Not on Clinton's Radar: As in Egypt, the Obama administration missed the degree of rage inspiring public sentiment against the Bahraini dictatorship of King Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa and the longest-serving prime minister in the world, Khalifa ibn Salman Al Khalifa, in power since 1971. (John Moore/Getty Images)
It looks like Hillary Clinton has been taking classes at the Baghdad Bob Academy of Crisis Management.
You remember the charming and beloved Bob, more prosaically known as Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, and somewhat more disturbingly so as Saddam Hussein's old minister of information: He's the guy who, even as American Abrams tanks were snorting around the Iraqi capital, was assuring the world's cameras that "There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!"
Clinton has a few BB moments during the 18 days of the recent Egyptian revolution, when, like her boss, she seemed to think Hosni Mubarak a perfectly acceptable choice as Egypt's dictator and transition man until presumed elections in September. Clinton had a more explicit BB moment last Dec. 3 that suddenly has more relevance, given the state-sanctioned bloodletting on Pearl Square in Bahrain this week. Clinton was having a sit-down with locals at Bahrain's National Museum in Manama, the nation's capital (the State Department's word assassins called it a "townterview" hosted by Bahrain TV). Bahrainis aren't known for being softball buffs. The host pitched her one anyway.
"I know you touched upon the parliamentary elections a minute ago, but how do you see that as contributing to our democratization process here in the kingdom?"
Clinton swung like she was Bill: "I think that the commitment to democracy is paramount and I've heard that from a broad range of your leaders and your citizens," she said. "There seems to be a strong broadly-held commitment to democracy."
One of those citizens, not among those who'd sang the virtues of Bahraini democracy, was in the audience, and pointed out the deterioration of Bahraini commitment to democracy and human rights in recent years. "Sometime look, for example," the citizen said in somewhat broken English, "for the Fifth Fleet here in Bahrain as a obligation for the progress, and we'd like to see it as a support for the change here in Bahrain." Clinton noted the many reports her State Department issues, including human rights reports, as proof of the United States "reviewing not only our allies, but our relations with every country." And yes, she said, people get arrested and "should have due process" (that should making her sound quite Dick Cheney-esque) but she was impressed with Bahrain "on all fronts--economically, politically, socially."
Ten weeks later, Bahraini citizens were getting killed at point-blank range by the nation's police and military suppressing protests for more freedoms and democracy.
Had Clinton read more closely her own State Department's human rights report on Bahrain, she might have noted that prisoners held under the nation's anti-terrorism law had their access to attorneys "often restricted in the early stages of detention," and attorneys need a court order to see their clients. The state censors the press. Criticism of the ruling family is prohibited. And discrimination against the Shiite majority--the ruling family is Sunni--is rampant: Shiite tenets may not be taught in school. Only Sunni tenets are.
According to the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, arbitrary arrests and torture is endemic. "It is being practiced at all levels by two known parties," the director of the center says in a video--a video banned in Bahrain. "The National Security Apparatus and the Ministry of Interior. The government of Bahrain, as a signatory to the Convention Against Torture, must cooperate with human rights organizations and listen to the recommendations issued by the international institutions to stop this systematic institutionalized crime which is practiced by these two parties."
Blame for Clinton should only go so far. The much-vaunted foreign service was once Foggy Bottom's pride, a concentration of brains and critical intelligence unrivaled in the capital, at least in foreign affairs. But the State Department's streak for independence was eviscerated during the Bush years, when politics mattered more than objective information. We're seeing the results. Looking back at the Egyptian revolution, CIA, State Department intelligence and Israeli intelligence all failed to predict that Mubarak's hold on power was that tenuous, though word on the street, like action the street, seemed better informed. The same tunnel vision appeared to inform cables coming out of the American embassy in Manama. Recently leaked Wikileaks cables dating back to 2007 minimized Shiite unrest in several villages "as young men seeking weekend excitement." Chances are the embassy hadn't changed its interpretations for the Obama-Clinton team, though the administration's timid response to the Bahrain crisis is almost as baffling as its response to the Egyptian uprising.
Almost, because as in Egypt--where Obama was disproportionately concerned with the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty at the expense of millions of Egyptians calling for democracy--Obama is disproportionately concerned with Bahrain's place in the American strategic universe.
As the home of the Fifth Fleet, Bahrain is a hub of American interests, and home to thousands of Americans. Bahrain is a big customer of U.S. arms and other goods. And it's ideally positioned as a geographic sentinel in the Persian Gulf, its eyes and ears trained on Iran, not far across the waterway.
And so the Obama-Clinton response to the skull--bashing and murdering in Pearl Square has been as muted or confused as its response to Egypt. As has the response to the violence in Libya, where Obama would normally be gleeful at seeing Muammar el-Qaddafi's hold on power bashed around. But Obama couldn't very well do his own ululations for democracy in Libya while holding his tongue in Bahrain, as he shamelessly has. It's also why Obama's support for Iran's democracy movement will only go so far: support Shiite democracy in Iran would make it very difficult for him not to support it in Bahrain.
Lucky Qaddafi. Lucky dictators everywhere in the Middle East. American interests in the region are now synonymous with shackles on democracy movements. There's an easy solution for all this. Be consistent. Embrace democracy across the board. Make that a primary American interest. In the not-so long run, it would pay off more handsomly than hanging on to dictators, illegitimate rulers every one of them.
Meanwhile, another kind of interest rules. Here are the details on Exhibit A: "American Interests in Bahrain."
See Also:
Comments