Bahrain Escapes Censure by West as Crackdown on Protesters Intensifies
THE INDEPENDENT: Saudi troops' demolition of mosques stokes religious tensions

Bahraini government forces backed by Saudi Arabian troops are destroying mosques and places of worship of the Shia majority in the island kingdom in a move likely to exacerbate religious hatred across the Muslim world.

"So far they have destroyed seven Shia mosques and about 50 religious meeting houses," said Ali al-Aswad, an MP in the Bahraini parliament.

He said Saudi soldiers, part of the 1,000-strong contingent that entered Bahrain last month, had been seen by witnesses helping demolish Shia mosques and shrines in the Sunni-ruled kingdom.

Mohammed Sadiq, of the Justice for Bahrain organisation, said the most famous of the Shia shrines destroyed was that of a revered Bahraini Shia spiritual leader, Sheikh Abdul Amir al-Jamri, who died in 2006. A photograph taken by activists and seen by The Independent shows the golden dome of the shrine lying on the ground and later being taken away on the back of a lorry. On the walls of Shia mosques that have been desecrated, graffiti has been scrawled praising the Sunni King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa and insulting the Shia.

The attack on Shia places of worship has provoked a furious reaction among the 250 million Shia community, particularly in Iran and Iraq, where Shia are in a majority, and in Lebanon where they are the largest single community.

The Shia were already angry at the ferocious repression by Bahraini security forces of the pro-democracy movement, which had sought to be non-sectarian. After the monarchy had rejected meaningful reform, the wholly Sunni army and security forces started to crush the largely Shia protests on 15 and 16 March.

The harshness of the government repression is provoking allegations of hypocrisy against Washington, London and Paris. Their mild response to human rights abuses and the Saudi Arabian armed intervention in Bahrain is in stark contrast to their vocal concern for civilians in Libya. » | Patrick Cockburn in Cairo | Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Saudi Arabian Intervention in Bahrain Driven by Visceral Sunni Fear of Shias
THE OBSERVER: Despite an official stance that the Saudis were there to restore order, the real aim was to crush the rebels

Saudi Arabia and the UAE between them sit on tens of billions of dollars worth of state-of-the-art military equipment. They have both backed calls for UN-sponsored "no-fly zones" over Libya.

Even if they are now willing to risk their expensive toys against the relatively meagre threat from Colonel Gaddafi's air defences, they will play a junior role to western forces.

It will be the second military intervention by the Gulf states in a few days, but the first was on a far more primitive level: teargas grenades fired at point-blank range into the faces of unarmed demonstrators; punishment beatings for injured protesters in their hospital beds; violence and intimidation against the wives and children of opposition activists in their village homes.

Hypocrisy is one word for the motives behind the deployment of the "Peninsula Shield" forces in Bahrain last week. Cowardice is another.

When I watched Saudi soldiers rolling over the causeway linking the two kingdoms on Monday, they were giving victory signs to local TV cameras. Bahrain TV showed archive footage of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and King Hamad of Bahrain performing a traditional Bedouin war dance together.

Despite the official stance that the Saudis and UAE troops had arrived to guard essential infrastructure and restore order on the streets, there was little doubt as to the real purpose: to put down, by whatever means necessary, a growing rebellion by the kingdom's majority, but deprived, Shia citizens.

The day before, unarmed demonstrators had effectively beaten the security forces in Manama. A move to clear a protesters' camp on the fringes of the main gathering at Pearl roundabout had led to an influx of protesters to the city, determined to defend their turf. The police withdrew when they ran out of teargas canisters.

The sight of the police – many of whom are hired guns from Pakistan, Syria and other parts of the Sunni world – running from Shia demonstrators reawoke the fears of Gulf governments that the "party of Ali" was on the rise again. » | William Butler | Sunday, March 20, 2011

We Won't Trouble Saudi's Tyrants with Calls to Reform While We Crave Their Oil
THE GUARDIAN: Unrest will be seen as destabilising for western governments too until our dependency on Riyadh's tap is curbed

Did you hear it? The clamour from western governments for democracy in Saudi Arabia? The howls of outrage from the White House and No 10 about the shootings on Thursday, the suppression of protests on Friday, the arrival of Saudi troops in Bahrain on Monday? No? Nor did I.

Did we miss it, or do they believe that change is less necessary in Saudi Arabia than it is in Libya? If so, on what grounds? The democracy index published by the Economist Intelligence Unit places Libya 158th out of 167, and Saudi Arabia 160th. At least in Libya, for all the cruelties of that regime, women are not officially treated as lepers were in medieval Europe.

Last week, while explaining why protests in the kingdom is unnecessary, the foreign minister, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, charmingly promised to "cut off the fingers of those who try to interfere in our internal matters". In other parts of the world this threat would have been figurative; he probably meant it. If mass protests have not yet materialised in Saudi Arabia, it's because the monarchy maintains a regime of terror, enforced with the help of torture, mutilation and execution.

Yet our leaders are even more at ease among the Saudi autocracy than they were in the court of Colonel Gaddafi. The number of export licences granted by the UK government for arms sales to the kingdom has risen roughly fourfold since 2003. The last government was so determined to preserve its special relationship with the Saudi despots that it derailed British justice by forcing the Serious Fraud Office to drop its inquiry into corruption in the al-Yamamah deals.

Why? Future weapons sales doubtless play a role. But there's an even stronger imperative. A few days ago the French bank Société Générale warned that unrest in Saudi Arabia could push the oil price to $200 a barrel.

Abdullah's kingdom is the world's last "swing producer": the only nation capable of raising crude oil production if it falls elsewhere, or if demand outstrips supply. As a result, political disruption there is as threatening to the stability of western governments as it is to the Saudi regime. Probably more so, as our leaders wouldn't get away with gunning us down in the street. Continue reading and comment » | George Monbiot | Tuesday, March 15, 2011

My comment on this article:

Excellent article! Thank you, Mr. Monbiot.

Western leaders, including British politicians and captains of industry, perhaps more especially the British trolls, have been a-scraping, brown-nosing in the Gulf for as long as I can remember. They don’t give a-you-know-what for the well-being of the British expats that work in the Kingdom. Nor do they care about democracy. They care only for their order books. Anybody and anything that comes in the way of a good order just gets trampled on. The British establishment’s behaviour is quite disgusting and despicable in this regard. They are all self-aggrandizing, self-serving, unprincipled hypocrites, almost to a man. They couldn’t give a damn about principles; they care only about lining their own pockets. It’s a case of ‘Yes, Sir! Yes, Sir! Three bags full, Sir!’ – © Mark

This comment also appears here

Victor Davis Hanson: What Went Wrong
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE: Piling up debt, gaffes, and hypocrisy, Obama & Co. are sinking.

We are witnessing one of the more rapid turnabouts in recent American political history. President Obama’s popularity has plummeted to 50 percent and lower in some polls, while the public expresses even less confidence in the Democratic-led Congress and the direction of the country at large. Yet, just eight months ago, liberals were talking in Rovian style about a new generation to come of progressive politics — and the end of both the Republican party and the legacy of Reaganism itself. Barack Obama was to be the new FDR and his radical agenda an even better New Deal.



What happened, other than the usual hubris of the party in power?

First, voters had legitimate worries about health care, global warming, immigration, energy, and inefficient government. But it turns out that they are more anxious about the new radical remedies than the old nagging problems. They wanted federal support for wind and solar, but not at the expense of neglecting new sources of gas, oil, coal, and nuclear power. They were worried about high-cost health care, the uninsured, redundant procedures, and tort reform, but not ready for socialized medicine. They wanted better government, not bigger, DMV-style government. There is a growing realization that Obama enticed voters last summer with the flashy lure of discontent. But now that they are hooked, he is reeling them in to an entirely different — and, for many a frightening — agenda. Nothing is worse for a president than a growing belief among the public that it has been had.

Second, Americans were at first merely scared about the growing collective debt. But by June they became outraged that Obama has quadrupled the annual deficit in proposing all sorts of new federal programs at a time when most finally had acknowledged that the U.S. has lived beyond its means for years. They elected Obama, in part, out of anger at George W. Bush for multi-billion dollar shortfalls — and yet as a remedy for that red ink got Obama’s novel multi-trillion-dollar deficits.

Third, many voters really believed in the “no more red/blue state America” healing rhetoric. Instead, polls show they got the most polarizing president in recent history — both in his radical programs and in the manner in which he has demonized the opposition to ram them through without bipartisan support. “Punch back harder” has replaced “Yes, we can.” Fourth... >>> Vitor Davis Hanson | Monday, August 17, 2009