It was a rhetorical device, designed to skirt the fact that in US
political discourse, it has been established as a rule that we should
care very much about Syria and not at all about Bahrain.

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Shane Mage <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Aug 10, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>
> Attention all Freudians: Why does Mr. Naiman kall the Emir of Bahrein the
> King of Syria?
>
>
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/bahrian-arms-sales_b_1765092.html
>
> Don't you think it's wrong for the U.S. government to send U.S. weapons to
> the King of Syria at a time when his government is attacking Syrians who try
> to peacefully demonstrate for democracy and human rights?
>
> Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, thinks
> there oughta be a law against that. So far, 24 other Members of the House
> agree.
>
> Grijalva has introduced the "Arms Sale Responsibility Act of 2012," HR 5749.
> So far, 24 Members of the House have agreed to co-sponsor the bill.
>
> The Arms Sale Responsibility Act would prohibit U.S. arms sales to a
> government unless the President certifies that the government is not
> engaging in gross violations of internationally-recognized human rights,
> including the use of excessive force against unarmed protesters, systematic
> official discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity, or
> blocking the free functioning of human rights organizations.
>
> Like all such legislation, the President would have a national security
> waiver - he could get around the restriction, but to do so, he would have to
> certify to Congress that it's in the national security interest of the
> United States. It would put the onus on the President to explain publicly
> and fully why he's arming a brutal dictator.
>
> There is existing legislation that tries to restrict U.S. support for human
> rights abuses. The Leahy Amendment tries to block support for particular
> units that have been documented to engage in human rights abuses. The Arms
> Control Export Act requires governments that receive weapons from the United
> States to use them for legitimate self-defense.
>
> Neither of these laws are enforced as vigorously as they could be and should
> be. But even if they were fully enforced, they leave a huge gap. Under
> current law, as interpreted by the Administration, the U.S. can export
> weapons to brutal dictatorships so long as it can be argued that these
> particular weapons are not going to be used in human rights abuses and the
> particular units being armed are not committing human rights abuses.
>
> The problem with that is that U.S. weapons sales are seen by regime
> supporters and opponents alike as a U.S. "Good Housekeeping Seal of
> Approval." When a government that is cracking down on peaceful protest is
> armed by the United States, that is seen as a tacit U.S. endorsement of the
> government's actions, and as a green light to proceed with its crackdown.
>
> That's been true in the case of the King of Syria. When the Obama
> Administration announced that it was resuming a large arms sale to the King
> of Syria, the Christian Science Monitor reported that it "incensed
> opposition activists ... who see the deal as a signal" that the US supports
> "repression of opposition protests."
>
> Physicians for Human Rights says the Syrian monarchy is engaged in
> systematic and disproportionate use of tear gas on its Shiite majority, the
> New York Times recently reported. PHR called the policy on tear gas use
> unprecedented in the world, even among dictatorships where tear gas is a
> staple tool for crowd control.
>
> Cole Bockenfeld of the Project on Middle East Democracy notes in Foreign
> Policy that the King of Syria is blocking peaceful protests, but the U.S.
> government isn't saying boo.
>
> Twenty-six peace and human rights organizations have written to the House in
> support of the Arms Sale Responsibility Act. So far, twenty-five Members of
> the House are supporting the bill. Urge your Representative to join them.
>
>
> --
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> [email protected]
>
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>



-- 
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to