So, like you all, I hadn't really heard much about Bahrain prior to their uprising in the wake of the Tunisian revolution, and it has gotten far less attention than Libya or Egypt, because after some initial turbulance, it had been generally peaceful.
However, recent crackdowns by the police broke all that, and through the mechanisms of a military alliance known as the GCC:
And as such, Saudi Arabia is sending 1000 troops to Bahrain to quell the uprising, the UAE 500. This is being done on the grouds that the GCC military alliance, initially set up in the wake of the Iran/Iraq war to protect against foreign threats, can be used to protect against domestic threats to stability as well. Essentially, Saudi Arabia has a military mechanism through which it can enforce hegemony in the region, in the name of security, when any of its puppet allies get threatened. An equivalent would be, say, if Greece had asked America to send in a unit of soldiers to quell its protests under the NATO convention, and America had done so, because it supported to policy leanings of the leader over their people.
So, its hard to say bad things about the Saudi guy, but that is only because he doesn't come off like a lunatic. The jist of what he is saying is that, whenever popular revolt threatens a nation, the leader has a right to quell it, in fact, Saudi Arabia has a right to quell a revolt in a neighbouring nation, because it is unstable. This is clearly anti-democratic, etc. He obviously isn't an extremist, but he strikes me as a very well selected foreign ambasador for the Saudi state (I mean metaphoricly) who knows he is going to be speaking to a Western, English speaking audience. His position is as oppressive as any type of authoritarianism, he just knows how to look like he isn't an evil person.
I think it is very strange that he says people in the Gulf states deserve political reform, yet he is in total favor of internaitonal military action against those who are doing the only thing possible to achieve that. at the 14-16min mark, he gets wtfpwnd by the Bahraini guest.
There seems to be a general cold war mentality in the decision makers at the head of the Saudi state. They see Iranian hands in everything, and the idea of a Shia majority nation on its doorstep terrifies them, because they think it will become a proxy for Iran. However, this sort of fails to take into account that the protests themselves aren't making sectarian demands, a truly democratic Bahrain is not going to support Iran, and Iran wouldn't have the same military option to enforce any hegemony within Bahrain as the Saudis do, or as Iran does in Iraq. By extension, Iran has no way to defend Bahrain against Saudi influence.
This does give interesting perspective to the Iranian nuclear program. It seems, pragmaticly at least, that they would be far more likely to use it as a way to spread influence across the Gulf than to attack Israel. Also, Wikileaks revealed a huge number of cables where the GCC states were urging immediate military strikes against Iran...
is this oportunism on the king of Bahrain's part, or some calculation by the saudis, and does it matter? set precidence?
If the world doesn't step in now, which I don't even know if they should, does this justify the use of foreign military force to protect dictators? Could the Americans use this to justify sending troops into nato allied nations that might be at risk of being overturned by public action? could they request intervention, or even buy it from security companies (ok, now I'm stretching, but whatever), to deal with their own domestic protests, like those in WI, legitimately, citing this as precedence in international treaty law?
America seems against it, but what are they going to do to stop the Saudis?
At least they aren't saying something like "The GCC is a legitimate alliance network with the right to set its own mandate... etc", so hopefully I'm just being paranoid above.
Still, not taking any action to chastize the Saudi's sets precident that they are allowed to interviene in neighbouring nations, even if it is against unarmed civilians.
Anyways, this kind of thing is unprecedented. Even the Americans had to use people like Oliver North to stop citizen lead movements in neighbouring countries (I guess not if you ask Smedly Butler, so maybe this isn't all that unprecedented... It is for the modern world, or at least that region). Anyways, I just think this could have enormous implications for the region. Saudi Arabia sort of acts with impunity because of its American shield, and if there are going to start militarily dominating the region... errr...
though, I can't say, given something like the GCC, this would necessarily be any different than what exists now
So, my questions:
Is America going to do anything to chastize the Saudis? remember, this is the same America who gave nuclear material to the Saudis in exchange for oil.
Does this spell doom for any revolt in the gulf/peninsula region? Could the Saudis use this as a stepping stone to increase influence in non-GCC (also not Yemen) nations (I mean like Jordon or Lebanon or Iraq, where there has also been protest [though, who the **** wants to go to Iraq...])? If protests continue in Saudi Arabia itself, can the world condemn then for using force against those demonstrations if they have allowed it in this context?
What about the UAE? they sent 500 troops, and they are a huge American ally, often touted as a pro-western beacon of Arab world secular prosperity [sic]
Does it serve any purpose for Iran to try and influence the outcome of this conflict?
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
I think this is all apart of the liberal left's agenda to take over America.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
nope, they will just back out of the security resolutions, rather than vetoing them and standing up to American power. They don't want to challenge American military operations, because they want the freedom to do the same, re: Georgia.
It is very sad how Global Politics are still in that Melian Dialogue jazz where there's a tacit agreement among the major powers that they can do whatever the **** they want provided they don't mess with one another's affairs.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
A lot of what's happening in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc is less about "change and freedom" and more of the old Shiite/Sunni thig. It's basically the same as Northern Ireland in the 70s and Yugoslavia in the 90s.
__________________ There are more humans in the world than rats.
It becomes really clear in an issue like Libya. Both Russia and China were against involvement, but instead of making a stand that would have prevented this international justification for the violence, they let it go. I'm assuming it is so that America doesn't say much about central Asia, same with China only with its influence in SE Asia/Tibet.
Its even weirder, where nations like Brazil and India, newcomers to the global state, or Germany, a long-standing western ally, wont vote "no" to a security council resolution they don't agree with, even though they don't have veto. Its like, even being seen as opposing would be bad for international relations among the "big players", even if that opposition would only be a formality.
thats how it is playing out. The protesters themselves seemed to be beyond the sunni/shia thing. The People & Power video above talks about this in more detail.
However, yes, the way the international community is dealing with it is "sunni/shia", namely because this supports the narrative of defending against Iran, supporting the Saudis, and alienates the goals of the people themselves.
EDIT: it also allows media agencies in the west to cover the issue without ever needing to inform their viewers about anything
hey, I know this is a bit of a rant space for me, but to anyone reading this, if you find anything that appears to have credible information about Iranian involvement in the Bahraini protests (or those going on in Eastern Saudi Arabia), please, please, please post it.
Most people talking about the issue (STRATFOR for instance) seem to state it without question, but I have yet to see a single shred of evidence, at all, that they are involved. Its actually not something that would surprise me, I just don't want to take anyone's word for it. I've done the Google thing and come up blank....
KMC Community Forums
Mar 17th, 2011 12:29 AM
