Obama Administration Quietly Selling Arms to Bahrain Despite Continuing Human Rights Abuses
- Common Dreams staff

As the Arab Spring unfolded last year, protesters in the streets saw something startling about the tools of repression being used on them. The Humvees, tanks, helicopters were from the US government; the canisters of chemical agents used to attack them said, "Made in the USA."

Bahrain, home to the US Fifth Fleet and close ally of Saudi Arabia, brutally suppressed the uprising among their citizens. More than 40 pro-democracy protesters were killed and thousands more were arrested and tortured. While speaking out loudly on Libya's brutality, the Obama administration remained largely silent on Bahrain.

Last fall the Obama administration announced plans to sell Bahrain $53 million worth of military weapons including bunker buster missiles, armored vehicles and wire-guided missiles. The Pentagon said at the time the sale "will improve Bahrain's capability to meet current and future armored threats. Bahrain will use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense."

Congressional opposition to the sale forced Obama to delay the weapons transfer. Now, sources have leaked, the Obama administration is quietly moving forward with the arms sales to the Bahraini monarchy - despite their on-going human rights abuses.

* * *

Foreign Policy magazine reported Friday:

President Barack Obama's administration has been delaying its planned $53 million arms sale to Bahrain due to human rights concerns and congressional opposition, but this week administration officials told several congressional offices that they will move forward with a new and different package of arms sales -- without any formal notification to the public.

"The Bahraini government has shown little progress in improving their human rights record over the last few months and in some ways, their record has gotten worse... Protesters are still being hurt and killed, midnight arrests are still happening and the government continues to deny access to human rights monitors... the U.S. should not be rewarding them" The congressional offices that led the charge to oppose the original Bahrain arms sales package are upset that the State Department has decided to move forward with the new package. The opposition to Bahrain arms sales is led by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), and also includes Senate Foreign Relations Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee chairman Robert Casey (D-PA), Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL), and Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), and Marco Rubio (R-FL).

Wyden and Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) have each introduced a resolution in their respective chambers to prevent the U.S. government from going through with the original sale, which would have included 44 armored, high-mobility Humvees and over 300 advanced missiles. [...]

"The Bahraini government has shown little progress in improving their human rights record over the last few months and in some ways, their record has gotten worse," Wyden told The Cable on Friday. "Protesters are still being hurt and killed, midnight arrests are still happening and the government continues to deny access to human rights monitors. The kingdom of Bahrain has not shown a true good faith effort to improve human rights in their country and the U.S. should not be rewarding them as if they have."

"Supplying arms to a regime that continues to persecute its citizens is not in the best interest of the United States," Wyden said. "When the government of Bahrain shows that it respects the human rights of its citizens it will become more stable and a better ally in the region; only then should arms sales from the U.S. resume."

That point was echoed by McGovern, who pledged to oppose any arms sales to Bahrain.

"The government of Bahrain continues to perpetrate serious human rights abuses and to deny independent monitors access to the country," McGovern told The Cable. "Until Bahrain takes more substantial and lasting steps to protect the rights of its own citizens, the United States should not reward its government with any military sales."

* * *

Jim Lobe of the Inter Press Service writes today:

The decision by the administration of President Barack Obama to approve limited transfers of military equipment to Bahrain is coming under renewed fire by human rights and pro-democracy groups here.

The groups, as well as a number of lawmakers who have opposed renewed arms transfers to Bahrain, are demanding that the administration publicly disclose precisely what it intends to provide the Gulf kingdom.

And they are warning that any military transfers at this time will almost certainly be seen by pro-democracy opposition forces as support for a repressive regime.

"Even a limited sale of military items to the Bahraini government sends the wrong message," said David Kramer, the president of Freedom House, a pro-democracy group that receives support from the Congressionally funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

"Until the Bahraini government ends systemic human rights abuses, allows unfettered access to media and international organizations, and begins implementing meaningful political reform, the United States should not consider the sale of any military items," Kramer said Monday. [...]

Reinforced by some 1,500 troops and police from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the monarchy, which claimed that Shi'a-led Iran was trying to subvert the country, cracked down hard against the month-old pro-democracy movement beginning in mid-March.

Over the following months, more than 40 protesters were reported killed, thousands were arrested – many of them tortured while in detention – and hundreds more were dismissed from their jobs in a wide-ranging campaign of repression.

Although the administration initially denounced the crackdown, it remained relatively quiet through most of the rest of the year.[...]

"A little more transparency from the administration on what this transfer is would be very helpful. But you really have to question the timing of this. February looks extremely ominous. What will happen probably will be at least one and probably more attempts at large- scale protests, and the government shows no sign of being able to police those protests properly. Much smaller protests this month have been routinely attacked with excessive force." -- Brian Dooley, Human Rights FirstIn September, however, the administration quietly notified Congress that it intended to sell 53 million dollars worth of mainly anti-tank missiles and armored Humvees to Bahrain, drawing strong protests from rights groups and lawmakers who argued that the Humvees, in particular, could be used against protestors.

While Congress did not stop the sale, enough questions were raised to persuade the administration to promise to delay delivery until an international commission appointed by the king to investigate the spring's events issued its report in November. [...]

The administration notified a number of Congressional offices last week that it is going ahead with the transfer of some items, including "spare parts and maintenance equipment …needed for Bahrain's external defense and support of Fifth Fleet operations," according to the State Department.

It said that the value of these transfers "are not large enough to require Congressional notification".

"None of these items can be used against protestors," it said in a prepared statement.

But, amid concern that the administration may be breaking up the original package into smaller pieces so as to avoid formal Congressional notification requirements, the rights groups say they want to know what the items are.

"A little more transparency from the administration on what this transfer is would be very helpful," said Brian Dooley, a Gulf expert at Human Rights First who was one of those who was denied entry into Bahrain earlier this month.

"But you really have to question the timing of this," he added, noting that tensions are once again on the rise in the run-up to the one-year anniversary of the first big pro-democracy demonstrations on Feb. 14.

"February looks extremely ominous," he told IPS. "What will happen probably will be at least one and probably more attempts at large- scale protests, and the government shows no sign of being able to police those protests properly. Much smaller protests this month have been routinely attacked with excessive force."

Or that all were legitimate but US hypocritically backs only the ones that are in its interests?

Or is there a third option I'm missing here because my coffee hasn't kicked in yet?

So US is doing a good thing here in Bahrain regardless of the motivations? So you basically agree with Sea Skimmer?

What I mean is that the islamist bogeyman can be used by the US in any fashion to further the goals of the US in an entirely hypocritical fashion. Islamist uprisings and militant islamist movements against dictatorial secular regimes can be supported or not depending on how Reagan Bush Clinton Obama, or shall I rather say the US elite in its entirety, farted today when walking round their homes. Secular dictatorships in threat of islamist uprisings can be supported (e.g. Musharraf) or abandoned or even actively crushed depending on the same. Even theocracies can be supported (Saudi Arabia) or pressured (Iran) depending on the US interest and that alone.

Or when Thanas posts another thread about how the new semi-Islamist government of Libya obviously tortures its prisoners, people get surprised that this is a result of US intervention of behalf of islamist forces financed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, of all places...

I guess I'm just sort of laughing how people's opinions are easily swayed.

It is always fun to see US citizens getting confused due to the apparent support of democratic uprisings in one place and support of dictatorship which crushes uprisings in another place, and then they're being explained that "but see these are islamists" and then it is suddenly okay. Or when Thanas posts another thread about how the new semi-Islamist government of Libya obviously tortures its prisoners, people get surprised that this is a result of US intervention of behalf of islamist forces financed by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, of all places...

I, personally, am glad that there are Americans who perceive our pattern of imperialism and like what they see. It's always good to have someone that you can unreservedly hate without any of this "Well they have some good points to them" mitigating factors. Oh, but you're still dumb enough to think that people should love us when we try to put the boot on their neck, so you're even more fucking contemptible.

It's also great that people are now only allowed to determine their own destinies if they're ideologically pure enough.

Man, you must be patting yourself on the back thinking about how realistic you are right now. "Critical interests", huh? I sure am glad that an unelected set of people who believe themselves a superior elite decide what the nation should do without any of this democracy bullshit, and with the national security state, they soon won't have to bother lying to get people to do what they want! I'll never understand why so many of the proletariat eagerly lick the boots of the bourgeoisie who only view them as warm bodies to be fed to the State, but at least you're self-consistent enough to be willing to die for the NSA, right?

What I think its funny is the way people denounce the US for causing 'instability' if it overthrows a dictator,

denounces the US if it doesn't overthrow one,

Yeah, that is all very funny to me. You wonder why nobody in the US really gives a damn about what the world says, that's why.

Of course best and most funny of all, all you all can't do a fucking thing to stop us because even after the US imploded its own economy and spent two trillion dollars fighting random wars, it still leaves us an order of magnitude more powerful then any other crap hole on earth. Anyway like I was saying, the best the Shia in Bahrain can do is get the gulf states to turn a limited intervention into full scale war. The US could cut off all aid, and they'd just buy everything they needed from China to arm all the Pakistani mercenaries they already use.

What I think its funny is the way people denounce the US for causing 'instability' if it overthrows a dictator, denounces the US if it doesn't overthrow one, denounce the US if it merely backs sanctions of one kind or another as interfering in internal affairs or 'hurting the people' more then the government, and denounce the US for treating different countries in different situations differently while claiming the US doesn't understand anything in the world. Yeah, that is all very funny to me. You wonder why nobody in the US really gives a damn about what the world says, that's why. Of course best and most funny of all, all you all can't do a fucking thing to stop us because even after the US imploded its own economy and spent two trillion dollars fighting random wars, it still leaves us an order of magnitude more powerful then any other crap hole on earth. Anyway like I was saying, the best the Shia in Bahrain can do is get the gulf states to turn a limited intervention into full scale war. The US could cut off all aid, and they'd just buy everything they needed from China to arm all the Pakistani mercenaries they already use.

The Korean War was in fact an unwarranted UN/First World interference in the domestic affairs of Korea when the Korean people on both the right and left didn't want the US or Soviets there, and tens of thousands of Koreans died protesting this. But clearly they couldn't have governed themselves, right?

Remind me who crossed the 38th Parallel first, hmm?

...usually either by starting an illegal war of aggression or invading a foreign country on threadbare grounds,

...wait, are these the same people? Do such people even exist?

I doubt anyone in this thread still wonders, given your... illustrative behavior. It's plain that you see the world as somehow beholden to the US, but it's more than that. The statement, "People love pointing out that the US often expects nations to favor US over local self interests, but they never do seem to ask why the US should favor anything that is massively against its own critical interests," only really works when you consider both sides equally reasonable, which it really only is if either (a) both have equally strong claims or (b) you're a raging sociopath. And no, Skimmer, if position A is "I want my country to remain standing" and position B is "I want my country to take your country's resources", then the dispute is not remotely even. This is at the heart of why people hate America: because its cheerleaders seem to think it's all just a matter of "interests".

And Skimmer's reply seems to be: "This foul tyrant is the legitimate government of the country. Are we supposed to just pretend he doesn't exist and hopes he goes away on his own?"

Sometimes the US will not be denounced if it hovers in a weird "no war no peace" state of sanctions and blockade toward a dictator (North Korea) but other times, it gets denounced anyway (Cuba).

Respectfully, how the hell else are you supposed to overthrow a dictator? Dictators hold their power by force, it's practically the definition of dictatorship. How do you remove them from power against their will, except by hitting them with a big hammer?

If the US (or anyone else) doesn't overthrow dictators by force, the US (or anyone else) doesn't overthrow dictators at all. I'm willing to live with that, at this point- just don't try to have it both ways.

So the net effect is, yes, pretty much what Skimmer says: The US will be denounced if it fights a war to overthrow a dictator, if it engages in peaceful trade and negotiation with a dictator. Sometimes the US will not be denounced if it hovers in a weird "no war no peace" state of sanctions and blockade toward a dictator (North Korea) but other times, it gets denounced anyway (Cuba).

If you always denounce someone, can always find reasons to condemn them no matter what broad policy decisions they make, then either they're fucking Mordor and no nation on Earth has ever been as utterly, inexpressibly evil as them... or you start to sound like a broken record.

Keep it up long enough and you get people so sick of listening to it that they start turning crazy. How long could you listen to someone who hates you before you started taking jabs back out of irritation?

If the US is a warmonger for bombing Libya and a friend of tyrants for not bombing Libya, or a war profiteer for selling weapons to Bahrain and a fomenter of instability if they help the rebels and Bahrain turns into an Iranian beachhead on the west side of the Persian Gulf, then the moral lines get blurred: you will be damned by much the same group of people if you do as if you don't.

The US is not unusual in this respect. What, do you think the White House is really run by the worst people in the world, compared to what half the other governments on the planet would do given the same muscle?