was Extraordinary in more than the technical sense, and that the case whose outcome it so prophetically referred before it had started will bear investigation. And, as will be seen, the case becomes more extraordinary, and for that matter more disquieting, as investigation proceeds.
To be continued...
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
A Bahraini Body on the Line
The Syrian people have miraculously just acquired 83 'friends', currently meeting in Turkey, ostensibly on their behalf. It's incredible how popular they've become of late, especially with the kind of folks who, in years past, wouldn't have given them the time of day.
The Bahraini people, however, have no such 'friends'. In fact, 3 of the Syrian people's 'friends', Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Emirates, even sent their troops into Bahrain last year to gun down democracy-seeking Bahrainis and prop up the island's tinpot monarchy.
And along with their new-found popularity, the suddenly sexy Syrians have gained an unprecedented share of the media limelight, what with Qatar owning Al-Jazeera and all.
The friendless Bahrainis, however, are apparently insufficiently photogenic to grace our TV screens.
In fact, so unsexy are the Bahrainis vis-a-vis the Syrians (and before them, the Libyans) that, as far as former foreign minister Rudd* and the ms media are concerned, their heroic, ongoing freedom struggle and the thus far 56-day old hunger strike of Bahrain's leading human rights campaigner, Abdulhadi Alkhawaja, may as well be taking place on the dark side of the moon.
Abdulhadi Alkhawaja, reportedly on the verge of lapsing into a coma, symbolises the steely determination of the Bahraini people to attain the kind of elementary human rights and basic democratic norms we in Australia take for granted.
To put a face to the name, and in the unforgivable absence of any Australian ms media coverage of his plight, I present the open letter Abdulhadi wrote on the first day of his hunger strike in Jaw Prison and the incredibly moving letter, possibly his last, that he wrote to his family in late February:
His Excellency,
The Minister of Foreign Affairs
Denmark
Dear Sir,
Subject: My case as a Bahraini-Dane detained in Bahrain:
Firstly, allow me to thank you and other Danish officials, specially at the Danish embassy, for your concern with my case since I was arrested in Bahrain on April 8, 2011. My gratitude is extended to every Danish citizen who heard about my case and sympathized with me, including members of the parliament, media, and human rights defenders.
Secondly, I would like to stress the positive influence on me of the 12 years that I spent in Denmark, along with my beloved wife and four brave daughters, from March, 1989, until June 2001, when we returned to Bahrain following a general amnesty. At the beginning of that period I received my first professional training in human rights by the Danish Centre for Human Rights which took place at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Copenhagen. This training and other forms of indirect support had an important impact on my voluntary work as the director of the Bahrain Human Rights Organization (BHRO), based in Copenhagen, which played an important role in the positive developments that took place in Bahrain a decade ago. More important, living in Denmark and experiencing first hand its social and political system inspired my work for democracy and human rights in Bahrain and the MENA region during the last 10 years as an activist, researcher and trainer; in Bahrain as the director of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR) from 2002 until 2008, and at the regional level as the MENA regional field coordinator for Front Line Defenders, the international foundation for the protection of human rights defenders, based in Dublin, Ireland, from August 2008 until February, 2011.
Thirdly, I have no regrets that I had to pay a price for my work promoting human rights. It is a serious business addressing such issues as corruption, inequality and discrimination in the service of the ruling [al-Khalifa] family and documenting arbitrary detention and torture by the brutal National Security Apparatus. So, as unfair as it was, it came as no real surprise when I was detained in 2004, severely beaten during peaceful protests in 2005 and 2006, subjected to unfair trials, travel bans, and ongoing defamation campaigns in the official and semi-official media, and then, finally, as part of the crackdown on the widespread popular protests beginning on February 14, 2011, severely beaten, arbitrarily detained, held in solitary confinement and subjected to torture for over 2 months, brought before a military court on charges faked by the National Security Apparatus (such as 'instigating hatred against the regime'! and 'planning to overthrow it'!), and eventually sentenced to life imprisonment, a sentence which I have been serving to date.
Fourthly, it was a great comfort to hear about the growing support for my case from the people and activists in Bahrain, and from colleagues and friends on the regional and international levels, in addition to statements and campaigns calling for the release of myself and other activists by the UN High Commission for Human Rights and international organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Front Line Defenders, Amnesty International and Human Rights First. It has also been of great comfort to receive visits by Danish diplomats during court sessions and at Jaw Prison, especially the kind Assistant to the Ambassador in Saudi Arabia who kept me and my family informed of the concern and efforts made by Danish officials in my case.
Fifthly, as a recommendation from a Danish citizen, I would appreciate it if my case is legally researched to examine the numerous violations I have been subjected to and the legal basis for keeping me in prison. Based on such research, the Danish authorities could take more action regarding my case. Taking into consideration the findings of the 'Independent Commission of Inquiry' (ICI) formed by the King, which documented my case, the Danish authorities could use it, along with other such cases, as a basis for its final observations and recommendations relating to the issues of arrest, arbitrary detention, torture and unfair trial. A summary of my case was published in the final report as Case No. 8, page 426. See also the relative general observations, numbers 1693-1706.
Sixthly, as a human rights defender, regardless of my status as a Danish citizen, I am entitled to protection by EU member states in accordance with the EU guidelines on the protection of human rights defenders around the world. Hence, I would suggest that the Danish authorities, in coordination with other EU members, kindly put more effort into taking all possible actions at the regional level such as embassies, in Brussels institutions, and at the UN in Geneva, to address my case and those of other detained activists calling for the release, reparation and protection of human rights defenders in Bahrain. Among these detained activists are my brother, Salah Alkhawaja, and a Swedish-Bahraini activist, Mohammed Habib Al-Muqdad.
Finally, thank you again and my warm greetings go out to all Danish citizens. I hope that all of these efforts, and yours, will soon secure my release so that I can rejoin my family and friends and resume my work, which this time will be as the director of the newly-formed Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR) in Beirut.
I wish you all the best.
Yours Sincerely,
Abdulhadi Abdulla Alkhawaja
Bahrain, February 8, 2012
NB: 1) Please hand a copy to my family. 2) This is an 'open letter' so please feel free to use it in any way you see fit.
"My dear and beloved family, from behind prison bars, I send to you my love and yearning. From a free man, to a free family. These prison walls don't separate me from you, they bring us closer together. Our connection and determination is stronger than ever. We take our strength from beautiful memories. Remembering every trip, every meal we ate together, all the conversations, remembering every smile, all the jokes and the laughter. The distance between us disappears, through our love and faith.
"It's true I'm in here, and you are out there. But, you are in here with me, and I am out there with you. Our pain is made more bearable when we remember we chose this difficult path and took an oath to remain on it. We must not only remain patient through our suffering, we must never allow the pain to conquer our souls. Let our hearts be filled with joy, and an acceptance of the responsibility we have been given, for in the end, this life is about finding a path of truth towards God." (frontlinedefenders.org)
[*See my 7/4/11 post No Tears for Bahrain.]
The Bahraini people, however, have no such 'friends'. In fact, 3 of the Syrian people's 'friends', Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Emirates, even sent their troops into Bahrain last year to gun down democracy-seeking Bahrainis and prop up the island's tinpot monarchy.
And along with their new-found popularity, the suddenly sexy Syrians have gained an unprecedented share of the media limelight, what with Qatar owning Al-Jazeera and all.
The friendless Bahrainis, however, are apparently insufficiently photogenic to grace our TV screens.
In fact, so unsexy are the Bahrainis vis-a-vis the Syrians (and before them, the Libyans) that, as far as former foreign minister Rudd* and the ms media are concerned, their heroic, ongoing freedom struggle and the thus far 56-day old hunger strike of Bahrain's leading human rights campaigner, Abdulhadi Alkhawaja, may as well be taking place on the dark side of the moon.
Abdulhadi Alkhawaja, reportedly on the verge of lapsing into a coma, symbolises the steely determination of the Bahraini people to attain the kind of elementary human rights and basic democratic norms we in Australia take for granted.
To put a face to the name, and in the unforgivable absence of any Australian ms media coverage of his plight, I present the open letter Abdulhadi wrote on the first day of his hunger strike in Jaw Prison and the incredibly moving letter, possibly his last, that he wrote to his family in late February:
His Excellency,
The Minister of Foreign Affairs
Denmark
Dear Sir,
Subject: My case as a Bahraini-Dane detained in Bahrain:
Firstly, allow me to thank you and other Danish officials, specially at the Danish embassy, for your concern with my case since I was arrested in Bahrain on April 8, 2011. My gratitude is extended to every Danish citizen who heard about my case and sympathized with me, including members of the parliament, media, and human rights defenders.
Secondly, I would like to stress the positive influence on me of the 12 years that I spent in Denmark, along with my beloved wife and four brave daughters, from March, 1989, until June 2001, when we returned to Bahrain following a general amnesty. At the beginning of that period I received my first professional training in human rights by the Danish Centre for Human Rights which took place at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Copenhagen. This training and other forms of indirect support had an important impact on my voluntary work as the director of the Bahrain Human Rights Organization (BHRO), based in Copenhagen, which played an important role in the positive developments that took place in Bahrain a decade ago. More important, living in Denmark and experiencing first hand its social and political system inspired my work for democracy and human rights in Bahrain and the MENA region during the last 10 years as an activist, researcher and trainer; in Bahrain as the director of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR) from 2002 until 2008, and at the regional level as the MENA regional field coordinator for Front Line Defenders, the international foundation for the protection of human rights defenders, based in Dublin, Ireland, from August 2008 until February, 2011.
Thirdly, I have no regrets that I had to pay a price for my work promoting human rights. It is a serious business addressing such issues as corruption, inequality and discrimination in the service of the ruling [al-Khalifa] family and documenting arbitrary detention and torture by the brutal National Security Apparatus. So, as unfair as it was, it came as no real surprise when I was detained in 2004, severely beaten during peaceful protests in 2005 and 2006, subjected to unfair trials, travel bans, and ongoing defamation campaigns in the official and semi-official media, and then, finally, as part of the crackdown on the widespread popular protests beginning on February 14, 2011, severely beaten, arbitrarily detained, held in solitary confinement and subjected to torture for over 2 months, brought before a military court on charges faked by the National Security Apparatus (such as 'instigating hatred against the regime'! and 'planning to overthrow it'!), and eventually sentenced to life imprisonment, a sentence which I have been serving to date.
Fourthly, it was a great comfort to hear about the growing support for my case from the people and activists in Bahrain, and from colleagues and friends on the regional and international levels, in addition to statements and campaigns calling for the release of myself and other activists by the UN High Commission for Human Rights and international organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Front Line Defenders, Amnesty International and Human Rights First. It has also been of great comfort to receive visits by Danish diplomats during court sessions and at Jaw Prison, especially the kind Assistant to the Ambassador in Saudi Arabia who kept me and my family informed of the concern and efforts made by Danish officials in my case.
Fifthly, as a recommendation from a Danish citizen, I would appreciate it if my case is legally researched to examine the numerous violations I have been subjected to and the legal basis for keeping me in prison. Based on such research, the Danish authorities could take more action regarding my case. Taking into consideration the findings of the 'Independent Commission of Inquiry' (ICI) formed by the King, which documented my case, the Danish authorities could use it, along with other such cases, as a basis for its final observations and recommendations relating to the issues of arrest, arbitrary detention, torture and unfair trial. A summary of my case was published in the final report as Case No. 8, page 426. See also the relative general observations, numbers 1693-1706.
Sixthly, as a human rights defender, regardless of my status as a Danish citizen, I am entitled to protection by EU member states in accordance with the EU guidelines on the protection of human rights defenders around the world. Hence, I would suggest that the Danish authorities, in coordination with other EU members, kindly put more effort into taking all possible actions at the regional level such as embassies, in Brussels institutions, and at the UN in Geneva, to address my case and those of other detained activists calling for the release, reparation and protection of human rights defenders in Bahrain. Among these detained activists are my brother, Salah Alkhawaja, and a Swedish-Bahraini activist, Mohammed Habib Al-Muqdad.
Finally, thank you again and my warm greetings go out to all Danish citizens. I hope that all of these efforts, and yours, will soon secure my release so that I can rejoin my family and friends and resume my work, which this time will be as the director of the newly-formed Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR) in Beirut.
I wish you all the best.
Yours Sincerely,
Abdulhadi Abdulla Alkhawaja
Bahrain, February 8, 2012
NB: 1) Please hand a copy to my family. 2) This is an 'open letter' so please feel free to use it in any way you see fit.
"My dear and beloved family, from behind prison bars, I send to you my love and yearning. From a free man, to a free family. These prison walls don't separate me from you, they bring us closer together. Our connection and determination is stronger than ever. We take our strength from beautiful memories. Remembering every trip, every meal we ate together, all the conversations, remembering every smile, all the jokes and the laughter. The distance between us disappears, through our love and faith.
"It's true I'm in here, and you are out there. But, you are in here with me, and I am out there with you. Our pain is made more bearable when we remember we chose this difficult path and took an oath to remain on it. We must not only remain patient through our suffering, we must never allow the pain to conquer our souls. Let our hearts be filled with joy, and an acceptance of the responsibility we have been given, for in the end, this life is about finding a path of truth towards God." (frontlinedefenders.org)
[*See my 7/4/11 post No Tears for Bahrain.]
Sunday, July 3, 2011
A Penny for the Potentate
Of considerable interest:
"Officially, the US does not pay other governments for rights to military bases. The logic is straightforward: funneling money into the treasuries of foreign dictators cannot form the foundation of genuine strategic alliances. Yet, to fight wars in Iraq and Afghnistan... over the last decade the Pentagon has come to rely in an unprecedented way on a web of bases across the Middle East. And a NEWSWEEK investigation of Pentagon contracting practices in Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, and Bahrain has uncovered more than $14 billion paid mostly in sole-source contracts to companies controlled by ruling families across the Persian Gulf. The revelation raises a fundamental question: are US taxpayer dollars enriching the ruling potentates of friendly regimes just as the youthful protesters and the Arab Spring have brought a new push for democracy across the region?
"Take a look at Abu Dhabi. The wealthiest of the United Arab Emirates, it hosts a US Air Force at Al Dhafra, which is a vital refueling hub in the region. As is the case in most Gulf states, Abu Dhabi is ruled by a single family that dominates both government and business. Here it is the Nahyan family, and the emir... is worth $15 billion, and controls the country's national oil company, ADNOC. As it turns out, every drop of fuel that America buys for its planes at Al Dhafra... costing $5.2 billion since 2005 - is purchased from the Al Nahyan-controlled ADNOC. Yet, according to contract documents, that money has bypassed the competitive bidding process that is supposed to accompany any purchase - of firearms, flak jackets, or fuel - by the Pentagon." (Welfare for dictators, Aram Roston, newsweek.com, 26/6/11)
Virtually ignored by the ms media in this country, Australia, thanks to former prime minister Kevin Rudd, now has a military base in another of the Emirates, Dubai (See my posts Say It Isn't So (2/4/09) & Billabong Flats (12/11/09)).
The UAE, of course, hasn't a democratic bone in its body, even contributing troops to the Saudi intervention in Bahrain to prop up the brutally repressive Khalifa dynasty there.
The question arises, are we too making direct deposits in the deep pockets of the ruler of Dubai, and Prime Minister of the UAE, Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid al-Maktoum? And how much?
"Officially, the US does not pay other governments for rights to military bases. The logic is straightforward: funneling money into the treasuries of foreign dictators cannot form the foundation of genuine strategic alliances. Yet, to fight wars in Iraq and Afghnistan... over the last decade the Pentagon has come to rely in an unprecedented way on a web of bases across the Middle East. And a NEWSWEEK investigation of Pentagon contracting practices in Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, and Bahrain has uncovered more than $14 billion paid mostly in sole-source contracts to companies controlled by ruling families across the Persian Gulf. The revelation raises a fundamental question: are US taxpayer dollars enriching the ruling potentates of friendly regimes just as the youthful protesters and the Arab Spring have brought a new push for democracy across the region?
"Take a look at Abu Dhabi. The wealthiest of the United Arab Emirates, it hosts a US Air Force at Al Dhafra, which is a vital refueling hub in the region. As is the case in most Gulf states, Abu Dhabi is ruled by a single family that dominates both government and business. Here it is the Nahyan family, and the emir... is worth $15 billion, and controls the country's national oil company, ADNOC. As it turns out, every drop of fuel that America buys for its planes at Al Dhafra... costing $5.2 billion since 2005 - is purchased from the Al Nahyan-controlled ADNOC. Yet, according to contract documents, that money has bypassed the competitive bidding process that is supposed to accompany any purchase - of firearms, flak jackets, or fuel - by the Pentagon." (Welfare for dictators, Aram Roston, newsweek.com, 26/6/11)
Virtually ignored by the ms media in this country, Australia, thanks to former prime minister Kevin Rudd, now has a military base in another of the Emirates, Dubai (See my posts Say It Isn't So (2/4/09) & Billabong Flats (12/11/09)).
The UAE, of course, hasn't a democratic bone in its body, even contributing troops to the Saudi intervention in Bahrain to prop up the brutally repressive Khalifa dynasty there.
The question arises, are we too making direct deposits in the deep pockets of the ruler of Dubai, and Prime Minister of the UAE, Sheikh Mohammad bin Rashid al-Maktoum? And how much?
Saturday, April 16, 2011
The Horror in Bahrain
Letter to President Obama
Mr President,
"I write to you from Bahrain, after living through the kind of horrible injustice that I would never wish on anyone in the world.
"The security forces attacked my home, smashing in the doors with sledgehammers and terrifying my family. Without warning, without an arrest warrant, without giving any reason, armed, masked men attacked my father. Although they said nothing we all know that my father's crime is to be a human rights activist. My father was grabbed by the neck, dragged down a flight of stairs and then beaten unconscious in front of me. He never raised his hand to resist them, and the only words he ever said were 'I can't breathe'. Even after he had lost consciousness, the masked men kept kicking and beating him, all the while cursing and threatening to kill him. This was a very real threat considering that in the past 2 weeks alone, 3 political prisoners have died in custody. The special forces also beat up and arrested my husband and brother-in-law.
"Since their arrest 3 days ago, we have heard nothing. We do not know where they are or whether they are safe or not. In fact, we still have no news of my uncle who was arrested 3 weeks ago when troops put guns to the heads of his children and severely beat his wife.
"Having studied in America, I have seen how strongly your people believe in freedom and democracy. Even through these horrible times, many of the people supporting me are Americans who never thought their government would stand by dictators against freedom-loving people. To the American people I send my love and gratitude.
"I have chosen to write to you and not to my own government because the Alkhalifa regime here has already shown that they do not give a damn about our rights or even our lives.
"When you were sworn-in as President of the United States, I had high hopes. I thought: here is a person who would never have become president if not for the African-American fight for civil rights, he will understand our fight for freedom. Unfortunately, so far my hopes have been dashed. Perhaps I misunderstood. What was it you meant, Mr President? YES WE CAN... support dictators? YES WE CAN... help oppress pro-democracy protesters? YES WE CAN... turn a blind eye to a people's suffering?
"Our wonderful memories have all been replaced by terrible ones. Our staircase still has traces of my father's blood. I sit in my living room and can see the place where my father and husband were thrown face down and beaten. I can see their shoes by the door and remember they were taken barefoot. As a daughter and as a wife I refuse to stay silent while my father and husband are probably being tortured somewhere in a Bahraini prison. As the mother of a one-year-old who wants her father and grandfather back, I must take a stand. I will not be helpless. Starting 6pm Bahrain time tonight, I will go on a hunger strike. I demand the immediate release of my family members. My father: Abdulhadi Alkhawaja. My husband: Wafi Almajed. My brother-in-law: Hussein Ahmed. My uncle: Salah Alkhawaja.
"I am writing this letter to let you know that if anything happens to my father, my husband, my uncle, my brother-in-law, or to me, I'll be holding you just as responsible as the Alkhalifa regime. Your support for this monarchy makes this government a partner in crime. I still have hope that you will realize that freedom and human rights mean as much to a Bahraini person as they do to an American, a Syrian or a Libyan, and that regional and political considerations should not take priority over liberty and human rights.
"I ask you to look into your beautiful daughters' eyes tonight and ask yourself what you personally would be willing to sacrifice in order to make sure that they can sleep safe at night, that they can grow up with hope rather than fear and heartache, that they can have their father's and grandfather's embrace to run to when they are hurt or in need of support. Last night my one-year-old daughter went knocking on our bedroom door calling for her father, the first word she ever learnt. It tore my heart to pieces. How do you explain to a one-year-old that her father is in prison? I need to look into my daughter's eyes tomorrow, next week, in the years to come, and tell her I did all I could to protect her family and future.
"For my daughter's sake, for her future, for my father's life, for the life of my husband, to unite my family again, I will begin my hunger strike." (angryarabiya.blogspot.com)
Zeinab Alkhawaja
11 April 2011
Mr President,
"I write to you from Bahrain, after living through the kind of horrible injustice that I would never wish on anyone in the world.
"The security forces attacked my home, smashing in the doors with sledgehammers and terrifying my family. Without warning, without an arrest warrant, without giving any reason, armed, masked men attacked my father. Although they said nothing we all know that my father's crime is to be a human rights activist. My father was grabbed by the neck, dragged down a flight of stairs and then beaten unconscious in front of me. He never raised his hand to resist them, and the only words he ever said were 'I can't breathe'. Even after he had lost consciousness, the masked men kept kicking and beating him, all the while cursing and threatening to kill him. This was a very real threat considering that in the past 2 weeks alone, 3 political prisoners have died in custody. The special forces also beat up and arrested my husband and brother-in-law.
"Since their arrest 3 days ago, we have heard nothing. We do not know where they are or whether they are safe or not. In fact, we still have no news of my uncle who was arrested 3 weeks ago when troops put guns to the heads of his children and severely beat his wife.
"Having studied in America, I have seen how strongly your people believe in freedom and democracy. Even through these horrible times, many of the people supporting me are Americans who never thought their government would stand by dictators against freedom-loving people. To the American people I send my love and gratitude.
"I have chosen to write to you and not to my own government because the Alkhalifa regime here has already shown that they do not give a damn about our rights or even our lives.
"When you were sworn-in as President of the United States, I had high hopes. I thought: here is a person who would never have become president if not for the African-American fight for civil rights, he will understand our fight for freedom. Unfortunately, so far my hopes have been dashed. Perhaps I misunderstood. What was it you meant, Mr President? YES WE CAN... support dictators? YES WE CAN... help oppress pro-democracy protesters? YES WE CAN... turn a blind eye to a people's suffering?
"Our wonderful memories have all been replaced by terrible ones. Our staircase still has traces of my father's blood. I sit in my living room and can see the place where my father and husband were thrown face down and beaten. I can see their shoes by the door and remember they were taken barefoot. As a daughter and as a wife I refuse to stay silent while my father and husband are probably being tortured somewhere in a Bahraini prison. As the mother of a one-year-old who wants her father and grandfather back, I must take a stand. I will not be helpless. Starting 6pm Bahrain time tonight, I will go on a hunger strike. I demand the immediate release of my family members. My father: Abdulhadi Alkhawaja. My husband: Wafi Almajed. My brother-in-law: Hussein Ahmed. My uncle: Salah Alkhawaja.
"I am writing this letter to let you know that if anything happens to my father, my husband, my uncle, my brother-in-law, or to me, I'll be holding you just as responsible as the Alkhalifa regime. Your support for this monarchy makes this government a partner in crime. I still have hope that you will realize that freedom and human rights mean as much to a Bahraini person as they do to an American, a Syrian or a Libyan, and that regional and political considerations should not take priority over liberty and human rights.
"I ask you to look into your beautiful daughters' eyes tonight and ask yourself what you personally would be willing to sacrifice in order to make sure that they can sleep safe at night, that they can grow up with hope rather than fear and heartache, that they can have their father's and grandfather's embrace to run to when they are hurt or in need of support. Last night my one-year-old daughter went knocking on our bedroom door calling for her father, the first word she ever learnt. It tore my heart to pieces. How do you explain to a one-year-old that her father is in prison? I need to look into my daughter's eyes tomorrow, next week, in the years to come, and tell her I did all I could to protect her family and future.
"For my daughter's sake, for her future, for my father's life, for the life of my husband, to unite my family again, I will begin my hunger strike." (angryarabiya.blogspot.com)
Zeinab Alkhawaja
11 April 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
No Tears for Bahrain
Though the syntax may be tortured, there's no denying foreign minister Kevin Rudd's deep concern for the people of Benghazi: "If we hadn't done anything, as of 2 weeks ago, we'd be talking tonight about the butchery of Benghazi... and 700,000 people, big city, whack, Gaddafi up the middle of it, gone." (Q & A, 4/4/11)
And when Israeli settlers are murdered in still mysterious circumstances, Kevin ('Support for Israel is in my DNA') Rudd goes positively ballistic: "This is a despicable act of terrorism." (Australian Government condemns attack on Israeli family, Media Release, 13/3/11)
But for some reason, when it comes to Bahrain, the best he can come up with is "We urge all sides to avoid violence and exercise restraint," and even that was over 6 weeks ago. (Unrest in the Middle East, Statement, 18/2/11)
Meanwhile, back in Bahrain, the people are currently doing their level best to follow Rudd's advice, avoiding violence (not always successfully though, especially when it comes looking for them at 2 in the morning), and exercising such incredible restraint (especially when bound hand and foot in prison) that you don't even here a peep from them anymore (except, maybe, for the odd scream or three):
"A source sent me this: 'It seems like the Bahraini government has finally succeeded in its crackdown. Yesterday, they closed down the country's only opposition newspaper, Al Wasat, and then reopened it with a new pro-government editor... Everyone in Bahrain is silent now. No one is talking. Human rights activists, journalists and bloggers who used their real names have completely disappeared. Many have been jailed while others are in hiding. Mohammad al-Masqati, a human rights activist in his mid-20s has been in jail for the past 5 days. He was first threatened by a member of the royal family on twitter and was then arrested. His family has apparently spoken to him only once so far. Businessmen and CEOs are also being interrogated for not firing striking workers and cutting their wages. Most of them are no longer in control of their companies, and mass firings have begun. Most are simply too scared to take a stance. Very few people are tweeting or posting on Facebook. Even those not using their real names are scared. Shia families living in mixed neighborhoods are moving out after receiving threatening letters or being threatened at checkpoints. People speak in code on the phone and constantly declare their loyalty to the government just in case. I feel that Bahrain has turned into a Syria or Iraq (during Saddam's era). Even Bahrainis abroad are too scared to speak. We are definitely back in the 90s, but it is worse because the army is more brutal and there is a disgusting sectarianism and blatant discrimination against Shia. So I would say that Bahrain now is a mix of Syria and Palestine. The media is completely silent and the Obama administration has completely stopped commenting on Bahrain. I feel that the next 10 years or so will be a horrible period for Bahrain. While other Arab countries are moving forward, we are going backwards." (Update on Bahrain, angryarab.blogspot.com, 5/4/11)
"Another source from Bahrain: '... Bahraini officials are constantly attempting to delude everyone with the peaceful atmosphere in the country. There is a real fear in the capital. That is why so many people choose to refrain from demonstrating. There are no clear 'activities' from either side in the streets there. However, I can give you a more solid image about the situation: many areas around the capital are identical in their misery with the suburbs of Lebanon, where you can see a place filled with Solidere-esque developments, and then, two streets on, a crumbling residential area with no government support. In these places, abductions and violence are being waved in peoples' faces. The way people are dealt with by the Bahraini and Saudi forces is extemely violent, to the brink of unjustified hatred. It feels like a gun is being pointed at the back of your head, at your thoughts, your words, your undisclosed opinions... Even though the opposition parties in Bahrain have that line they won't cross with the self-appointed 'king', a great percentage of the demonstraters consider him a criminal. They point out that he wore his military uniform before the first night assault on Pearl roundabout." (The mood in Bahrain, angryarab.blogspot.com, 6/4/11)
And when Israeli settlers are murdered in still mysterious circumstances, Kevin ('Support for Israel is in my DNA') Rudd goes positively ballistic: "This is a despicable act of terrorism." (Australian Government condemns attack on Israeli family, Media Release, 13/3/11)
But for some reason, when it comes to Bahrain, the best he can come up with is "We urge all sides to avoid violence and exercise restraint," and even that was over 6 weeks ago. (Unrest in the Middle East, Statement, 18/2/11)
Meanwhile, back in Bahrain, the people are currently doing their level best to follow Rudd's advice, avoiding violence (not always successfully though, especially when it comes looking for them at 2 in the morning), and exercising such incredible restraint (especially when bound hand and foot in prison) that you don't even here a peep from them anymore (except, maybe, for the odd scream or three):
"A source sent me this: 'It seems like the Bahraini government has finally succeeded in its crackdown. Yesterday, they closed down the country's only opposition newspaper, Al Wasat, and then reopened it with a new pro-government editor... Everyone in Bahrain is silent now. No one is talking. Human rights activists, journalists and bloggers who used their real names have completely disappeared. Many have been jailed while others are in hiding. Mohammad al-Masqati, a human rights activist in his mid-20s has been in jail for the past 5 days. He was first threatened by a member of the royal family on twitter and was then arrested. His family has apparently spoken to him only once so far. Businessmen and CEOs are also being interrogated for not firing striking workers and cutting their wages. Most of them are no longer in control of their companies, and mass firings have begun. Most are simply too scared to take a stance. Very few people are tweeting or posting on Facebook. Even those not using their real names are scared. Shia families living in mixed neighborhoods are moving out after receiving threatening letters or being threatened at checkpoints. People speak in code on the phone and constantly declare their loyalty to the government just in case. I feel that Bahrain has turned into a Syria or Iraq (during Saddam's era). Even Bahrainis abroad are too scared to speak. We are definitely back in the 90s, but it is worse because the army is more brutal and there is a disgusting sectarianism and blatant discrimination against Shia. So I would say that Bahrain now is a mix of Syria and Palestine. The media is completely silent and the Obama administration has completely stopped commenting on Bahrain. I feel that the next 10 years or so will be a horrible period for Bahrain. While other Arab countries are moving forward, we are going backwards." (Update on Bahrain, angryarab.blogspot.com, 5/4/11)
"Another source from Bahrain: '... Bahraini officials are constantly attempting to delude everyone with the peaceful atmosphere in the country. There is a real fear in the capital. That is why so many people choose to refrain from demonstrating. There are no clear 'activities' from either side in the streets there. However, I can give you a more solid image about the situation: many areas around the capital are identical in their misery with the suburbs of Lebanon, where you can see a place filled with Solidere-esque developments, and then, two streets on, a crumbling residential area with no government support. In these places, abductions and violence are being waved in peoples' faces. The way people are dealt with by the Bahraini and Saudi forces is extemely violent, to the brink of unjustified hatred. It feels like a gun is being pointed at the back of your head, at your thoughts, your words, your undisclosed opinions... Even though the opposition parties in Bahrain have that line they won't cross with the self-appointed 'king', a great percentage of the demonstraters consider him a criminal. They point out that he wore his military uniform before the first night assault on Pearl roundabout." (The mood in Bahrain, angryarab.blogspot.com, 6/4/11)
Monday, April 4, 2011
The Counter-Revolution Firms 3
Two of the sharpest knives in the pack dissect the ongoing counter-revolution in the Arab world:
"If not to prevent genocide, grab the oil or promote democracy (via Patriot missiles), what then is the driving force behind the Euro-US imperial intervention [in Libya]? A clue lies in the selectivity of Western military intervention: in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Qatar and Oman ruling autocrats, allied with and backed by Euro-US imperial states go about arresting, torturing and murdering unarmed urban protesters with total impunity. In Egypt and Tunisia, the US is backing a conservative junta of self-appointed civil-military elites in order to block the profound democratic and nationalist transformation of society demanded by the protesters. The 'junta' aims to push through neo-liberal economic 'reforms' through carefully vetted pro-Western 'elected' officials. While liberal critics may accuse the West of 'hypocrisy' and 'double standards' in bombing Gaddafi but not the Gulf butchers, in reality the imperial rulers consistently apply the same standards in each region: they defend strategic autocratic client regimes, which have allowed imperial states to build strategic air force and naval bases, run regional intelligence operations and set up logistical platforms for their ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as their future planned conflict with Iran. They attack Gaddafi's Libya precisely because Gaddafi had refused to actively contribute to Western military operations in Africa and the Middle East. The key point is that while Libya allows the biggest US-European multinationals to plunder its oil wealth, it did not become a strategic geopolitical-military asset of the empire. As we have written in many previous essays the driving force of US empire-building is military - and not economic. This is why billions of dollars of Western economic interests and contracts have been sacrificed in the setting up of sanctions against Iraq and Iran - with the costly result that the invasion and occupation of Iraq shut down most oil exploitation for over a decade. The Washington-led assault on Libya... is part of a more general counter-attack in response to the most recent Arab popular pro-democracy movements. The West is backing the suppression of these pro-democracy movements throughout the Gulf; it finances the pro-imperial, pro-Israel junta in Egypt and it is intervening in Tunisia to ensure that any new regime is 'correctly aligned'. It supports a despotic regime in Algeria as well as Israel's daily assaults on Gaza. In line with this policy, the West backs the uprising of ex-Gaddafites and right-wing monarchists, confident that the 'liberated' Libya will once again provide military bases for the US-European military empire-builders." (The Euro-US war on Libya: official lies & misconceptions of critics, James Petras & Robin E, Abaya, petras.lehaine.org, 25/3/11)
"You invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This, in short, is the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration and the House of Saud. Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a 'yes' vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya - the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973. The revelation came from two different diplomats, a European and a member of the BRIC group, and was made separately to a US scholar and Asia Times Online. According to diplomatic protocol, their names cannot be disclosed. One of the diplomats said, 'This is the reason why we could not support resolution 1973. We were arguing that Libya, Bahrain and Yemen were similar cases, and calling for a fact-finding mission. We maintain our official position that the resolution is not clear, and may be interpreted in a belligerent manner'. As Asia Times Online has reported, a full Arab League endorsement of a no-fly zone is a myth. Of the 22 full members, only 11 were present at the voting. Six of them were Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, the US-supported club of Gulf kingdoms/sheikhdoms, of which Saudi Arabia is the top dog. Syria and Algeria were against it. Saudi Arabia only had to 'seduce' 3 other members to get the vote. Translation: only 9 out of 22 members of the Arab League voted for the no-fly zone. The vote was essentially a House of Saud-led operation, with Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa keen to polish his CV with Washington with an eye to become the next Egyptian President. Thus, in the beginning, there was the great 2011 Arab revolt. Then, inexorably, came the US-Saudi counter-revolution.
"Humanitarian imperialists will spin en masse this is a 'conspiracy', as they have been spinning the bombing of Libya prevented a hypothetical massacre in Benghazi. They will be defending the House of Saud - saying it acted to squash Iranian subversion in the Gulf; obviously R2P - 'responsibility to protect' does not apply to people in Bahrain. They will be heavily promoting post-Gaddafi Libya as a new - oily - human rights Mecca, complete with US intelligence assets, black-ops, special forces and dodgy contractors. Whatever they say won't alter the facts on the ground - the graphic results of the US-Saudi dirty dancing. Asia Times Online has already reported on who profits from the foreign intervention in Libya (see There's no business like war busines, March 30). Players include the Pentagon (via Africom), NATO, Saudi Arabia, the Arab League's Amr Moussa, and Qatar. Add to the list the al-Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, assorted weapons contractors, and the usual neo-liberal suspects eager to privatize everything in sight in the new Libya - even the water. And we're not even talking about the Western vultures hovering over the Libyan oil and gas industry. Exposed, above all, is the astonishing hypocrisy of the Obama administration, selling a crass geopolitical coup involving northern Africa and the Persian Gulf as a humanitarian operation. As for the fact of another US war on a Muslim nation, that's just a 'kinetic military action'. There's been widespread speculation in both the US and across the Middle East that considering the military stalemate - and short of the 'coalition of the willing' bombing the Gaddafi family to oblivion - Washington, London and Paris might settle for the control of eastern Libya; a northern African version of an oil-rich Gulf Emirate. Gaddafi would be left with a starving North Korea-style Tripolitania. But considering the latest high-value defections from the regime, plus the desired endgame ('Gaddafi must go', in President Obama's own words), Washington, London, Paris and Riyadh won't settle for nothing but the whole kebab. Including a strategic base for both Africom and NATO." (Exposed: The US-Saudi Libya deal, Pepe Escobar, atimes.com,)
"If not to prevent genocide, grab the oil or promote democracy (via Patriot missiles), what then is the driving force behind the Euro-US imperial intervention [in Libya]? A clue lies in the selectivity of Western military intervention: in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Qatar and Oman ruling autocrats, allied with and backed by Euro-US imperial states go about arresting, torturing and murdering unarmed urban protesters with total impunity. In Egypt and Tunisia, the US is backing a conservative junta of self-appointed civil-military elites in order to block the profound democratic and nationalist transformation of society demanded by the protesters. The 'junta' aims to push through neo-liberal economic 'reforms' through carefully vetted pro-Western 'elected' officials. While liberal critics may accuse the West of 'hypocrisy' and 'double standards' in bombing Gaddafi but not the Gulf butchers, in reality the imperial rulers consistently apply the same standards in each region: they defend strategic autocratic client regimes, which have allowed imperial states to build strategic air force and naval bases, run regional intelligence operations and set up logistical platforms for their ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as their future planned conflict with Iran. They attack Gaddafi's Libya precisely because Gaddafi had refused to actively contribute to Western military operations in Africa and the Middle East. The key point is that while Libya allows the biggest US-European multinationals to plunder its oil wealth, it did not become a strategic geopolitical-military asset of the empire. As we have written in many previous essays the driving force of US empire-building is military - and not economic. This is why billions of dollars of Western economic interests and contracts have been sacrificed in the setting up of sanctions against Iraq and Iran - with the costly result that the invasion and occupation of Iraq shut down most oil exploitation for over a decade. The Washington-led assault on Libya... is part of a more general counter-attack in response to the most recent Arab popular pro-democracy movements. The West is backing the suppression of these pro-democracy movements throughout the Gulf; it finances the pro-imperial, pro-Israel junta in Egypt and it is intervening in Tunisia to ensure that any new regime is 'correctly aligned'. It supports a despotic regime in Algeria as well as Israel's daily assaults on Gaza. In line with this policy, the West backs the uprising of ex-Gaddafites and right-wing monarchists, confident that the 'liberated' Libya will once again provide military bases for the US-European military empire-builders." (The Euro-US war on Libya: official lies & misconceptions of critics, James Petras & Robin E, Abaya, petras.lehaine.org, 25/3/11)
"You invade Bahrain. We take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. This, in short, is the essence of a deal struck between the Barack Obama administration and the House of Saud. Two diplomatic sources at the United Nations independently confirmed that Washington, via Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, gave the go-ahead for Saudi Arabia to invade Bahrain and crush the pro-democracy movement in their neighbor in exchange for a 'yes' vote by the Arab League for a no-fly zone over Libya - the main rationale that led to United Nations Security Council resolution 1973. The revelation came from two different diplomats, a European and a member of the BRIC group, and was made separately to a US scholar and Asia Times Online. According to diplomatic protocol, their names cannot be disclosed. One of the diplomats said, 'This is the reason why we could not support resolution 1973. We were arguing that Libya, Bahrain and Yemen were similar cases, and calling for a fact-finding mission. We maintain our official position that the resolution is not clear, and may be interpreted in a belligerent manner'. As Asia Times Online has reported, a full Arab League endorsement of a no-fly zone is a myth. Of the 22 full members, only 11 were present at the voting. Six of them were Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, the US-supported club of Gulf kingdoms/sheikhdoms, of which Saudi Arabia is the top dog. Syria and Algeria were against it. Saudi Arabia only had to 'seduce' 3 other members to get the vote. Translation: only 9 out of 22 members of the Arab League voted for the no-fly zone. The vote was essentially a House of Saud-led operation, with Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa keen to polish his CV with Washington with an eye to become the next Egyptian President. Thus, in the beginning, there was the great 2011 Arab revolt. Then, inexorably, came the US-Saudi counter-revolution.
"Humanitarian imperialists will spin en masse this is a 'conspiracy', as they have been spinning the bombing of Libya prevented a hypothetical massacre in Benghazi. They will be defending the House of Saud - saying it acted to squash Iranian subversion in the Gulf; obviously R2P - 'responsibility to protect' does not apply to people in Bahrain. They will be heavily promoting post-Gaddafi Libya as a new - oily - human rights Mecca, complete with US intelligence assets, black-ops, special forces and dodgy contractors. Whatever they say won't alter the facts on the ground - the graphic results of the US-Saudi dirty dancing. Asia Times Online has already reported on who profits from the foreign intervention in Libya (see There's no business like war busines, March 30). Players include the Pentagon (via Africom), NATO, Saudi Arabia, the Arab League's Amr Moussa, and Qatar. Add to the list the al-Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, assorted weapons contractors, and the usual neo-liberal suspects eager to privatize everything in sight in the new Libya - even the water. And we're not even talking about the Western vultures hovering over the Libyan oil and gas industry. Exposed, above all, is the astonishing hypocrisy of the Obama administration, selling a crass geopolitical coup involving northern Africa and the Persian Gulf as a humanitarian operation. As for the fact of another US war on a Muslim nation, that's just a 'kinetic military action'. There's been widespread speculation in both the US and across the Middle East that considering the military stalemate - and short of the 'coalition of the willing' bombing the Gaddafi family to oblivion - Washington, London and Paris might settle for the control of eastern Libya; a northern African version of an oil-rich Gulf Emirate. Gaddafi would be left with a starving North Korea-style Tripolitania. But considering the latest high-value defections from the regime, plus the desired endgame ('Gaddafi must go', in President Obama's own words), Washington, London, Paris and Riyadh won't settle for nothing but the whole kebab. Including a strategic base for both Africom and NATO." (Exposed: The US-Saudi Libya deal, Pepe Escobar, atimes.com,)
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Barack's Busy Right Now...
The Bahrain Foreign Minister, Khalid Al-Khalifa responds to foreign journalists (twitvid.com):
I [Toula Vlahou, CBS] had a very bad experience yesterday which is contrary to what I've experienced in Bahrain. I've been here a month.
Where? Where is it?
I was in a village outside my hotel in [inaudible]. I was fired upon by the riot police along with a colleague who happens to be Bahraini. He was terrified.
It's a very delicate situation.
Sir, I was in the car. I didn't do anything. They didn't ask me to stop.
They just fired on you?
We came up... yes!
It could be a... it's a very sensitive...
No, they fired. They were riot police. They had helmets and guns and tear gas, and because of the tear gas we decided to leave.
You should report that to a police station.
We did.
OK, then you did the right thing.
But why would they fire on a car?
(Moving away) I don't know. It's an incident that should be investigated.
(2nd journalist) There seem to be an awful lot that should be investigated...
(Bridling) You're not telling me there's a clear order for them to fire at any car? That's not true.
Apparently, they thought there was.
(Agitated) No, no, no, no. They're police. They're not high officers giving those directives...
[Inaudible]... riot police because they searched the car, they slashed the tyres, they smashed the windows. We found it that way. I did not see them...
(Moving away) Wait for your police report.
(3rd journalist) Look, how long can this continue? Basically, you're waging war.
No, we're not waging war. We're restoring law and order. Any suggestion that we are waging a war on anyone, especially our own people, is wrong and unacceptable.
You've cleared the roundabout. In Shia villages there have been clashes. I mean, how do you resume talks with any oppostion, how do you resume national dialogue?
There'll be a dialogue when their leaders come and resume talks. We've seen situations similar to that in the 90s and we came out of it and we know we're going to come out of it.
There are staffers at the hospital saying that they've been in Salmaniyeh for 3 or 4 days. They're not allowed out.
Which hospital?
Salmaniya. And when they leave they're beaten and sent back in.
I'm just hearing it from you.
I've spoken to 3 doctors... [indistinct]...
Nobody knows how many people have been beaten before they came to the hospital.
Nurses and doctors were not beaten. They're terrified and won't leave.
Have you seen the bruises? Have you seen the deaths of police?
I've seen a lot more dead protesters.
No, no, no. This is, this is...
Meanwhile, back on the ranch... John Kerry (D-MA), when asked why Libya was getting the treatment, but not Bahrain, "insisted that Iran and Hezbollah were secretly to blame for the protests" there, and, and, and, chipped in Admiral Michael Mullen, anyways, "Bahrain has been a critical ally for decades," but Libya hasn't, so there! (US struggles to explain difference between Bahrain, Libya, Jason Ditz, news.antiwar.com, 20/3/11)
And Barack, what's he got to say about this? Well, nothing really, because right now he's got weightier matters on his mind: "President Barack Obama marked the Persian New Year, Nowruz, by reaching out to Iranian youth, saying the future of their country is in their hands and that he supports them. 'The future of Iran belongs to the young people - the youth who will determine their own destiny', Obama said on Sunday in a video posted on the White House web site. 'Your talent, your hopes and your choices will shape the future of Iran, and help light the world. And though times may be dark, I want you to know that I am with you', Obama said." (Obama sends message of solidarity to Iran's youth, Reuters, nytimes.com, 20/3/11)
I [Toula Vlahou, CBS] had a very bad experience yesterday which is contrary to what I've experienced in Bahrain. I've been here a month.
Where? Where is it?
I was in a village outside my hotel in [inaudible]. I was fired upon by the riot police along with a colleague who happens to be Bahraini. He was terrified.
It's a very delicate situation.
Sir, I was in the car. I didn't do anything. They didn't ask me to stop.
They just fired on you?
We came up... yes!
It could be a... it's a very sensitive...
No, they fired. They were riot police. They had helmets and guns and tear gas, and because of the tear gas we decided to leave.
You should report that to a police station.
We did.
OK, then you did the right thing.
But why would they fire on a car?
(Moving away) I don't know. It's an incident that should be investigated.
(2nd journalist) There seem to be an awful lot that should be investigated...
(Bridling) You're not telling me there's a clear order for them to fire at any car? That's not true.
Apparently, they thought there was.
(Agitated) No, no, no, no. They're police. They're not high officers giving those directives...
[Inaudible]... riot police because they searched the car, they slashed the tyres, they smashed the windows. We found it that way. I did not see them...
(Moving away) Wait for your police report.
(3rd journalist) Look, how long can this continue? Basically, you're waging war.
No, we're not waging war. We're restoring law and order. Any suggestion that we are waging a war on anyone, especially our own people, is wrong and unacceptable.
You've cleared the roundabout. In Shia villages there have been clashes. I mean, how do you resume talks with any oppostion, how do you resume national dialogue?
There'll be a dialogue when their leaders come and resume talks. We've seen situations similar to that in the 90s and we came out of it and we know we're going to come out of it.
There are staffers at the hospital saying that they've been in Salmaniyeh for 3 or 4 days. They're not allowed out.
Which hospital?
Salmaniya. And when they leave they're beaten and sent back in.
I'm just hearing it from you.
I've spoken to 3 doctors... [indistinct]...
Nobody knows how many people have been beaten before they came to the hospital.
Nurses and doctors were not beaten. They're terrified and won't leave.
Have you seen the bruises? Have you seen the deaths of police?
I've seen a lot more dead protesters.
No, no, no. This is, this is...
Meanwhile, back on the ranch... John Kerry (D-MA), when asked why Libya was getting the treatment, but not Bahrain, "insisted that Iran and Hezbollah were secretly to blame for the protests" there, and, and, and, chipped in Admiral Michael Mullen, anyways, "Bahrain has been a critical ally for decades," but Libya hasn't, so there! (US struggles to explain difference between Bahrain, Libya, Jason Ditz, news.antiwar.com, 20/3/11)
And Barack, what's he got to say about this? Well, nothing really, because right now he's got weightier matters on his mind: "President Barack Obama marked the Persian New Year, Nowruz, by reaching out to Iranian youth, saying the future of their country is in their hands and that he supports them. 'The future of Iran belongs to the young people - the youth who will determine their own destiny', Obama said on Sunday in a video posted on the White House web site. 'Your talent, your hopes and your choices will shape the future of Iran, and help light the world. And though times may be dark, I want you to know that I am with you', Obama said." (Obama sends message of solidarity to Iran's youth, Reuters, nytimes.com, 20/3/11)
Sunday, March 20, 2011
False Messiah
"... A light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany... & you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama." Barack Obama, Lebanon, New Hampshire, 7/1/08
For Obama so loved the Libyan people that He...
"... approved US missile strikes on Libya, warning a defiant Muammar Gaddafi that 'actions have consequences' but stressing that no US ground troops would deploy to the North African nation... Pentagon officials said US and British warships and submarines fired 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Libya's air defence systems in 'Operation Dawn', the first phase of military action against Libya to impose a UN-mandated no-fly zone. 'We must be clear: actions have consequences, and the writ of the international community must be enforced', Obama told reporters... 'I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice, and it's not a choice that I make lightly', Obama said. 'But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells the people there will be no mercy, and when his forces step up their assault on cities like Benghazi and Misrata where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government'." (Obama OKs missile strikes on Libya, AAP, 20/3/11)
Yet, for the innocent men and women of Bahrain, all He could manage was a lecture on restraint:
"At least 6 people were killed and hundreds wounded in Bahrain Wednesday when security forces crushed protesters camped in Manama, witnesses said. Explosions were heard and smoke seen billowing over the capital, al-Jazeera reported. A curfew was imposed on downtown areas including the Pearl Roundabout and the Bahrain Financial Harbour. Witnesses said the forces - armed with tanks, helicopters and jeeps mounted with machine guns - fired tear gas, rubber bullets and possibly live ammunition into crowds of protesters, as well as trashing vehicles, The New York Times reported... King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa Tuesday imposed martial law. On Monday, 2,000 troops from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were deployed to the island monarchy... A White House spokesman called for calm and restraint, and expressed concerns about violence from all sides." (6 deaths reported in Bahrain crackdown, upi.com, 16/3/11)
And for the innocents of Yemen, a mere tap on the wrist:
"Beleagured Yemen President Ali Abdullah Saleh ordered a state of after regime loyalists on Friday killed at least 46 protesters, according to medics, in the bloodiest clash in weeks of unrest. Witnesses said pro-Saleh 'thugs' had rained bullets from rooftops around a square at Sanaa University, the centre of demonstrations against Saleh, adding that more than 400 were wounded... The violence drew international condemnation, with US President Barack Obama calling on his key anti-terror ally to live up to a pledge to allow peaceful protests and engage with the opposition." (46 dead in Yemen protest bloodbath: medics, al-Jaberi & Mounassar, news.smh.com.au, 19/3/11)
As for the innocents of Gaza 2008-2009, how could we possibly forget His deafening silence?
For Obama so loved the Libyan people that He...
"... approved US missile strikes on Libya, warning a defiant Muammar Gaddafi that 'actions have consequences' but stressing that no US ground troops would deploy to the North African nation... Pentagon officials said US and British warships and submarines fired 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Libya's air defence systems in 'Operation Dawn', the first phase of military action against Libya to impose a UN-mandated no-fly zone. 'We must be clear: actions have consequences, and the writ of the international community must be enforced', Obama told reporters... 'I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice, and it's not a choice that I make lightly', Obama said. 'But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells the people there will be no mercy, and when his forces step up their assault on cities like Benghazi and Misrata where innocent men and women face brutality and death at the hands of their own government'." (Obama OKs missile strikes on Libya, AAP, 20/3/11)
Yet, for the innocent men and women of Bahrain, all He could manage was a lecture on restraint:
"At least 6 people were killed and hundreds wounded in Bahrain Wednesday when security forces crushed protesters camped in Manama, witnesses said. Explosions were heard and smoke seen billowing over the capital, al-Jazeera reported. A curfew was imposed on downtown areas including the Pearl Roundabout and the Bahrain Financial Harbour. Witnesses said the forces - armed with tanks, helicopters and jeeps mounted with machine guns - fired tear gas, rubber bullets and possibly live ammunition into crowds of protesters, as well as trashing vehicles, The New York Times reported... King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa Tuesday imposed martial law. On Monday, 2,000 troops from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were deployed to the island monarchy... A White House spokesman called for calm and restraint, and expressed concerns about violence from all sides." (6 deaths reported in Bahrain crackdown, upi.com, 16/3/11)
And for the innocents of Yemen, a mere tap on the wrist:
"Beleagured Yemen President Ali Abdullah Saleh ordered a state of after regime loyalists on Friday killed at least 46 protesters, according to medics, in the bloodiest clash in weeks of unrest. Witnesses said pro-Saleh 'thugs' had rained bullets from rooftops around a square at Sanaa University, the centre of demonstrations against Saleh, adding that more than 400 were wounded... The violence drew international condemnation, with US President Barack Obama calling on his key anti-terror ally to live up to a pledge to allow peaceful protests and engage with the opposition." (46 dead in Yemen protest bloodbath: medics, al-Jaberi & Mounassar, news.smh.com.au, 19/3/11)
As for the innocents of Gaza 2008-2009, how could we possibly forget His deafening silence?
Saturday, March 19, 2011
When Will the West Intervene to Protect Bahrainis from... the West?
The freedom-fighting people of Libya are being slaughtered by a madman who has tyrannised over them for the past 42 years. This is intolerable and must stop NOW:
"That the G8, comprising the world's 8 most powerful industrialised nations, has adopted a limp-wristed response to the Libyan crisis is a sad comment on the failure of the international community to respond effectively to Muammar Gaddafi's atrocities... This is a tragedy for those fighting for democracy as much as it is for international morality. Standing on diplomatic niceties while people are being slaughtered is a gross betrayal." (Editorial: Libyans will pay the price, The Australian, 17/3/11)
"[Australian] Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd hit out at G8 nations for failing to back the establishment of a flight-exclusion zone over Libya... Mr Rudd said the international community should look at the UN's record: 'Rwanda - fail, Darfur - fail, the Balkans - partial fail'." (Rudd raps G8 as 'weak' on Libya, Daniel Flitton, The Age, 17/3/11)
The apparently freedom-seeking, but obviously IRANIAN-manipulated SHI'ITE people of Bahrain are being lovingly laid to rest and otherwise well taken care of by an eminently sane and reasonable SUNNI dynasty, which has selflessly and thanklessly lavished STABILITY on them for the past 200 years. This is intolerable (the sheer ingratitude of these IRANIAN dupes, that is) and they (the dupes, of course) must be stopped NOW:
"In Bahrain, where a Sunni King Hamad is under threat from an uprising by the Shi'ite majority with highly significant Iranian involvement, Saudi Arabian troops and police from the UAE have arrived to restore order without approval from the Arab League or Security Council. While legitimate questions may be raised about this incursion, it shows a decisiveness that eludes the world on Libya." (Libyans will pay...)
"Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd said... 'These protests and protesters should be conducted peacefully... The response to them should be by peaceful means as well'." (Rudd urges restraint in Bahrain, AAP, afr.com, 18/3/11)
So runs the current rhetoric of the corporate media and the servants of empire. But, if Libyans need the West to protect them from Gaddafi, then surely Bahrainis need the West... someone... anyone?... to protect them from... the West:
"According to data from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the branch of the government that coordinates sales and transfers of military equipment to allies, the US has sent Bahrain dozens of 'excess' American tanks, armored personnel carriers, and helicopter gunships. The US has also given the Bahrain Defense Force thousands of .38 caliber pistols and millions of rounds of ammunition, from large-caliber cannon shells to bullets for handguns. To take one example, the US supplied Bahrain with enough .50 caliber rounds - used in sniper rifles and machine guns - to kill every Bahraini in the kingdom four times over... In addition... the Pentagon in coordination with the State Department oversaw Bahrain's purchase of more than $386 million in defense items and services from 2007 to 2009, the last 3 years on record. These deals included the purchase of a wide range of items from vehicles to weapons systems. Just this past summer, to cite one example, the Pentagon announced a multimillion-dollar contract with Sikorsky Aircraft to customize 9 Black Hawk helicopters for Bahrain's Defense Force... Bahrain is, of course, a small island in the Persian Gulf, but it is also the home of the US Navy's Fifth Fleet, which the Pentagon counts as a crucial asset in the region. It is widely considered a stand-in for neighboring Saudi Arabia, America's gas station in the Gulf, and for Washington, a nation much too important ever to fail. The Pentagon's relationship with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries has been cemented in several key ways... Bahrain alone took home $20 million in US military assistance last year. In an allied area, there is the rarely discussed triangular marriage between defense contractors, the Gulf states and the Pentagon. The 6 Gulf nations (along with regional partner Jordan) are set to spend $70 billion on weaponry and equipment this year, and as much as $80 billion per year by 2015. As the Pentagon looks for ways to shore up the financial viability of weapons manufacturers in tough economic times, the deep pockets of the Gulf states have taken on special importance... An even more significant aspect of the relationship between the Gulf states and the Department of Defense is the Pentagon's shadowy archipelago of military bases across the Middle East. While the Pentagon hides or downplays the existence of many of them, and while Gulf countries often conceal their existence from their own populations as much as possible, the US military maintains sites in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, and of course Bahrain - home port for the Fifth Fleet, whose 30 ships, including 2 aircraft carriers, patrol the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, and the Red Sea." (Murder in Bahrain, Nick Turse, original.antiwar.com, 15/3/11)
God help the freedom-seeking people of Bahrain - because no one else will.
"That the G8, comprising the world's 8 most powerful industrialised nations, has adopted a limp-wristed response to the Libyan crisis is a sad comment on the failure of the international community to respond effectively to Muammar Gaddafi's atrocities... This is a tragedy for those fighting for democracy as much as it is for international morality. Standing on diplomatic niceties while people are being slaughtered is a gross betrayal." (Editorial: Libyans will pay the price, The Australian, 17/3/11)
"[Australian] Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd hit out at G8 nations for failing to back the establishment of a flight-exclusion zone over Libya... Mr Rudd said the international community should look at the UN's record: 'Rwanda - fail, Darfur - fail, the Balkans - partial fail'." (Rudd raps G8 as 'weak' on Libya, Daniel Flitton, The Age, 17/3/11)
The apparently freedom-seeking, but obviously IRANIAN-manipulated SHI'ITE people of Bahrain are being lovingly laid to rest and otherwise well taken care of by an eminently sane and reasonable SUNNI dynasty, which has selflessly and thanklessly lavished STABILITY on them for the past 200 years. This is intolerable (the sheer ingratitude of these IRANIAN dupes, that is) and they (the dupes, of course) must be stopped NOW:
"In Bahrain, where a Sunni King Hamad is under threat from an uprising by the Shi'ite majority with highly significant Iranian involvement, Saudi Arabian troops and police from the UAE have arrived to restore order without approval from the Arab League or Security Council. While legitimate questions may be raised about this incursion, it shows a decisiveness that eludes the world on Libya." (Libyans will pay...)
"Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd said... 'These protests and protesters should be conducted peacefully... The response to them should be by peaceful means as well'." (Rudd urges restraint in Bahrain, AAP, afr.com, 18/3/11)
So runs the current rhetoric of the corporate media and the servants of empire. But, if Libyans need the West to protect them from Gaddafi, then surely Bahrainis need the West... someone... anyone?... to protect them from... the West:
"According to data from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the branch of the government that coordinates sales and transfers of military equipment to allies, the US has sent Bahrain dozens of 'excess' American tanks, armored personnel carriers, and helicopter gunships. The US has also given the Bahrain Defense Force thousands of .38 caliber pistols and millions of rounds of ammunition, from large-caliber cannon shells to bullets for handguns. To take one example, the US supplied Bahrain with enough .50 caliber rounds - used in sniper rifles and machine guns - to kill every Bahraini in the kingdom four times over... In addition... the Pentagon in coordination with the State Department oversaw Bahrain's purchase of more than $386 million in defense items and services from 2007 to 2009, the last 3 years on record. These deals included the purchase of a wide range of items from vehicles to weapons systems. Just this past summer, to cite one example, the Pentagon announced a multimillion-dollar contract with Sikorsky Aircraft to customize 9 Black Hawk helicopters for Bahrain's Defense Force... Bahrain is, of course, a small island in the Persian Gulf, but it is also the home of the US Navy's Fifth Fleet, which the Pentagon counts as a crucial asset in the region. It is widely considered a stand-in for neighboring Saudi Arabia, America's gas station in the Gulf, and for Washington, a nation much too important ever to fail. The Pentagon's relationship with the Gulf Cooperation Council countries has been cemented in several key ways... Bahrain alone took home $20 million in US military assistance last year. In an allied area, there is the rarely discussed triangular marriage between defense contractors, the Gulf states and the Pentagon. The 6 Gulf nations (along with regional partner Jordan) are set to spend $70 billion on weaponry and equipment this year, and as much as $80 billion per year by 2015. As the Pentagon looks for ways to shore up the financial viability of weapons manufacturers in tough economic times, the deep pockets of the Gulf states have taken on special importance... An even more significant aspect of the relationship between the Gulf states and the Department of Defense is the Pentagon's shadowy archipelago of military bases across the Middle East. While the Pentagon hides or downplays the existence of many of them, and while Gulf countries often conceal their existence from their own populations as much as possible, the US military maintains sites in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, and of course Bahrain - home port for the Fifth Fleet, whose 30 ships, including 2 aircraft carriers, patrol the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, and the Red Sea." (Murder in Bahrain, Nick Turse, original.antiwar.com, 15/3/11)
God help the freedom-seeking people of Bahrain - because no one else will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)