The US foreign-policy elite doubles its standards, tolerating repression in Bahrain while denouncing that in Iran. Of course, the difference is that Bahrain is an officially-designated "Friend" while Iran is an officially-designated "Enemy."
from SLATE: > In Bahrain, Brutal Crackdown on Protests >As night fell on Bahrain's Pearl Square on Wednesday, demonstrators celebrated >a day of public protest by sipping tea and watching a projection of BBC Arabic >on the pearl monument. Just hours later, chaos reigned as hundreds of riot >police stormed the square, bombarding sleeping protesters with tear gas and >concussion grenades. Three people died in the crackdown, reports Reuters. At >least 100 were injured as men, women, and children fled screaming from the >square at approximately 2:45 am. Tens of thousands had gathered there the day >before to listen to speeches and agitate for the replacement of Bahrain's >absolute monarchy with a constitutional democracy. The brutal raid on >protesters camped out in the square presents a "diplomatic challenge" to the >United States, writes the New York Times. Bahrain's small size belies its >strategic importance to the United States as home to the base of the its Fifth >Fleet, which ensures a steady supply of oil from the Persian Gulf. WikiLeaks >cables from 2008 and 2009 released this week show U.S. officials describing >Bahrain's King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa as "personable and engaging" and a >"corporate king" amenable to reform. George W. Bush's top adviser Elliott >Abrams said that a U.S. exit from Bahrain would be regarded as "a very great >achievement for Iran … [and] a sign of U.S. decline in the region," reports >the Financial Times. The Obama administration continued its diplomatic >tip-toeing this week, but some are urging the U.S. to look beyond its >affection for the ruling Khalifa family. "I hope that our cozy relations with >those in power won't dull our appreciation that history is more likely to side >with protesters being shot with rubber bullets than with the regimes doing the >shooting," writes the NYT's Nicholas Kristof from Bahrain. > Read original story in The New York Times > [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/world/middleeast/18bahrain.html] | > Thursday, Feb. 17, 2011 < meanwhile, we might ask whether Clinton's policy of aiding "Internet freedom" will be extended to help WikiLeaks. New York TIMES / February 14, 2011 U.S. Policy to Address Internet Freedom By MARK LANDLER and BRIAN KNOWLTON WASHINGTON — Days after Facebook and Twitter added fuel to a revolt in Egypt, the Obama administration on Tuesday announced a new policy on Internet freedom, intended to help people get around barriers in cyberspace while making it harder for autocratic governments to use the same technology to repress dissent. “The United States continues to help people in oppressive Internet environments get around filters, stay one step ahead of the censors, the hackers and the thugs who beat them up or imprison them for what they say online,” said Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, laying out the policy in a speech at George Washington University. The new policy, a year in the making, had been bogged down by fierce debates over which projects it should support, and even more basically, whether to view the Internet primarily as a weapon to topple repressive regimes or as a tool that autocrats can use to root out and crush dissent. -- Jim Devine / "Living a life of quiet desperation -- but always with style!" _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
