Bahrain: Who Is Speaking …Tehran or Washington?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the countries of the Arabian Gulf that have sent Peninsula Shield forces to protect security in Bahrain are on the wrong track with their intervention. The U.S. Secretary of State demands that the Bahraini government engage in dialogue with the Shiite opposition.
This statement in itself is strange, and makes the observer ask: Is the U.S. Secretary of State really informed about the course of events? She appears more like a Secretary of State for Iran, not the U.S. She criticizes the sending of Gulf forces to Bahrain, yet the White House had commented that sending troops is not invading. The intervention by Peninsula Shield forces in Bahrain was in accordance with the agreement of the Gulf Cooperation Council and its mission of preserving its facilities there; security facilities, not military ones! Of course, this series of strange statements from the secretary of state does not stop there. Mrs. Clinton says that the Gulf States have followed the wrong path by intervening in Bahrain, despite the clear agreements and charters of the Gulf Cooperation Council [that have been in place] for more than two decades. Yet she is permitting herself to interfere in Bahraini affairs? A puzzling thing indeed!
It is also curious that the secretary of state says — in the same interview — that “whatever is decided at the United Nations regarding Libya must include Arab participation and leadership.” So how do you consider the intervention of a region’s people (united by agreement and a joint council) wrong and undesirable, yet demand Arab intervention in Libya… is there any contradiction bigger than this?
Of course, the questions do not stop with the comments of the secretary of state. Does she know that the Shiite opposition was occupying the Salmaniya Hospital, and they were speeding up the treatment of Shiites only? Has the secretary heard about the clashes in Bahraini schools between Sunnis and Shiites? Does she know that the movement of the whole country has been paralyzed? Does the secretary know that Bahrain is not made up of just Shiites? That there are Sunnis there? And that therefore any demand for reform affects the makeup of the country and must be in accordance with a national agreement and not a sectarian one?
When the secretary talks about the necessity for dialogue and demands the participation of the Bahraini government, does she know that the Bahraini government demanded the Shiite opposition sit at the dialogue table? And since the outbreak of the crisis, the king of Bahrain charged his crown prince with steering the dialogue, without any response on the part of the Bahraini opposition that refused, and who expanded their demands to a call for a Bahraini Republic?
Therefore the statements of the U.S. Secretary of State (although we think well of her) appear to be issued from the Secretary of State for Iran. Either they indicate a lack of precise knowledge over what is happening in Bahrain, or her aim is merely to score public opinion points (especially as it comes after security forces successfully dispersed the protestors and freed up the principal roads and the Salmaniya Hospital), or it is an indication that Washington is lost in the region! Whatever the excuses are, one is as bad as the other.
This statement in itself is strange, and makes the observer ask: Is the U.S. Secretary of State really informed about the course of events? She appears more like a Secretary of State for Iran, not the U.S. She criticizes the sending of Gulf forces to Bahrain, yet the White House had commented that sending troops is not invading. The intervention by Peninsula Shield forces in Bahrain was in accordance with the agreement of the Gulf Cooperation Council and its mission of preserving its facilities there; security facilities, not military ones! Of course, this series of strange statements from the secretary of state does not stop there. Mrs. Clinton says that the Gulf States have followed the wrong path by intervening in Bahrain, despite the clear agreements and charters of the Gulf Cooperation Council [that have been in place] for more than two decades. Yet she is permitting herself to interfere in Bahraini affairs? A puzzling thing indeed!
It is also curious that the secretary of state says — in the same interview — that “whatever is decided at the United Nations regarding Libya must include Arab participation and leadership.” So how do you consider the intervention of a region’s people (united by agreement and a joint council) wrong and undesirable, yet demand Arab intervention in Libya… is there any contradiction bigger than this?
Of course, the questions do not stop with the comments of the secretary of state. Does she know that the Shiite opposition was occupying the Salmaniya Hospital, and they were speeding up the treatment of Shiites only? Has the secretary heard about the clashes in Bahraini schools between Sunnis and Shiites? Does she know that the movement of the whole country has been paralyzed? Does the secretary know that Bahrain is not made up of just Shiites? That there are Sunnis there? And that therefore any demand for reform affects the makeup of the country and must be in accordance with a national agreement and not a sectarian one?
When the secretary talks about the necessity for dialogue and demands the participation of the Bahraini government, does she know that the Bahraini government demanded the Shiite opposition sit at the dialogue table? And since the outbreak of the crisis, the king of Bahrain charged his crown prince with steering the dialogue, without any response on the part of the Bahraini opposition that refused, and who expanded their demands to a call for a Bahraini Republic?
Therefore the statements of the U.S. Secretary of State (although we think well of her) appear to be issued from the Secretary of State for Iran. Either they indicate a lack of precise knowledge over what is happening in Bahrain, or her aim is merely to score public opinion points (especially as it comes after security forces successfully dispersed the protestors and freed up the principal roads and the Salmaniya Hospital), or it is an indication that Washington is lost in the region! Whatever the excuses are, one is as bad as the other.