Praise For Bahrain (In which Zenster cheers an Arab nation)

Great Debates
1

This was brought to my attention in the October 25 edition of the Wall Street Journal. The article was titled,

Bahrain’s Bold Rebuff
To Its Islamic Rebels:
Democracy and Rights

Gulf Nation Frees Prisoners,
Plans Elections In Efforts
To Mute Radical Threat

‘An Example’ for Arab World?

The piece, written by Yaroslav Trofimov details the recent release of over 1,000 political prisoners and a promise of democratic municipal elections in 2002 with a parliamentary election in 2003. Both men and women will be able to vote. Numerous exiled political dissidents are returning to this tiny island nation and forming various parties in anticipation of the 2003 elections.

Bahrain is an oasis of tolerance in the Arab world. People are allowed to openly wear crucifixes, women are free to dress as they wish and alcohol is served at restaurants and discos. These same establishments are crowded by partying Saudis each weekend and serve as a respite from the much more repressive atmosphere of next door Saudi Arabia. By comparison, Saudi Arabia prohibits the importation of Bibles, which are confiscated by customs upon entry. Bahrain also is willing to recognize the existence of Israel and houses the headquarters of the United States Navy’s Fifth Fleet whose logistics center oversees the bombing sorties carried out by the two aircraft carrier groups in the northern Arabian Sea.

I cannot praise this small nation enough. I hope that the United States will have the wisdom to loudly proclaim its support of this small kingdom’s transition over to democratic rule. The Islamist unrest so common to other nearby Arab countries is nearly nonexistent in Bahrain due to a gradual process of co-opting the opposition into the political system. This sterling example of progressive thought merits both public acclaim and financial support. I could only hope that there is some way for our nation to show favor towards Bahrain by awarding it the most lucrative oil contracts possible. I would go one step further and cheerfully propose a “reverse-levy” whereby an additional stipend or pro rata value is added to all purchases of oil. I would happily devote some of my tax dollars and even contribute to a fund created to financially benefit all Arab countries that adopt progressive political measures like those of Bahrain.

A strong indicator of just how successful Bahrain’s policy has proven to be is in the reduction of radical Islamist agitation without the need for harsh police measures. The leaders of dissenting Islamist factions are vocally supporting this democratic transition and I can only hope that this concept will serve as a role model for other nations in the region. If the United States successfully institutes a democratic government in Afghanistan it will only further the goals of human rights, global stability and peaceful change that Bahrain is so laudably going forward with.

2

I’ve always liked Bahrain. I enjoyed my time there, and would love a chance to return. The Bahraini were good hosts, considerate and polite, and they took careful attention to our security.

3

They rock.
[sup]So where’s the debate?[/sup]

4

The debate is whether or not the US should more actively encourage the progressive measures being demonstrated by the Bahrani government by disproportionately awarding them oil purchase contracts or other financial incentives. I do not think we can do enough to praise their political approach. I realize that there may be a need to seem as though the US is not “taking sides” or somehow foisting democratic rule upon them, but I fail to see how we could possibly do harm by encouraging them in their efforts. Personally, I fail to see why this move is not being loudly trumpeted by the Western nations as the inspiring event it is.

Other debates should center upon the gradual (or swift) denial of commerce with nations that do not take active measures to emulate the progress seen in Bahrain.

5

Well, Bahrain doesn’t really have any oil. They do a lot of refining, but a lot of the national income is foreign aid from Saudi Arabia.

I guess the question is, do we want to encourage the middle east to democratize? There are benefits, of course, and it certainly would be true to our ideals, but it would also increase the power of the Islamist groups, which tend to be anti U.S. It might be in our best interest to support pro-American monarchs and dictators instead.

6

They rock.
[sub] so, where’s Bahrain?[/sub]
:smiley:

7

I think I’ll withhold further comment on Bahrain’s transition to democracy until we see if they follow Algeria’s path to same or not.

8

Bahrain is kind of a banking center. The size of the nation should be taken seriously. There are simply not as many radicals in Bahrain as there are in its larger neighbors. And we know that a lot of these radicals are determined not to participate in a political process. They feel no need to compromise since they are believe they are right.

Given that, I do agree with your position. We must actively promote a democratic revolution in the Mid-East. Full and fair democracies are the only way to keep the lion’s share of a population satisfied with the government. Stable governments that provide security and stable markets are exactly what these countries need right now. Once democracies are established then all hostilities within these countries could, hopefully, be stiffled in the political process and at least remain internal. If the U.S. financially supports these new democracies then they would be able to rebuild their infrastructure, improve education, and get their economies moving.

The most urgent duty is to rid the world of these radicals who are trying to create absolute chaos so that no country can progress.

9

Um, Bahrain doesn’t need any rebuilding and is already pretty stable.

I’d like to see the reforms anyway, but I don’t see a need to go to a full democracy. A Constitutional Monarchy would be just fine.

10

Where did I say “rebuilding”?

I will freely confess to confusing Bahrain with Brunei (starts with a “B”, has three vowels in there somewhere…) as to oil wealth. But in the long run, I’d still like to see preferred status given to Bahrain in any way possible. I consider it an admirable move upon their part to willingly institute democracy where a Monarchy previously enjoyed power. If there is to be any chance of Islamic fundamentalism being reigned in, this is one of the brightest hopes for such efforts.

11

I was replying mostly to Mambo.

And I agree, Bahrain should be treated specially: They’ve been damn nice to us. well, so has teh UAE, and I’ve spent my fair share of time there, too. I guess I just like the Gulf Nations and their people.

12

Bahrain is a banking center? You mean like Switzerland?

13

A few words on Bahrain.

The United States should certainly welcome Bahraini moves, but quietly. There is no need to shine a spotlight on the poor rich bastids and attract unwanted attention. The best thing to do is to let them develop on their own and provide subtle diplomatic support, not give every extremist in the region an excuse to call them American puppets.

Bahrain is Bahrain. It is rather not like most of the rest of the region, be it the Gulf (excepting the UAE or rather Dubai) or the MENA region in general. I invite posters to first attempt to get out of their Western skins and think about contexts, plural note, for such developments. I do not wish to be offensive, but before commenting on a region, one should do one’s basic homework if one wants to say more than empty words.

Context:
Bahrain is a small island state with a high per capita GDP (roughly 16,000 USD, although this is certainly not equitably distributed, the source of shiite minority grievances) and historically outward looking society (relatively speaking). The small Gulf coastal states were long involved in minor commerce through the Gulf and into the Indian Ocean, long exposed to cosmopolitan influences. Their societies are less-than-representative of the problems of the region, given their fairly high per-capita-GDP (albeit with very poor GINI coefficients, that is marked inequalities in distribution) and small populations.

Money goes a long way to smoothing social tensions. It doesn’t solve all, certainly, but it does help. Of course, their peculiar position as the ‘bar’ and services center for Saudi Arabia and the vast sums made off of that also has an impact on their society. Their overall service (and secondary production) based economy gives a different social structure from the get go. If one visits say the World Bank or IMF websites and pulls up the national accounts information you will see that contra general impressions, most of the Arab and Islamic world is not characterized either by oil or by high incomes. That is, Bahrain is not a model. What might work in Bahrain is not bloody likely to work in the rest of the region.

Nor is democracy (that is full-blown Western style parliamentary democracy with all its panalopy of civil rights etc) necessarily a real near-term solution for societies which are (a) only recently emerged from tribal/lineage-based models, with fairly autocratic patriarchal traditions mildly mitigated by traditional elders consultation and (b) experiencing rapid urbanization and consequent social dislocation.

These two conditions are largely true of the Arab and Islamic worlds, although for example, tribal society has long been essentially dissolved in most of the Arab west (North Africa) and to an extent in the Sham (Lebanon, Syria, Palestine). Democratic practices is more than elections, more than institutions. Actual, successful democracy requires the internalization of the various norms or standards of democratic practice within the society itself. For a variety of historical reasons, this has not happened in the Arab world. Nota Bene, I am stating specifically the Arab world, not the Islamic world. E.g. Senegal, a state where the population is somewhere in the high 90% range Muslim has had a fairly decently functioning democracy since independence. (Caveats in re a period of de facto but not precisely de jure one party rule etc., it’s a bloody poor country)

The reasons for this, that is the Arab world’s failed experiments with democratic institutions (as well as socialist ones) are surely legion and specific. Among them, sky-rocketing populations, severe geographic and ecological constraints, poor institutions — both colonial and traditional, at least insofar as adaption to the rapidly changing circumstances of the 20th century go.

Bahrain once more: In re the “inexistance” of Islamist unrest. One has only to go back a few years to find it. That it has been either temporarily bought off or crushed does not mean it does not exist.

That is not to say social reforms, combined with economic growth is not a partial solution to Islamist unrest in the region. Indeed it is. But it is but one part of the equation. Another part is the mastering of foreign influences in the cultures. There is no easy answer for this, and wealth is not necessarily a response, nor even “freedoms” — much as Americans love to assume that this will ipso facto produce positive results. It can produce, rather, backlash. Above in societies unprepared for the same.

Better examples, models for the Arab world might be found in examing countries with profiles rather more similar in demographic and socio-economic terms with the vast majority of the region, not the oil-rich elite. I would point the OP and others to Tunisia, which while lacking many political freedoms has pulled itself up by its bootstraps without oil wealth and has one of the soundest non-oil economies in the region. (Bahrain for all its lack of direct oil wealth remains dependent on the oil giants around it). Off the top of my head, I’d sooner look to Tunisia, if it plays its cards correctly, may slowly develop genuine, lasting liberal political institutions in the stabler economic climate, one built not on a rentier state or servicing rentier states, but on hard work ethic. The Gulf?

As for a debate on “sanctions” non-adopters of democracy… Well if the OP wishes to proceed to alienate much of the world through poorly concieved ham-handed neo-imperialism as well as fairly ‘illegal’ (in terms of international trading conventions to which we are party) discrimnation, well that is all well and fine but it will not do much either to bring stability to the region nor to advance the cause of democracy.

(I note finally that the OP seems to be strangely unaware that the United States has a free market in hydrocarbons and so the government does not ‘award’ contracts. Nor is Brunei an Arab or even a Middle-Eastern country for that matter.)

14

*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose *

Thanks for the opportunity to flex my geographic knowledge, DDG! :slight_smile: Bahrain is a small island country located in the Persian Gulf next to Saudi Arabia. I believe a causeway connects Saudi Arabia with Bahrain.

Captain Amazing,

My understanding is that Bahrain does have oil, although it’s reserves are extremely small. I hadn’t heard that much of its economy relies on foreign aid from Saudi Arabia. My understanding of their economic status pretty much jibes with **Collounsbury’s ** account - it has historically relied on trade/commerce, particularly banking. Because of its proximity to Saudi Arabia, I always assumed that it did a lot of its trading/banking with the Saudi’s (oil refining as well).

Collounsbury,

Welcome back!!

15

I will cheerfully accept more logical suggestions as to how the Taleban should be dealt with. My OP reflects the unmitigated rage that women around me routinely express towards the Taleban. I have a similar if not lower opinion of them myself. Personally, I do not see how the Taleban can possibly integrate into modern society. The throwback mentality that their misogyny and violence represents only serves to bring reversal to a majority of what the rest of the world has sought to leave behind in its progress towards human rights and enlightened rule. Their complicity in the World Trade Center atrocity remains the single most damning feature of their conduct.

Colounsbury, first and foremost, welcome back to the boards. It is a dubious honor to have the hostility of my OP require your return but that’s as needs be. I welcome your assuredly more knowledgeable and experienced outlook on these matters. I would especially appreciate your input on my “Credible Deterrent To Terrorism” thread in this same forum. To the point, what way is there to make sure that the poisonous mentality of the Taleban is somehow restrained or brought in line with the necessary rules of conduct that modern society has? That they should continue to infect the minds of Muslim youth is wholly unacceptable to me and I would rather see their rights curtailed as a group than to allow them to continue their ruthless repression of women and promotion of terrorism. Your input on this is most welcome.

16

Sorry folks, the above post was meant for my “RE-educating The Taleban” thread. Please ignore it.

17

Collounsbury, please enlighten me further about how a government in the center of the Arabian gulf is nonetheless not, “an Arab or even a Middle-Eastern country.” I had hoped that Bahrain would be able to serve as some sort of beacon for the rest of the Middle Eastern countries. As to the “contracts” I mentioned, I was merely referring to the large scale purchases that the major oil consuming nations make from the OPEC related countries. Please excuse any ignorance on my part but I am fully aware that Brunei is in Indonesia. I also made specific mention of “harsh police measures” in recognition of their previous existence and application in suppressing Islamist dissent. I also find it rather difficult to see what is not praiseworthy about a Monarchy voluntarily instituting democracy where there is no direct mandate for them to do so. I fail to see where I have mentioned any “debate on ‘sanctions’ [for] non-adopters of democracy…”, please show where I have done so. The “reverse levy” I mentioned is merely a vehicle for discussing any method of giving further encouragement to a nation whose efforts I find laudable.

You certainly make extremely valid points about how an abrupt transition to democracy may not be the best path for previously authoritarian states. I freely admit to political ethnocentrism in my advocacy of democracy. I wonder what sequence of transitional rule could best benefit the region. I am especially concerned that the United States continues to back such dubious regimes as Saudi Arabia and their Wahabbist doctrine when it clearly may not be in our best interests. Please feel free to contribute your insights as to what might best serve the interests of world stability and those of the Middle East. I relish your more intimate knowledge of the region’s intricacies.

18

Thank you Collounsbury. Your educated and erudite response has neatly summed-up my rather amorphous feelings about “democratic” moves in the Gulf.

I like the thought of formalizing the “Council of Elders”, with local representative input to the Council. Having a “voice”, however small, combined with some economic reform, should go a long way towards alleviating social unrest.

19

Just a quick drive-by, as I am moderately busy at the moment.

But I just wanted to say welcome back to Collounsbury. Your informed opinion has been missed around here :slight_smile: .

capacitator:

A little more like Beirut ( Lebanon was formerly known as the ‘Switzerland of the Middle-East’ :wink: ), pre-civil war. It functions as a offshore banking and financial center for the oil-rich Gulf States ( primarily ), OPEC, and the Arab world in general. Bahrain was the first ( I think ) Gulf State to discover oil, so it was the first to enjoy the benefits. But it’s reserves were pretty small and the ruling family, the al-Khalifa ( who are a merchant clan related to the al-Sabah’s of Kuwait, who emigrated to Qatar in the 18th century, then ousted the Persians from Bahrain in the 1780’s ) was clever enough to realize that if they wanted to retain any independance they had to diversify their economy. The collapse of Lebanon’s stability beginning in the mid-seventies was a heaven-sent opportunity that Bahrain was quick to jump on.

Bahrain itself has been a cosmopolitan center of trade since around 3000 B.C.E. and was one of the premier centers of the pearl trade ( the water conditions around Bahrain are unusual and the pearls it produces are famous ) from at least the first century C.E. ( when it was mentioned by Pliny ) until that trade collapsed with the advent of modern culturing techniques. And by then it had oil. Consequently it has always been a bit of a minor economic prize for greater powers to squabble over and has almost always been at least moderately prosperous. And it has almost always had a certain proportion of expatriates among its small population.

Hence Collounsbury’s point that it is not very representative of most of the region.

  • Tamerlane
20

Zenster:

First, I’m sorry to have taken a rather harsh tone, but I do feel your OPs need… a reality check. Slow down a bit, you’ll clearly do better that way.

I was referring to Brunei of course, my apologies that was perhaps an unnecessary comment but for the board as a whole I do want to be clear that Brunei is neither Arab nor Middle Eastern. From your initial comment it wasn’t clear if you knew that also. (Of course a non-Arab government is concievable in the Gulf, Iranian/Farsi being the other choice, but that’s nitpicking)

I hope it can too, but it’s an example largely of relevance to the oil-Emirates and to a limited extent possibly Saudi Arabia – however I think it doesn’t work at all in their context. A century of enforced Wahhabism is going to be hard to unwind, at best. I foresee nothing good coming out of there.

I have my questions about the reality when push comes to shove, and it will. Further, it is not that the Bahraini moves are not praiseworthy, but that they are not truly relevant to the larger problems. For the reasons suggested, they are at best relevant to the oil-Emirates. Although, on the other hand, if the Bahrainis can promote, on the margins, the idea of democracy can be successful it may, stress may, be a successful symbolic move. I remain pessimistic, however, because much of the Arab world does have ‘paper’ democratic institutions – be they socialist or ‘western’ inspired-- which have been almost 100% discredited. The fact that one Gulf emirate may go ahead will have limited symbolic value as the Khalijeen, the Gulfies are not stunningly popular in the Arab world.

Your thinking remains obscure to me. Reverse levy sounds like tariffs to me, which sounds like sanctions.

Bahrain, being rich, only needs continued good economics to be encouraged. Subtle diplomatic encouragement and support should be enough, the real keys are internal, not anything the “West” says. (Although we should certainly not be seen to be spitting in their eye either.)

I wonder too. There are no good choices, only those less bad.

Well, there’s a bit of a catch 22 there. We ‘back’ the Saudis. What does that mean? What are the other choices? Many folks have repeated the * mantra * about use backing of bad regimes without bothering to set out the real choices. (I make this criticism not against you but in general.)

If the United States had not backed Ibn Saud, what would have happened? Would the choice have been better? Many critics have a * magical * belief that removal of the USA (or the Europeans) would have resulted in better governance etc. etc. Given my experience and reading, that belief is utterly unfounded, although I’d not want to promote an essentialist negativism either.

Let’s take the Iranian example. There we have a clear mistake, largely based on * surprise, surprise * inappropriately importing outside models – our fear of communist boogy-men etc-- without understanding the real power dynamics in the region. Installing and running with the Shah was a bad move. For all the superficial liberalism, he was one nasty, corrupt motherfucker who did not do much good. But on the other hand, many of his sins are endemic to local patterns & traditions of rule & governance.

Returning to the Saudis. What if we had not backed Ibn Saud’s clan? Would we have currently a better government? Well, looking at places like Syria, I’d rather hazard the guess, no we’d fucking have a mess. Wahhabism does not, did not and will not depend on the Saud house. (Admitting the historical caveats about how Saud and the Wahhab house have mutually profited and until recently had similar interests) It is entrenched in Saudi Arabia. Further, the clannish, clientelistic method of government by the family reflects ** precisely ** the original tribal values of the region. Those values, quite valid and useful in one set of circumstances become stunning corruption and rot in the case of a petrol-rentier state. But they are also the cultural values!

Catch-22.

I could go on, but I do need to do things and finish up my other commentary. I hope this partial, incomplete and sadly not sourced commentary should prove some reflection on * easy * critiques about the US being in bed with the wrong folks. (which is not to say that critiques should not be made, but look at the real, not imaginary choices) The problem is there may not be right folks. I certainly do not like to put some of my business and personal contacts in the region to excessive moral scrutiny, I frankly did not have good choices in many cases. Less bad ones sometimes have to suffice.

The question is to evaluate in terms of current and also expected future needs. I frankly think that the Saud house is in deep, deep trouble. I don’t know, however, of any good way to ressolve that. The contradictions are so deep that it’s hard to see a way out.

Well, I have no idea if my comments are helpful. Sometimes I just want to throw up my hands after I start trying to formulate ideas on this. I’ll say frankly that I understand how policy makers have painted themselves into corners in dealing with Arab governments. I felt the same way in private dealings with officials.