Saudi Arabia’s military intervention in Bahrain is a slap in the face of the United States – by Jean-Francois Seznec
Related articles: An open letter to President Obama: People of Bahrain need your help
Saudi Arabia Strikes Back
The House of Saud’s intervention in Bahrain is a slap in the face of the United States, and a setback for peace on the island.
One thousand “lightly armed” Saudi troops and an unspecified number of troops from the United Arab Emirates entered Bahrain on the morning of March 14, in a bid to end the country’s monthlong political crisis. They are reportedly heading for the town of Riffa, the stronghold of the ruling Khalifa family. The troops’ task, apparently, is to protect the oil installations and basic infrastructure from the demonstrators.
The Arab intervention marks a dramatic escalation of Bahrain’s political crisis, which has pitted the country’s disgruntled Shiite majority against the Sunni ruling family — and has also been exacerbated by quarrels between hard-liners and liberalswithin the Khalifa clan. The clashes between protesters and government forces worsened over the weekend, when the security services beat back demonstrators trying to block the highway to the capital of Manama’s Financial Harbor. The protesters’ disruption of the harbor, which was reportedly purchased by the conservative Prime Minister Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa for one dinar, was an important symbolic gesture by the opposition.
For the United States, the intervention is a slap in the face. On Saturday, March 12, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Bahrain, where he called for real reforms to the country’s political system and criticized “baby steps,” which he said would be insufficient to defuse the crisis. The Saudis were called in within a few hours of Gates’s departure, however, showing their disdain for his efforts to reach a negotiated solution. By acting so soon after Gates’s visit, Saudi Arabia has made the United States look at best irrelevant to events in Bahrain, and from the Shiite opposition’s point of view, even complicit in the Saudi military intervention.
The number of foreign troop is so far very small and should not make one iota of difference in Bahrain’s balance of power. The Bahraini military already total 30,000 troops, all of whom are Sunnis. They are under control of Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa and supposedly fully faithful to King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa. Bahrain also has a similar number of police and general security forces, mainly mercenaries from Baluchistan, Yemen, and Syria, reputed to be controlled by the prime minister and his followers in the family.
At this time, therefore, the Saudi intervention is largely a symbolic maneuver. It is so far not an effort to quell the unrest, but intended to scare the more extreme Shiite groups into allowing negotiations to go forward. The crown prince recently laid out six main issues to be discussed in talks, including the establishment of an elected parliament empowered to affect government policy, fairly demarcated electoral constituencies, steps to combat financial and administrative corruption, and moves to limit sectarian polarization. He notably failed to mention one of the opposition’s primary demands — the prime minister’s resignation.
The Saudi move, however, risks backfiring. It is extremely unlikely that the Saudi troops’ presence will entice moderate Shiite and Sunni opposition figures to come to the table — the intervention will force them to harden their position for fear of being seen as Saudi stooges. The demands of the more extreme groups, such as the Shiite al-Haq party, are also likely to increase prior to negotiations. These elements, having seen job opportunities go to foreign workers and political power dominated by the ruling family for decades, have grown steadily disenchanted with prospects of talks.
The crown prince is well aware that the Saudi intervention only makes a negotiated solution to this crisis more challenging, so it is difficult to imagine that he invited the Saudis into Bahrain. The more liberal Khalifas, such as the crown prince, know very well that the only way out of the crisis is to obtain the resignation of the prime minister and some of the more extreme Sunni ministers.
However, the prime minister — with whom Gates did not meet with during his weekend visit — does not appear to have any intention of resigning and is the most likely figure behind the invitation to the Saudis to intervene. Although details are still sketchy, he is likely joining with the Saudi king to pass the message to the United States that he is in charge and no one can tell him what to do. Furthermore, it signals that the Saudis agree with Bahrain’s conservatives that the Shiite must be reined in rather than negotiated with, even at the cost of telling the United States to kiss off.
The Saudi intervention may also have been precipitated by the deepening rift between the extreme Sunni elements and the liberal Khalifas. If the Saudis are indeed heading to Riffa, it is possible they are tasked with defending the Khalifa stronghold not so much against the Shiite rabble but against the Bahraini military, which is under the command of the crown prince. The Saudi intervention would therefore be an effort by the prime minister and the Saudis to pressure the crown prince into not giving in to the protesters’ demands and to fall in line with their plans to secure Bahrain as the personal fiefdom of the Khalifas and their tribal allies.
Whatever the case, the future appears bleak. The Saudi intervention will no doubt provoke a reaction from Iran, which will argue that their Shiite brothers are being systematically oppressed. Any troubles caused by Bahraini Shiites will only provoke further Saudi intervention. Ultimately, the island risks falling under de facto, if not de jure, Saudi control.
The Saudi intervention, however small, is therefore a major step backward for the region. It represents a major slap in the face to the United States, a defeat for the liberal Shiite and Sunni elements in Bahrain, and ultimately a catastrophe for the entire Khalifa family, both the liberal and conservative wings, who may have just surrendered their power to the giant next door.
Ultimately, this may also be a defeat for Saudi Arabia as well. The Saudis have long tried to avoid overt interventions in their neighbors’ affairs. They intervened once during the 1994 upheavals in Bahrain and in the past two years have been active on the Yemeni border — but under King Abdullah they have tried to arbitrate, rather than dominate, events on the Arabian Peninsula. Their decision to intervene directly in Bahrain’s affairs suggests a weakness in the Saudi leadership and Riyadh’s surrender to the more conservative elements in the country.
Source: Foreign Policy
U.S.-Saudi Tensions Intensify With Mideast Turmoil
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: March 14, 2011
RECOMMEND
TWITTER
E-MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE PAGE
REPRINTS
SHARE
¶ WASHINGTON — Even before Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain on Monday to quell an uprising it fears might spill across its own borders, American officials were increasingly concerned that the kingdom’s stability could ultimately be threatened by regional unrest, succession politics and its resistance to reform.
Related
Saudi Troops Enter Bahrain to Help Put Down Unrest (March 15, 2011)
Times Topic: Middle East Protests (2010-11)
Related in Opinion
ROOM FOR DEBATE
How Stable Is Saudi Arabia?
Can the monarchy defuse frustrations by doling out benefits or are pressures for reform mounting?
¶ So far, oil-rich Saudi Arabia has successfully stifled public protests with a combination of billions of dollars in new jobs programs and an overwhelming police presence, backed by warnings last week from the foreign minister to “cut any finger that crosses into the kingdom.”
¶ Monday’s action, in which more than 2,000 Saudi-led troops from gulf states crossed the narrow causeway into Bahrain, demonstrated that the Saudis were willing to back their threats with firepower.
¶ The move created another quandary for the Obama administration, which obliquely criticized the Saudi action without explicitly condemning the kingdom, its most important Arab ally. The criticism was another sign of strains in the historically close relationship with Riyadh, as the United States pushes the country to make greater reforms to avert unrest.
¶ Other symptoms of stress seem to be cropping up everywhere.
¶ Saudi officials have made no secret of their deep displeasure with how President Obama handled the ouster of the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, charging Washington with abandoning a longtime ally. They show little patience with American messages about embracing what Mr. Obama calls “universal values,” including peaceful protests.
When Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton were forced to cancel visits to the kingdom in recent days, American officials were left wondering whether the cause was King Abdullah’s frail health — or his pique at the United States.
¶ “They’re not in a mode for listening,” said one senior administration official, referring to the American exchanges with Saudi officials over the past two months about the need to get ahead of the protests that have engulfed other Arab states, including two of Saudi Arabia’s neighbors, Bahrain and Yemen. In recent days, Washington has tried to focus on the areas where its strategic interests and those of Saudi Arabia intersect most crucially: counterterrorism, containing Iran and keeping oil flowing.
¶ The Americans fear that the unrest sweeping the Middle East is coming at a bad time for the Saudis, and their concerns have increased in recent weeks, partly because of the continued tumult in Bahrain. Many of the issues driving the protests elsewhere are similar to those in Riyadh: an autocratic ruling family resistant to sharing power, surrounded by countries in the midst of upheaval. At the same time, Saudi Arabia’s leadership is in question. King Abdullah, 87, is, by all accounts, quite ill, as is the crown prince.
¶ The latest tensions between Washington and Riyadh began early in the crisis when King Abdullah told President Obama that it was vital for the United States to support Mr. Mubarak, even if he began shooting protesters. Mr. Obama ignored that counsel. “They’ve taken it personally,” said one senior American familiar with the conversations, “because they question what we’d do if they are next.”
¶ Since then, the American message to the Saudis, the official said, is that “no one can be immune,” and that the glacial pace of reforms that Saudi Arabia has been engaged in since 2003 must speed up.
¶ But the Saudi effort to defuse serious protests appears to take a different approach: a huge police presence, which smothered relatively small demonstrations in Riyadh and the Eastern Province last Friday; an appeal to the innate religious conservatism of the country; and an effort to throw more cash at Saudi citizens, who have become accustomed to the ultimate welfare state.
¶ This month, Prince Nayef bin Abdel Aziz, the interior minister and No. 2 in the line of succession, publicly underscored the kingdom’s ban on demonstrations. The government called in top Saudi newspaper editors to dictate how to report on protests foreign and domestic. The country’s senior religious clerics condemned public protestsfor not conforming with Islamic law. These steps built on $36 billion in pay raises, housing support, unemployment benefits and other subsidies that King Abdullah promised to keep the peace.
¶ “All this is about social control in Saudi Arabia,” said Christopher Boucek, who studies the Middle East at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “People have been forecasting the fall of Saudi for a long time, and they’ve always been proved wrong. It’s a pretty resilient place.”
One of President Obama’s top advisers described the moves as more in a series of “safety valves” the Saudis open when pressure builds; another called the subsidies “stimulus funds motivated by self-preservation.”
Related
Saudi Troops Enter Bahrain to Help Put Down Unrest (March 15, 2011)
Times Topic: Middle East Protests (2010-11)
Related in Opinion
ROOM FOR DEBATE
How Stable Is Saudi Arabia?
Can the monarchy defuse frustrations by doling out benefits or are pressures for reform mounting?
Saudi officials, who declined to comment for this article to avoid fueling talk of divisions between the allies, said that the tensions had been exaggerated and that Americans who criticized the pace of reforms did not fully appreciate the challenges of working in the kingdom’s ultraconservative society.
Even as Libya has occupied much of the public debate, White House officials have said they have been focused most intently on the two Arab allies whose fates are most tied to American strategic interests: Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In a briefing for reporters last Thursday, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, said that “the success of the democratic transformation under way in Egypt is absolutely critical,” and described his own conversations with its interim leadership. Mrs. Clinton will be visiting Cairo this week.
But Mr. Donilon, like other administration officials, said very little about the conversations they have held with Saudi leaders. Those have been strained in part by the slow-motion transition of power: King Abdullah, a popular monarch who just returned to the country after months of medical treatment in New York and Morocco, has been described by Saudi specialists as reform-minded but constrained by more conservative family members; the country’s next in line, Crown Prince Sultan, is also severely ill.
“We’ve focused on Nayef and a next generation, who seem to understand a lot better what’s got to happen,” said one American official, referring to the Saudi interior minister, whom some Saudi experts view as a conservative who would take the kingdom backward, while others say that is a misreading and that he is more aligned with members of the next generation of Saudi princes who favor reforms.
In a relationship where the United States hardly has the upper hand, so far the discussions have largely steered clear of democratization and focused on safer subjects : energy and foreign threats.
Saudi Arabia has helped stabilize world energy prices by increasing its crude-oil production to make up for the loss of Libya’s oil.
In the case of Bahrain, the senior official said, the administration’s goal has been to enlist the Saudis’ help to open up the Bahraini political system without overthrowing the government. Instead, the arrival of the Saudi-led troops underscored the approach advocated by Riyadh: Crack down and allow no room for dissent.
At a press briefing on Monday, the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, carefully avoided direct criticism of the Saudi-led entry of gulf forces into Bahrain, telling reporters that, in the view of the White House, “this is not an invasion of the a country.” But he added: “We’re calling on the Saudis, the other members of the G.C.C. countries, as well as the Bahraini government, to show restraint. And we believe that political dialogue is the way to address the unrest that has occurred in the region in Bahrain and in other countries, and not to, in any way, suppress it.”
Some officials say that in some ways the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia may grow closer, particularly on security and counterterrorism issues, where there has been increased cooperation in the months before the protests began in the Middle East.
John O. Brennan, President Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, speaks regularly with Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, his Saudi counterpart and the son of the interior minister, most recently last week about the political tumult in Yemen and the threat from Al Qaeda, an administration official said.
In the past several months, the Saudis have played a pivotal role in helping to thwart several terrorist plots. Prince Nayef alerted the Obama administration last October that bombs might be on cargo flights bound for the United States. A frantic search turned up two shipments containing printer cartridges packed with explosives, sent from Yemen by the Qaeda affiliate, and addressed to synagogues in Chicago.
The American military’s longstanding ties to the Saudi armed forces have also weathered the recent diplomatic tempest. More than 4,100 Saudi and American soldiers conducted a training exercise in northwestern Saudi Arabia last week.
Demonstrating to Iran that the Saudi-American alliance remains strong has emerged as a critical objective of the Obama administration. King Abdullah, who was widely quoted in the State Department cables released by WikiLeaks as warning that the United States had to “cut off the head of the snake” in Iran, has led the effort to contain Iran’s ambitions to become a major regional power. In the view of White House officials, any weakness or chaos inside Saudi Arabia would be exploited by Iran.
For that reason, several current and former senior American intelligence and regional experts warned that in the months ahead, the administration must proceed delicately when confronting the Saudis about social and political reforms.
”Over the years, the U.S.-Saudi relationship has been fraught with periods of tension over the strategic partnership,” said Ellen Laipson, president of the Stimson Center, a public policy organization. “Post-September 11 was one period, and the departure of Mubarak may be another, when they question whether we are fair-weather friends.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/middleeast/15saudi.html
White House Press Briefing By Jay Carney, March 14, 2011
http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/latest-national/22550-white-house-press-briefing-by-jay-carney-march-14-2011.html
Q Jay, I saw the statement this morning about Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and the other GCC countries, but if this is the case that you have Saudi Arabia sending its forces into Bahrain, isn’t that a gross violation of the sovereignty of another country?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we’re aware of those reports and that other GCC countries are considering doing that. We urge all of our GCC partners to show restraint and to respect the rights of the people of Bahrain, and to act in a way that supports dialogue instead of undermining it. The important factor here is that our overall principles apply to Bahrain and all the countries in the region, which is that we urge restraint. We urge nonviolence in response to nonviolent protesters; the respect for the universal rights of people in the region to gather peacefully, to voice their opinions, to have their grievances heard by their governments, and to have greater participation in the political process.
We have long believed and the President has expressed for a long time now that stability in the region will be brought about by dialogue and political reform. And it is counterproductive to that goal to in any way repress the expression of those desires that the people of Bahrain, in this case, and other countries, have.
Q Jay, that’s a very diplomatic way of saying that the U.S. is unhappy about what’s going on. But if another country, if Iran had decided to go into another country because they felt it was the right thing to do, what would the United States be saying? And I know it’s a hypothetical, but this appears to be pretty serious.
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I think you have to understand what — I mean, we’ve seen the reports that you’re talking about. This is not an invasion of a country.
Q Right, but there are security forces.
MR. CARNEY: It is — correct. And we urge the government of Bahrain, as we have repeatedly, as well as other GCC countries to exercise restraint, and not to meet the nonviolent protests of people legitimately expressing their concerns and asking to have their voices heard with any kind of physical violence. So we — that — we call on, again, the government of Bahrain as well as other countries in the region that — to hear this message.
Steve.
Q Did you get any advance warning that this was going to happen, the Saudis moving in?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have anything on that for you, Steve. As far as —
Q As far as you know — okay.
MR. CARNEY: I don’t know. I don’t have anything for you on that.
Q Are we calling on the Saudis to leave?
MR. CARNEY: We are calling on the Saudis, the other members of the GCC countries, as well as the Bahraini government, to show restraint; and that we believe that political dialogue is the way to address the unrest that has occurred in the region, in Bahrain and in other countries, and not to in any way suppress it.
Yes.
Q Over the weekend you sent out a statement responding to the Arab League’s endorsement of a no-fly zone, but you didn’t obviously indicate whether the United States supports that or not. Knowing that all options are still on the table, isn’t it approaching a situation where it might be too little, too late, in Libya to enact this no-fly zone?
MR. CARNEY: As you know, we have discussions going on at the United Nations in New York regarding various options, military options, as well as non-military, and specifically a no-fly zone option. We have, as you know, tomorrow and then Wednesday at NATO, a process by which the plans that were being reviewed and refined that address a no-fly option will be presented to the NAC on Wednesday. And so we are, as we have said, constantly reviewing our options, refining our options, and this process is moving along.
The situation in Libya — we continue to condemn the use of violence against the Libyan people by the Qaddafi regime, and we are encouraged by the international condemnation of that and by the actions taken by the Arab League, for example, because we believe that whatever actions we do take should be international and especially should represent the will of the people in the region and the countries in the region. And that’s why the Arab League’s voice on this is so important.
Q Knowing that you are — could potentially be — could be moving forward on this this week, but doesn’t that — there’s been some voiced concern from foreign counterparts that that might nullify the goal of a no-fly zone, to enact it a little too late. Is there no concern —
MR. CARNEY: Well, Sunlen, again, I would say that the — to go back to things we’ve talked about last week, the speed of the international reaction here has been quite remarkable and we are not letting up on our pressure, as the President made clear on Friday. I would note that, as you probably know, Secretary Clinton is in Paris where she will meet with opposition leaders, Libyan opposition leaders, as well as G8 counterparts to discuss some of these issues.
So we are moving with a great deal of haste and in coordination with our international partners, again with the kind of deliberation and speed that the situation requires, mindful of the fact that the decisions we’re talking about here are significant ones and need to be made with everyone’s eyes open to what they mean and what the goals are — and I mean that with regard to a variety of possible options.
Chip.
Q Jay, following up on the no-fly zone, my understanding is there are now about five ships off the coast of Libya, three U.S. submarines off the coast, presumably with cruise missiles, plus you’ve got plenty of NATO aircraft at bases in the vicinity. Is the hardware now in place where if the President and other leaders were to give the order, that they could pull the trigger on a no-fly zone right now?
MR. CARNEY: Chip, what I would say, first of all, for the technical requirements to impose a no-fly zone, I would refer you to NATO, to the Defense Department. But what I think Secretary Gates has made clear and others have made clear is that this has never been a case about what our capabilities are. Obviously the United States of America has the capacity with its international partners to engage — activate a no-fly zone, as well as take a variety of other potential measures.
The issue is making sure that the policy decisions we make, we make collectively with our international partners, because it is very important that the response be an international one and not just an American one, and that we are cognizant of what the goals are and whether they’re achievable, and what the impacts of that decision will be.
Q But there’s no big lag period? If they decide Tuesday, Wednesday to —
MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t have specifics on what technical requirements have to be met in order to begin to implement an option like that. I would refer you to NATO probably for that.
Q Just one more question. Following up on Ben’s when he asked you about the global economic impact here, you basically responded with your confidence in the resiliency of Japan. But even if Japan does respond as well as could possibly be expected, this could still have a significant effect on the global economy. In discussions back there that you’ve been a part of or are aware of, have you heard economic advisors for the administration suggest that what could happen here is the same thing that happened last year with the Greek crisis, delaying the economic recovery? Could this have that same kind of effect on the economic recovery again?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I would just say, Chip, that these are still early days, but that we remain confident that Japan and, therefore, the world can deal with this crisis and respond and rebuild in a way that is good for Japan and good for the world. So we have that confidence and we therefore believe that — the resiliency of the Japanese people, the resiliency of the Japanese economy are very important factors in the capacity of Japan to handle this, and therefore the world working with Japan to handle it as well.
Q The recovery is safe?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I would just refer you to what I said.
Q A quick one on the gun laws. President Obama wrote an op-ed over the weekend and he said, “None of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.” So the question is what is the administration prepared to do actively, to actively support legislation-wise? For instance, Representative McCarthy’s bill to ban high-round magazines — is that something that the President or administration officials will come out in support for?
MR. CARNEY: Well, what I’ve said in the past still holds, which we will review proposed legislation as it comes up. I don’t have any announcements for what we would support. But I would also say that the Department of Justice has reached out to stakeholders on all sides of this issue and they’re going to be holding a series of discussions as a first step, and that some of those meetings are happening this week.
So we are — the President made his views known in the op-ed that you referred to. And the Department of Justice is continuing this process by meeting with stakeholders on all sides of the issue to look at ways that we can find common ground to take some common-sense measures that respect Americans’ Second Amendment rights, but also deal in a common-sense way with Americans’ safety and security.
Q So the administration wouldn’t put forth legislation on its own or spearhead a plan?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t want to speculate about what we may or may not do legislatively, except to say that we are engaged in this process.
Yes, Carol.
Q Sort of on what Chip was talking about, is there — how much aid is the United States willing to give to Japan? And have there been discussions in the administration about financial assistance and what that amount might look like? Have the Japanese made any specific requests?
MR. CARNEY: I think we are now in the phase of dealing with the immediate crisis, and we are offering any and all assistance that we can provide that the Japanese request and need to help them deal with it. They are a very close ally and we stand ready to assist them in any way that we can. Long term, obviously, we’ll have to evaluate what the needs are and how we can help. But we’re committed to helping Japan recover from this.
Q Have there been any discussions about that internally, in terms of what —
MR. CARNEY: Not that I’m aware of, because we are literally dealing with the aftermath, the considerable aftermath of a terrible situation caused by this earthquake and tsunami.
Q Just one quick thing on education — and obviously that’s an area where the White House sees room for compromise and bipartisanship — would you consider Race to the Top an area where you have consensus? Or is that an area where the White House thinks that they might need to do some work in order to get consensus?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we are consulting with our partners on Capitol Hill of both parties on education reform regularly. And Race to the Top already has received a great deal of bipartisan support. We think it’s been a very effective program and a good model for education reform. And we expect that bipartisan support to continue — which doesn’t mean we take it for granted. And in the process of improving the law, we’ll be working with Republicans and Democrats going forward, but we do expect it to happen this year.
Yes, sir.
Q Jay, on a funding bill, does it look to the White House as though you will get a three-week extension before the end of the week?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t want to put timing on it, Mark. But we — the cuts that have been outlined in that temporary measure are ones that we have already identified as acceptable. So we believe that we should be able to get something done. But again, we are focused on the process of achieving a resolution for the full fiscal year. Those conversations and negotiations are ongoing and that is our primary focus.
As the President said on Friday, because of the time it took to allow the process in the Senate to take place where the Senate voted on the Republican measure that emerged from the House and the Senate Democratic measure, it became necessary to give us the breathing space to negotiate the final CR for the fiscal year. But that remains our focus. And we remain absolutely committed to the idea that we need to get this done, last year’s business done as soon as possible so we can focus on some of these other big challenges that we face.
Q And Vice President Biden will be taking the lead on that now that he’s back from Europe?
MR. CARNEY: Well, this is a team effort. Vice President Biden is back from his trip and I’m sure he will be very much engaged in that process going forward.
Peter.
Q Thank you, Jay. If the U.S. wants — believes that the legitimate grievances of Bahraini people need to be met, why not call upon Saudi forces to withdraw?
MR. CARNEY: Peter, I don’t have anything more for you on that. We are calling on the countries in the region to show restraint and pointing to the fact that the dialogue that can bring about political reform is essential for the stability of the countries in the region and their continued economic prosperity. Because we believe, as the President has said going back to his speech in Cairo, that it is — the unrest that we have seen is a result of the lack of dialogue and the lack of engagement with the peoples in the region in their governments and in the political process.
Q And also, you mentioned in Egypt that the — Mubarak was on this wrong side of history. Is that Bahraini monarchy also on the wrong side of history?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we have called on the Bahraini government to — as we have others in the region — to have a dialogue with their people, to listen to their grievances, to adopt political reforms, to respect the universal rights of their people. And I think, broadly speaking, in the countries of the region, the leaders in the region will be judged by how they deal with this process. And we think it’s important for the future of the region, for the peoples in these countries, that their voices be heard and their legitimate aspirations be addressed.
April.
Q Going back to the op-ed of President Obama on gun control — the President talked about the mental competency of the gunman in Arizona, how he could not get into the U.S. military, how he could not get into a college, but yet he still purchased a gun. Is that President looking at any — what kind of ways does the President want there to be issues of judging mental competency in purchasing a gun? Or is that something that he’s looking for in anything — any gun control measures that come along?
MR. CARNEY: That level of specificity, I don’t have, April. But I think that his point that he’s making is that we can honor our Second Amendment rights while still ensuring that, as you noted, that someone with a criminal record shouldn’t be able to check out a gun seller; that an unbalanced man shouldn’t be able to buy a gun so easily. I mean, there is room for us to have reasonable laws that uphold liberty, ensure citizen safety, respect the Second Amendment, and that we should be able to find some common ground on some of those measures. I don’t want to detail what those measures are or what he has in mind, specifically. The conversations are beginning along those lines at the Department of Justice.
Q Do conversations include gun shows, purchases at gun shows?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I don’t have — I don’t want to narrowly define specific measures that may or may not be proposed. We’re looking at possible legislation and we’re having conversations with stakeholders on all sides of the issue.
Chris.
Q Thanks, Jay. I have some questions for you on marriage. Last week, the Maryland statehouse recommitted a bill legalizing same-sex marriage to committee because proponents didn’t feel like they had enough votes for passage. The measure is effectively dead for this year even though Democrats have control of the chamber. By not supporting same-sex marriage, is the President, as head of the Democratic Party, giving cover to Democrats in that chamber who don’t support the bill?
MR. CARNEY: Chris, the President’s position on gay marriage is well known. He addressed this in December at the press conference and I don’t have anything new for you on that.
Q So is the President not concerned that this measure failed to progress in that chamber?
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have anything for you on that either.
Q One last question, one last question. The proponents of this bill said they’re going to try again in 2012. You said he’s grappling with the issue of same-sex marriage. The President said he’s wrestling with it. Is he going to pin down support for marriage equality and make an announcement before next year in time for these efforts —
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have any timing for you on that either.
Yes.
Q Moroccan King has delivered a speech in which the government will change the reform (inaudible) constitution to give more power for the prime minister and lose more freedom. So does the White House have any comments on Morocco speech?
MR. CARNEY: I’m not sure if we have anything specifically on that. We encourage political reforms that liberalize the governments there, that allow for greater participation and representative government, and that applies across the region.
Q Jay, I have two questions, one a follow-up. Is it safe to assume that the GCC countries have not coordinated or informed the United States about their move to enter Bahrain, considering that they’re close allies of the United States? And second, the Turkish Prime Minister said that it’s counterproductive to have military intervention in Libya by NATO or any other country. Does this complicate your effort or all-options-on-the-table kind of approach?
MR. CARNEY: Regarding the no-fly zone and other options, nothing has changed since I last addressed this question five minutes or so ago. So the — and with regards to Bahrain, we’ve made clear that we call on the nations in the region to show restraint and to honor the peaceful protestors by not using force against them. We make that — call on the Bahraini government and the GCC countries as well.
Q So they haven’t informed you? You don’t know anything —
MR. CARNEY: I don’t have anything on that.
Yes.
Saudi/Gulf States Military Assistance To Bahrain Had Approval Of White House?
March 14, 2011 – San Francisco, CA – PipeLineNews.org – Over the past few days a relatively small Gulf State military force, led by Saudi Arabia has entered Bahrain, intending to quell the increasing unrest in the country primarily led by its Shia majority. The force is apparently there with the blessing of Bahrain’s ruling monarchy.
So far the WH has been mum on the troop movement.
The latest out of the State Dept. was a formulaic statement issued by the now departed P.J. Crowley, “The United States is very concerned by recent violence surrounding protests in Bahrain. We have received confirmation that two protesters in Bahrain were recently killed, and offer our condolences to the families and friends of the two individuals who lost their lives. The United States welcomes the Government of Bahrain’s statements that it will investigate these deaths, and that it will take legal action against any unjustified use of force by Bahraini security forces. We urge that it follow through on these statements as quickly as possible. We also call on all parties to exercise restraint and refrain from violence.” [source, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/02/156626.htm%5D
Bahrain occupies a strategic location in the Middle East, lying just off the East coast of Saudi Arabia in the Persian Gulf.
To its East is Iran, less than 400 km away.
More importantly, Manama, Bahrain [its capital, with a population of less than 200,000] is the home of the United States Fifth Fleet, more properly The U.S. Naval Forces Central Command U.S. Fifth Fleet Combined Maritime Forces, which has maintained a presence [though not of the current dimensions] in the country since 1949, when it was still under British control.
In 2010 the Navy started an ambitious half-billion dollar program to double the size of the installation. The project is slated for completion in 2013.
The Fifth Fleet has a substantial ability to project force. Last year CentCom established a policy whereby 2 aircraft carrier strike groups be maintained within the fleet, at least 9 months out of the year [see, Navy Times, http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/03/navy-2-carrier-requirement-for5th- fleet_030111w/]. Currently on duty are the Enterprise and Carl Vinson carrier strike groups.
The following is purely conjecture, but with this level of national commitment to the tiny but strategically located nation, it defies logic that the WH and the defense establishment would not be in full, if only privately expressed, support for the limited Saudi/Gulf force presence in the country.
Given Iran’s constant threats and saber rattling, it’s very difficult to believe that the U.S. isn’t doing everything in its power to prevent Iran from wielding any more influence in the country via Bahrain’s Shia majority which are ethnically of Persian, not Arabic descent.
http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=bahrain3142011102.htm
This is very sad what is happening in Bahrain.
U.S.-Saudi Tensions Intensify With Mideast Turmoil
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON — Even before Saudi Arabia sent troops into Bahrain on Monday to quell an uprising it fears might spill across its own borders, American officials were increasingly concerned that the kingdom’s stability could ultimately be threatened by regional unrest, succession politics and its resistance to reform.
So far, oil-rich Saudi Arabia has successfully stifled public protests with a combination of billions of dollars in new jobs programs and an overwhelming police presence, backed by warnings last week from the foreign minister to “cut any finger that crosses into the kingdom.”
Monday’s action, in which more than 2,000 Saudi-led troops from gulf states crossed the narrow causeway into Bahrain, demonstrated that the Saudis were willing to back their threats with firepower.
The move created another quandary for the Obama administration, which obliquely criticized the Saudi action without explicitly condemning the kingdom, its most important Arab ally. The criticism was another sign of strains in the historically close relationship with Riyadh, as the United States pushes the country to make greater reforms to avert unrest.
Other symptoms of stress seem to be cropping up everywhere.
Saudi officials have made no secret of their deep displeasure with how President Obama handled the ouster of the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, charging Washington with abandoning a longtime ally. They show little patience with American messages about embracing what Mr. Obama calls “universal values,” including peaceful protests.
When Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton were forced to cancel visits to the kingdom in recent days, American officials were left wondering whether the cause was King Abdullah’s frail health — or his pique at the United States.
“They’re not in a mode for listening,” said one senior administration official, referring to the American exchanges with Saudi officials over the past two months about the need to get ahead of the protests that have engulfed other Arab states, including two of Saudi Arabia’s neighbors, Bahrain and Yemen. In recent days, Washington has tried to focus on the areas where its strategic interests and those of Saudi Arabia intersect most crucially: counterterrorism, containing Iran and keeping oil flowing.
The Americans fear that the unrest sweeping the Middle East is coming at a bad time for the Saudis, and their concerns have increased in recent weeks, partly because of the continued tumult in Bahrain. Many of the issues driving the protests elsewhere are similar to those in Riyadh: an autocratic ruling family resistant to sharing power, surrounded by countries in the midst of upheaval. At the same time, Saudi Arabia’s leadership is in question. King Abdullah, 87, is, by all accounts, quite ill, as is the crown prince.
The latest tensions between Washington and Riyadh began early in the crisis when King Abdullah told President Obama that it was vital for the United States to support Mr. Mubarak, even if he began shooting protesters. Mr. Obama ignored that counsel. “They’ve taken it personally,” said one senior American familiar with the conversations, “because they question what we’d do if they are next.”
Since then, the American message to the Saudis, the official said, is that “no one can be immune,” and that the glacial pace of reforms that Saudi Arabia has been engaged in since 2003 must speed up.
But the Saudi effort to defuse serious protests appears to take a different approach: a huge police presence, which smothered relatively small demonstrations in Riyadh and the Eastern Province last Friday; an appeal to the innate religious conservatism of the country; and an effort to throw more cash at Saudi citizens, who have become accustomed to the ultimate welfare state.
This month, Prince Nayef bin Abdel Aziz, the interior minister and No. 2 in the line of succession, publicly underscored the kingdom’s ban on demonstrations. The government called in top Saudi newspaper editors to dictate how to report on protests foreign and domestic. The country’s senior religious clerics condemned public protests for not conforming to Islamic law. These steps built on $36 billion in pay raises, housing support, unemployment benefits and other subsidies that King Abdullah promised to keep the peace.
“All this is about social control in Saudi Arabia,” said Christopher Boucek, who studies the Middle East at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “People have been forecasting the fall of Saudi for a long time, and they’ve always been proved wrong. It’s a pretty resilient place.”
One of President Obama’s top advisers described the moves as more in a series of “safety valves” the Saudis open when pressure builds; another called the subsidies “stimulus funds motivated by self-preservation.”
Saudi officials, who declined to comment for this article to avoid fueling talk of divisions between the allies, said that the tensions had been exaggerated and that Americans who criticized the pace of reforms did not fully appreciate the challenges of working in the kingdom’s ultraconservative society.
Even as Libya has occupied much of the public debate, White House officials have said they have been focused most intently on the two Arab allies whose fates are most tied to American strategic interests: Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In a briefing for reporters last Thursday, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, said that “the success of the democratic transformation under way in Egypt is absolutely critical,” and described his own conversations with its interim leadership. Mrs. Clinton will be visiting Cairo this week.
But Mr. Donilon, like other administration officials, said very little about the conversations they have held with Saudi leaders. Those have been strained in part by the slow-motion transition of power: King Abdullah, a popular monarch who just returned to the country after months of medical treatment in New York and Morocco, has been described by Saudi specialists as reform-minded but constrained by more conservative family members; the country’s next in line, Crown Prince Sultan, is also severely ill.
“We’ve focused on Nayef and a next generation, who seem to understand a lot better what’s got to happen,” said one American official, referring to the Saudi interior minister, whom some Saudi experts view as a conservative who would take the kingdom backward, while others say that is a misreading and that he is more aligned with members of the next generation of Saudi princes who favor reforms.
In a relationship where the United States hardly has the upper hand, so far the discussions have largely steered clear of democratization and focused on safer subjects: energy and foreign threats.
Saudi Arabia has helped stabilize world energy prices by increasing its crude-oil production to make up for the loss of Libya’s oil.
In the case of Bahrain, the senior official said, the administration’s goal has been to enlist the Saudis’ help to open up the Bahraini political system without overthrowing the government. Instead, the arrival of the Saudi-led troops underscored the approach advocated by Riyadh: Crack down and allow no room for dissent.
At a press briefing on Monday, the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, carefully avoided direct criticism of the Saudi-led entry of gulf forces into Bahrain, telling reporters that, in the view of the White House, “this is not an invasion of the a country.” But he added: “We’re calling on the Saudis, the other members of the G.C.C. countries, as well as the Bahraini government, to show restraint. And we believe that political dialogue is the way to address the unrest that has occurred in the region in Bahrain and in other countries, and not to, in any way, suppress it.”
Some officials say that in some ways the relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia may grow closer, particularly on security and counterterrorism issues, where there has been increased cooperation in the months before the protests began in the Middle East.
John O. Brennan, President Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, speaks regularly with Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, his Saudi counterpart and the son of the interior minister, most recently last week about the political tumult in Yemen and the threat from Al Qaeda, an administration official said.
In the past several months, the Saudis have played a pivotal role in helping to thwart several terrorist plots. Prince Nayef alerted the Obama administration last October that bombs might be on cargo flights bound for the United States. A frantic search turned up two shipments containing printer cartridges packed with explosives, sent from Yemen by a Qaeda affiliate, and addressed to synagogues in Chicago.
The American military’s longstanding ties to the Saudi armed forces have also weathered the recent diplomatic tempest. More than 4,100 Saudi and American soldiers conducted a training exercise in northwestern Saudi Arabia last week.
Demonstrating to Iran that the Saudi-American alliance remains strong has emerged as a critical objective of the Obama administration. King Abdullah, who was widely quoted in the State Department cables released by WikiLeaks as warning that the United States had to “cut off the head of the snake” in Iran, has led the effort to contain Iran’s ambitions to become a major regional power. In the view of White House officials, any weakness or chaos inside Saudi Arabia would be exploited by Iran.
For that reason, several current and former senior American intelligence and regional experts warned that in the months ahead, the administration must proceed delicately when confronting the Saudis about social and political reforms.
”Over the years, the U.S.-Saudi relationship has been fraught with periods of tension over the strategic partnership,” said Ellen Laipson, president of the Stimson Center, a public policy organization. “Post-September 11 was one period, and the departure of Mubarak may be another, when they question whether we are fair-weather friends.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/middleeast/15saudi.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
There are 4,500 USA troops in Bahrain at this very moment (sitting idle) and they could put their hats on, walk straight down the road, and stop those Saudi tanks just like that.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/170076.html
Very informative article and discussion, I was not interested in Arab’s politics of religion but now it illustrates that how Wahabi Arabs had converted Shia population in minority by exporting Suni/Wahabis from Muslim countries. They are and were exporting people not only for their security but they had to convert themselves in majority.
This awful but veiled invasion of Bahrain through 10,000 Arab hooligans is not more lucrative issue of our Umma affixed media, civil society and right wing politicians.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
This is very sad and whoever wants to see fresh innocent civillion killing videos in Bahrain, please see at my Facebook wall 8 uploaded fresh videos which is open for every one.
Facebook I’d: [email protected]
The most sad thing media and human rights are silent, Asian channel and other European and English channel not covering these news due to the government authorities also they are not giving the real news whatever government providing update same they are showing on the media which is not true.
Thank you!
Abdul Nishapuri
You are a disgrace for PPP. Resign now.
It is heartbreaking to see a renegade country like Libya shoot pro-democracy protesters. But it’s even more wrenching to watch America’s ally, Bahrain, pull a Qaddafi and use American tanks, guns and tear gas as well as foreign mercenaries to crush a pro-democracy movement — as we stay mostly silent.
In Bahrain in recent weeks, I’ve seen corpses of protesters who were shot at close range, seen a teenage girl writhing in pain after being clubbed, seen ambulance workers beaten for trying to rescue protesters — and in the last few days it has gotten much worse. Saudi Arabia, in a slap at American efforts to defuse the crisis, dispatched troops to Bahrain to help crush the protesters. The result is five more deaths, by the count of The Associated Press.
One video from Bahrain appears to show security forces shooting an unarmed middle-aged man in the chest with a tear gas canister at a range of a few feet. The man collapses and struggles to get up. And then they shoot him with a canister in the head. Amazingly, he survived.
Today the United States is in a vise — caught between our allies and our values. And the problem with our pal Bahrain is not just that it is shooting protesters but also that it is something like an apartheid state. Sunni Muslims rule the country, and now they are systematically trying to crush an overwhelmingly Shiite protest movement.
My New York Times colleague Michael Slackman was caught by Bahrain security forces a few weeks ago. He said that they pointed shotguns at him and that he was afraid they were about to shoot when he pulled out his passport and shouted that he was an American journalist. Then, he says, the mood changed abruptly and the leader of the group came over and took Mr. Slackman’s hand, saying warmly: “Don’t worry! We love Americans!”
“We’re not after you. We’re after Shia,” the policeman added. Mr. Slackman recalls: “It sounded like they were hunting rats.”
All this is tragic because the ruling al-Khalifa family can be justly proud of what it has built in Bahrain, including a prosperous and dynamic society, a highly educated work force and a society in which women are far better off than next door in Saudi Arabia. On a good day, Bahrain feels like an oasis of moderation in a tough region.
Yet you can parachute blindfolded into almost any neighborhood in Bahrain and tell immediately whether it is Sunni or Shiite. The former enjoy better roads and public services. And it’s almost impossible for Shiites to be hired by the army or police. Doesn’t that sound like an echo of apartheid?
It is true that Bahrain’s protesters have behaved in ways that have undermined their cause. They frequently chant “Death to al-Khalifa” — a toxic slogan that should offend everyone. And some protesters have targeted Pakistanis and other South Asians who often work for security services.
This slide toward radicalization and violence was unnecessary. The king could have met some of the protesters’ demands — such as fire the prime minister and move to a Jordanian- or Moroccan-style constitutional monarchy. Most protesters would have accepted such a compromise. Instead, the royal family talked about dialogue but didn’t make meaningful concessions, and the security forces remain almost as brutal as any in the region.
I wrote a few weeks ago about a distinguished plastic surgeon, Sadiq al-Ekri, who had been bludgeoned by security forces. At the time, I couldn’t interview Dr. Ekri because he was unconscious. But I later returned and was able to talk to him, and his story offers a glimpse into Bahrain’s tragedy.
Dr. Ekri is a moderate Shiite who said his best friend is a Sunni. Indeed, Dr. Ekri recently took several weeks off work to escort this friend to Houston for medical treatment. When Bahrain’s security forces attacked protesters, Dr. Ekri tried to help the injured. He said he was trying to rescue a baby abandoned in the melee when police handcuffed him. Even after they knew his identity, he said they clubbed him so hard that they broke his nose. Then, he said, they pulled down his pants and threatened to rape him — all while cursing Shiites.
The Arab democracy spring that begun with such exhilaration in Tunisia and Egypt is now enduring a brutal winter in Libya, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. The United States bases the Navy’s Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, and we have close relations with the Bahraini government. We’re not going to pull out our naval base.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton rightly deplored the violence in Bahrain, and the administration as a whole should speak out forcefully. If the brave women and men demanding democracy in Bahrain have the courage to speak out, we should do so as well.
Bahrain Pulls a Qaddafi
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: March 16, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/opinion/17kristof.html?_r=1
As Bahrain arrests the opposition leaders, no one is left for dialogue
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/as-bahrain-arrests-the-opposition-leaders-no-one-is-left-for-dialogue/2011/03/17/ABhiJ6m_story.html
The footage that reveals the brutal truth about Bahrain’s crackdown
Seven protest leaders arrested as video clip highlights regime’s ruthless grip on power
By Patrick Cockburn
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-footage-that-reveals-the-brutal-truth-about-bahrains-crackdown-2245364.html
UN condemns crackdown in Bahrain
Anne Barker reported this story on Friday, March 18, 2011
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3167675.htm
Iraqis protest against crackdown on Shiites in Bahrain
From Mohammed Tawfeeq, CNN
March 18, 2011
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/17/iraq.bahrain.sectarian.tension/
Iraqi lawmakers support protests in Bahrain
English.news.cn 2011-03-18 0
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-03/18/c_13784594.htm
Bahrain’s king as a royal wedding guest? What an dreadful message
Being ‘royal’ doesn’t stop you being a violent dictator. Why are such people receiving invitations to Prince William’s wedding?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/17/bahrain-king-royal-wedding
Hospitals and medics attacked in Bahrain crackdown
Hugh Tomlinson From: The Times March 18, 2011
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hospitals-and-medics-attacked-in-bahrain-crackdown/story-fn7ycml4-1226023773697
U.N. rights boss urges Bahrain to rein in forces
By Stephanie Nebehay
GENEVA | Thu Mar 17,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/us-bahrain-un-rights-idUSTRE72G24F20110317
Thanks for the useful information on credit repair on your blog. What I would tell people should be to give up the particular mentality that they’ll buy at this moment and pay back later. As being a society all of us tend to do this for many things. This includes family vacations, furniture, and also items we would like. However, you need to separate your wants from the needs. When you’re working to improve your credit rating score you really have to make some trade-offs. For example you’ll be able to shop online to save money or you can click on second hand suppliers instead of highly-priced department stores for clothing.