Tag Archives: Bahrain

Posted on by

Countering Iran the major factor behind US support for Bahrain: Deepak Tripathi

Tehran_skyline_may_2007 (Wiki Commons)

Kourosh Ziabari, 6 June 2011

Deepak Tripathi

Deepak Tripathi

Deepak Tripathi is a British historian, journalist and researcher who specializes in South and West Asia affairs, terrorism and the United States foreign policy. He was born into a political family in Unnao, the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. His grandfather, Pandit Vishwambhar Dayal Tripathi, was a prominent leader in the Indian independence movement and Member of the Constituent Assembly and later the Indian Parliament.

Deepak Tripathi worked with BBC for almost 23 years and ended up his cooperation with the British broadcaster in 2000. During these years, he served as a South Asia specialist and correspondent, Afghanistan correspondent and Syria, Nepal, Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka reporter. He has also been a BBC News and World Service Radio News producer. Tripathi is a Member of the Political Studies Association and the Commonwealth Journalists Association.
His articles and commentaries on the international issues have appeared on Counterpunch, Foreign Policy Journal, Al-Ahram Weekly, Z Magazine and History News Network.
Deepak has authored several books including “Breeding Ground: Afghanistan and the Origins of Islamist Terrorism”, “Overcoming the Bush Legacy in Iraq and Afghanistan” and “Dialectics of the Afghanistan Conflict: How the country became a terrorist haven.”
What follows is the complete text of my in-depth interview with Deepak Tripathi on the recent revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa, the civil war in Libya and the popular uprising in Bahrain.

Kourosh Ziabari: Do you consider the chained, continuous revolutions in the Arab world a result of pan-Arabist, nationalistic sentiments of the peoples of region who rose up? Well, the dictatorial regimes of the region have been ruling for so many decades, but the people in these countries revolted against them quite suddenly and unexpectedly. Has the economic factor been the main contributor to the emergence of Middle East revolutions? Was it all about paying a tribute to Mohamed Bouazizi that turned violent and became a set of revolutions?

Deepak Tripathi: You have raised an important question. The answer is somewhat complex. Of course, from Libya to Bahrain there are similarities on the surface: repressive regimes, closed societies, ruling cliques imposing their will on the masses. Then there is the Orientalist syndrome in the West that Edward Said depicted so brilliantly in his book “Orientalism.” It is the tendency to lump all Muslims and other people in the East into one basket, and seeing them as exotic, but inferior, people who must be educated in western ways, and exploited. This is where lies the basic mistake, and it has proved disastrous.

The recent uprisings across the Arab world display two different currents. The bigger picture is that of people rising against pro-United States dictators, in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain. On the other hand, we see Libya and Syria, which are not pro-US. Many in the populations of these countries are fed up and can take no more. They want to breath fresh air. Now, in an ideal world the people of each country should be allowed to choose their own destiny without outside interference, but that is not the case in the real world. Western interference is a major cause of resentment in many countries in the region.

Having said this, I believe each popular uprising has its roots in local conditions and causes. In Egypt, it was a people’s revolution, of men and women, young and old, Muslim and Christian. They succeeded in overthrowing Hosni Mubarak and his party, but the future is by no means certain; the United States, with allies, continues its interference. America has considerable power because of the huge aid it gives to the Egyptian military every year. So we will have to see what transpires in Egypt. Tunisia, which started all this, is the same – how do long-oppressed people ensure that the system changes to their liking, not just a few faces? In other places, too, things are far from certain. In Bahrain, where the pro-US Sunni ruling family, representing one-third of the population at most, is engaged in the brutal suppression of Shi‘a majority – nearly two-thirds of the population. In Bahrain, it is oil that drives Western policy of support for the ruling family; in Libya, too, oil drives policy, but there Britain, France and Italy, and to lesser extent the Obama administration in the United States, are supporting the anti-Gaddafi forces, because Gaddafi is too independent, too unpredictable. In Syria, oil is not a factor – perhaps one of the reasons why the Western response has so far been limited to condemnations and warnings. And the Yemeni president is America’s surrogate; Yemen is vital for the security of Saudi Arabia, America’s strongest ally after Israel and the most reliable oil supplier.

The last part of your question concerns the Tunisian, Mohamed Bouazizi, street vendor who set himself on fire after being harassed by corrupt police. Bouazizi certainly touched million and millions of people right across the region, because they could easily identify with his harassment and humiliation.

KZ: As you may admit, Bahrain has one of the blackest human rights records in the Persian Gulf region. Its longstanding tradition of suppressing the Shiites, persecuting the bloggers and journalists, incarcerating and torturing the political activists attest to the fact that despite being a close ally of the United States, Bahrain is not a democratic country based on American-championed values. Why does the United States support such a repressive regime? Does the United States consider Bahrain a proxy to confront the hegemony of Iran in the region?

DT: Countering Iran is certainly the major factor behind US support for Bahrain, and explains the muted references from Washington to the brutality of Bahraini security forces – and let’s not forget many are foreign soldiers – and more recently Saudi forces who have entered the Emirate. The tactics used against peaceful demonstrators in Bahrain in recent weeks and months are some of the worst kind. How many countries are there in which hospitals are raided by security police and doctors treating wounded people are threatened?

As you know, Bahrain is a member of the Gulf cooperation Council, dominated by Saudi Arabia, and is there to prevent Iranian and Shiite influence spreading in the region. Bahrain is also the base of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, which is so important for America’s strategy in the Gulf and the Middle East at large.

KZ: Do you agree with a military intervention in Libya? We already know that the Gaddafi regime, before the authorization of no-fly zone over Libya by the Security Council, had massacred scores of unarmed and innocent civilians in air-strikes on different cities of the country. Is a NATO-led military expedition necessary to preclude the killing of civilians? What’s your prediction for the future of the civil war which is taking place in Libya?

DT: The Gaddafi regime, no doubt, has been repressive over the last forty years, and I am very critical of its human rights record. It is Britain, France, Italy and the United States that have been swinging like a large pendulum: vehemently opposed to Gaddafi for decades, then friends with Gaddafi, and now enemies again.

I have several misgivings about the NATO military operation in Libya. My first and most serious objection is that NATO has gone far beyond the remit approved in the UN Security Council 1973, which authorized “all necessary measures” to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, excluding foreign occupation forces on any part of the territory of Libya. Legal scholars have pointed out that “all necessary measures” means starting with peaceful means to resolve what seems to be a tribal civil war between pro- and anti-Gaddafi forces. In this respect, Libya is quite different from Egypt, where tens of millions of people from all sections of society rebelled against the Mubarak regime. Second, NATO military planes are now hitting government targets far from opposition-controlled areas. Tripoli and Gaddafi’s own compound have been bombed. This was not envisaged in the Security Council Resolution 1973. Regime change was not part of it. I think these are serious violations of the UN authorization. Third, NATO aircraft are now operating as if they were the air force of the anti-Gaddafi forces; British, French and Italian ‘military advisers’ have been deployed in Libya; and there is talk of sending troops. This is taking sides, and goes beyond protecting civilians. Worst of all, we now have confirmed reports that NATO planes are bombing and killing people on their own side, the anti-Gaddafi side; collateral damage in Western euphemism. Fourth, and this is very serious, the West is being highly selective in picking on an oil-rich country for military action, while its friends, Bahrain and Yemen, willfully repress their populations. I fear we will see a long war in Libya.

KZ: Many political commentators believe that whoever assumes power in Egypt following the establishment of new constitution and formation of new government will be less friendly to Israel than the regime of Hosni Mubarak was. The same analysts believe that the new government in Egypt will be necessarily less hostile to Iran compared with the Hosni Mubarak’s regime. Do you agree with them? What’s your take on that?

DT: The climate in the Middle East has undergone a dramatic change following the Egyptian Revolution. Its effects go far beyond Egypt’s borders, and these effects will be long term. The people of Egypt and beyond yearn for democracy, human rights and dignity, but they are not going to be blind supporters of American policy. There will be all kinds of pressures, warnings, threats against the Egyptian military from the West that would like to indirectly control the peoples of the region. I hope that the military does not give in to these American-Israeli tactics. I believe that the ‘new Egypt’ – if it is allowed to choose its future path – will lead to a new climate that will mean better relations with Iran, Palestinians, and will be a force for good overall.

KZ: Answering to a question regarding the recent air-strikes on Libya, the White House spokesman Jay Carney said that it is not a U.S. policy to bring about regime change in Libya. It’s already clear to the international community that Gaddafi is a merciless terrorist. He massacred more than 6,500 citizens during the first three weeks of civil war in Libya. Why don’t the United States and its allies want to take action to change the regime of Gaddafi while they did the same with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan in a situation that they didn’t have any compelling excuse to do so? Is it all about American and European interests in Libya’s oil sector which is guaranteed by the Gaddafi regime?

DT: I have elaborated on the lack of consistency in Western policy, and the real factors behind Western and allied actions showing blatant disregard for universal human rights. Their actions amount to double standards wherever it suits them. They are not about democracy and human rights at all. Look at the reign of terror and torture under the ‘war on terror’ that President George W Bush waged, and that President Obama continues in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere.

KZ: Saudi Arabia was among the Arab countries which was somewhat encompassed by the wave of 2010-2011 protests of the Middle East and North Africa; however, it seems that strangulation and oppression, implicitly endorsed by the United States, is so intense that the people don’t have enough backbone and courage to rise up against the government and demand fundamental changes and reformations in the political structure of their country. Will the United States, as the most strategic partner of Saudi Arabia, allow the implementation of sociopolitical reforms in the structure the Saudi government? Will the sporadic movements of the Saudi people bear fruit?

DT: Saudi Arabia is a closed society, in many ways that the Soviet Union was before 1985, when Mikhail Gorbachev became the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party. It took just six years for the Soviet state to collapse after the USSR began to open up.  Communication and free movement are very difficult, if not impossible for the ordinary citizen, in such societies; and news of unrest does not readily reach the world. We know that Saudi citizens nevertheless do find ways to express their opposition, but they are crushed with brute force. Remember, Saudi Arabia’s security forces are among the best equipped in the Middle East, supplied by the Americans. They use these means to coerce their population. Despite all this, social discontent simmers under the surface. Failure to open up Saudi society and give the people their basic rights could have serious consequences.

KZ: Do you agree with the idea that the Middle East revolutions, specially the popular uprisings in Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan and Egypt, will be of Iran’s interests? Does the destabilization of U.S.-backed Arab regimes in the region empower Iran politically, strategically?

DT: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, to which I subscribe, a revolution in the political context is “forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system.” Uprising is an “act of resistance or rebellion” to achieve that end. It is important not to confuse the meaning of the two terms. In the late twentieth century, what happened in 1979 in Iran was a revolution; and between 1989 and 1991 there were revolutions in what was then the Soviet bloc. In the new century in recent months, Egypt has had a revolution, in the sense that a dictator and his ruling party that had a monopoly over power, have fallen. What replaces it is not certain yet. We will have to see until after the elections at least.

Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Syria, perhaps Libya, are all experiencing rebellions of one kind or another. How it all ends in each case – we will have to wait and see. As of now, the ruling structures in these countries are shaking; they may be collapsing; but they are still there. Equally important, what impact does it all have on the Palestinian struggle will have to be seen.

In the wider geopolitical context, these events do indicate that the United States is losing its grip over the region. In fact, America had been losing its grip for some years. It is just that the military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and America’s militaristic foreign policy may have given the opposite appearance to those who fail to look beyond the immediate.

If the people of each country can decide how their country should be run, it would be a good thing. I find the idea that a big power far and away can dictate to others anywhere most objectionable. And I don’t see the events in West Asia as a victory for one country or another. The tide of history is going in its own inevitable direction; popular movements are making huge waves and contributing to that tide of history. The final outcome is not yet certain, so the struggle will need to go on.

KZ: What will be the implications of the Middle East revolutions for the Israeli regime? Will Israel suffer from the change of government in Egypt and the fundamental political reforms which are going to happen in Jordan?

DT: I have alluded to these matters in my previous replies. I will summarize my answer here.  What is happening in the Middle East at present is going to limit Israel’s scope for arbitrary conduct. The overthrow of the Mubarak regime in Egypt has been a huge setback to Israel, because frankly Mubarak was acting like an American and Israeli surrogate to continue the occupation of Palestinian territories, and in the broader interests of Western policy in the Middle East. In Jordan, as elsewhere, change looks inevitable, though I hesitate to predict what form it will take. I think it is never a good idea to underestimate the big players’ capacity for manipulation and deceit. In a sense, the West learned the lesson very quickly in Egypt, where it was slow to act during the anti-Mubarak protests. Eventually it dumped Mubarak when it realized he was a too big liability to carry, and then picked Libya and Syria to reestablish its pro-democracy credentials. The West, in the guise of NATO, has switched to a pro-democracy posture by siding with the anti-Gaddafi forces in Libya and with the opposition to Bashar al-Assad in Syria. But that makes Western policy in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen even more inconsistent, if not hypocritical.

Kourosh Ziabari
Kourosh Ziabari

Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist, and regular contributor to RamallahOnline.com. More articles by Kourosh Ziabari can be found here.

Posted on by

The Genie is out of the Bottle

Uri Avnery

Uri Avnery, 19 Feb 2011

THIS IS a story right out of “1001 Nights”. The genie escaped from the bottle, and no power on earth can put it back.

When it happened in Tunisia, it could have been said: OK, an Arab country, but a minor one. It was always a bit more progressive than the others. Just an isolated incident.

And then it happened in Egypt. A pivotal country. The heart of the Arab world. The spiritual center of Sunni Islam. But it could have been said: Egypt is a special case. The land of the Pharaohs. Thousands of years of history before the Arabs even got there.

But now it has spread all over the Arab world. To Algeria, Bahrain, Yemen. Jordan, Libya, even Morocco. And to non-Arab, non-Sunni Iran, too.

The genie of revolution, of renewal, of rejuvenation, is now haunting all the regimes in the Region. The inhabitants of the “Villa in the Jungle” are liable to wake up one morning and discover that the jungle is gone, that we are surrounded by a new landscape.

WHEN OUR Zionist fathers decided to set up a safe haven in Palestine, they had the choice between two options:

They could appear in West Asia as European conquerors, who see themselves as a bridgehead of the “white” man and as masters of the “natives”, like the Spanish conquistadores and the Anglo-Saxon colonialists in America. That is what the crusaders did in their time.

The second way was to see themselves as an Asian people returning to their homeland, the heirs to the political and cultural traditions of the Semitic world, ready to take part, with the other peoples of the region, in the war of liberation from European exploitation.

I wrote these words 64 years ago, in a brochure that appeared just two months before the outbreak of the 1948 war.

I stand by these words today.

These days I have a growing feeling that we are once again standing at a historic crossroads. The direction we choose in the coming days will determine the destiny of the State of Israel for years to come, perhaps irreversibly. If we choose the wrong road, we will have “weeping for generations”, as the Hebrew saying goes.

And perhaps the greatest danger is that we make no choice at all, that we are not even aware of the need to make a decision, that we just continue on the road that has brought us to where we are today. That we are occupied with trivialities – the battle between the Minister of Defense and the departing Chief of Staff, the struggle between Netanyahu and Lieberman about the appointment of an ambassador, the non-events of “Big Brother” and similar TV inanities – that we do not even notice that history is passing us by, leaving us behind.

WHEN OUR politicians and pundits found enough time – amid all the daily distractions – to deal with the events around us, it was in the old and (sadly) familiar way.

Even in the few halfway intelligent talk shows, there was much hilarity about the idea that “Arabs” could establish democracies. Learned professors and media commentators “proved” that such a thing just could not happen – Islam was “by nature” anti-democratic and backward, Arab societies lacked the Protestant Christian ethic necessary for democracy, or the capitalist foundations for a sound middle class, etc. At best, one kind of despotism would be replaced by another.

The most common conclusion was that democratic elections would inevitably lead to the victory of “Islamist” fanatics, who would set up brutal Taliban-style theocracies, or worse.

Part of this, of course, is deliberate propaganda, designed to convince the naïve Americans and Europeans that they must shore up the Mubaraks of the region or alternative military strongmen. But most of it was quite sincere: most Israelis really believe that the Arabs, left to their own devices, will set up murderous “Islamist” regimes, whose main aim would be to wipe Israel off the map.

Ordinary Israelis know next to nothing about Islam and the Arab world. As a (left-wing) Israeli general answered 65 years ago, when asked how he viewed the Arab world: “though the sights of my rifle.” Everything is reduced to “security”, and insecurity prevents, of course, any serious reflection.

THIS ATTITUDE goes back to the beginnings of the Zionist movement.

Its founder – Theodor Herzl – famously wrote in his historic treatise that the future Jewish State would constitute “a part of the wall of civilization” against Asiatic (meaning Arab) barbarism. Herzl admired Cecil Rhodes, the standard-bearer of British imperialism, He and his followers shared the cultural attitude then common in Europe, which Eduard Said latter labeled “Orientalism”.

Viewed in retrospect, that was perhaps natural, considering that the Zionist movement was born in Europe towards the end of the imperialist era, and that it was planning to create a Jewish homeland in a country in which another people – an Arab people – was living.

The tragedy is that this attitude has not changed in 120 years, and that it is stronger today than ever. Those of us who propose a different course – and there have always been some – remain voices in the wilderness.

This is evident these days in the Israeli attitude to the events shaking the Arab world and beyond. Among ordinary Israelis, there was quite a lot of spontaneous sympathy for the Egyptians confronting their tormentors in Tahrir Square – but everything was viewed from the outside, from afar, as if it were happening on the moon.

The only practical question raised was: will the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty hold? Or do we need to raise new army divisions for a possible war with Egypt? When almost all “security experts” assured us that the treaty was safe, people lost interest in the whole matter.

BUT THE treaty – actually an armistice between regimes and armies – should only be of secondary concern for us. The most important question is: how will the new Arab world look? Will the transition to democracy be relatively smooth and peaceful, or not? Will it happen at all, and will it mean that a more radical Islamic region emerges – which is a distinct possibility? Can we have any influence on the course of events?

Of course, none of today’s Arab movements is eager for an Israeli embrace. It would be a bear hug. Israel is viewed today by practically all Arabs as a colonialist, anti-Arab state that oppresses the Palestinians and is out to dispossess as many Arabs as possible – though there is, I believe, also a lot of silent admiration for Israel’s technological and other achievements.

But when entire peoples rise up and revolution upsets all entrenched attitudes, there is the possibility of changing old ideas. If Israeli political and intellectual leaders were to stand up today and openly declare their solidarity with the Arab masses in their struggle for freedom, justice and dignity, they could plant a seed that would bear fruit in coming years.

Of course, such statements must really come from the heart. As a superficial political ploy, they would be rightly despised. They must be accompanied by a profound change in our attitude towards the Palestinian people. That’s why peace with the Palestinians now, at once, is a vital necessity for Israel.

Our future is not with Europe or America. Our future is in this region, to which our state belongs, for better or for worse. It’s not just our policies that must change, but our basic outlook, our geographical orientation. We must understand that we are not a bridgehead from somewhere distant, but a part of a region that is now – at long last – joining the human march towards freedom.

The Arab Awakening is not a matter of months or a few years. It may well be a prolonged struggle, with many failures and defeats, but the genie will not return to the bottle. The images of the 18 days in Tahrir Square will be kept alive in the hearts of an entire new generation from Marakksh to Mosul, and any new dictatorship that emerges here or there will not be able to erase them.

In my fondest dreams I could not imagine a wiser and more attractive course for us Israelis, than to join this march in body and spirit.

Uri Avnery

Uri Avnery

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and founder of the Gush Shalom peace movement. A member of the Irgun as a teenager, Avnery sat in the Knesset from 1965–74 and 1979-81.

Posted on by

Middle East Protests, Violence and Strikes Continue

Stephen Lendman

Stephen Lendman, 18 Feb 2011

Whatever set them off, the genie is out of the bottle and spreading from Tunisia to Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Algeria, Bahrain, Iran, Libya, Iraq, and perhaps America, in Wisconsin over proposed wage, benefits, and union bargaining rights cuts. A forthcoming article covers outrage in the US heartland, inspiring others Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, and perhaps wherever aggrieved workers reside, awaken, and react against intolerable outrageous policies.

On February 17, New York Times writers Michael Slackman and Nadim Audi headlined, “Bahrain’s Military Takes Control of Key Areas in Capital,” saying:

Its military, “backed by tanks and armored personnel carriers, took control of most of this capital (Manama) on Thursday, hours after hundreds of heavily armed riot police officers fired shotguns, tear gas and concussion grenades to break up a pro-democracy camp inspired by the tumult swirling across the Middle East.”

Hundreds were injured. At least six died, some killed while they slept with scores of shotgun pellets to the head and chest, according to witnesses and attending doctors. Others were attacked when they ran to avoid violence. Foreign minister, Sheikh Khaled bin Ahmed al-l-Khalifa, defended street violence as a last resort to save Bahrain from the “brink of a sectarian abyss.”

Al Jazeera’s unnamed correspondent for his safety said “clashes were no longer limited to one place….They are now spread out in different parts of the city.” Hospitals are filled with wounded people. “Some of them are severely injured with gunshots. Patients include doctors and emergency personnel who were overrun by the police while trying to attend to the wounded.” Some are in critical condition.

Angry crowns are chanting, “Down with Al-Khalifa,” referring to Bahrain’s ruling family. “People are also chanting that the blood of the victims will not be in vain.” The kingdom’s main opposition bloc, Wefaq, denounced government violence as “real terrorism,” women and children attacked like men.

Bahrain’s king, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa expressed condolences on state television for “the deaths of two of our dear sons,” saying a committee would investigate the killings, adding:

“We will ask legislators to look into this issue and suggest needed laws to resolve it.” However, human rights activist Alkwaka said attacking peaceful protesters casts doubt on his credibility as numbers of deaths and injuries rise.

Initially, protesters demanded a constitutional monarchy. Now after days of violence, many want the ruling family ousted. “Bring down the government,” thousands chanted, including women and children. An identified surgeon for his safety said Bahrain’s Health Ministry prevented ambulances from reaching victims. Police beat medical staff. Wefaq’s Hussein Mohammed called it “a slaughter.” Taghreed Hussein said “We are a people of mourners now, we have nothing” as she and others suffered in grief.

Bahrain is strategically important to Washington as home for its Fifth Fleet. It’s responsible for security in the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important chokepoint for 16 million daily barrels of oil, the Bab-el-Mandeb strait separating Yemen from Eritrea through which three million barrels of oil pass daily, the Gulf of Oman, Red Sea, Suez Canal, Arabian Sea, Mediterranean Sea, and parts of the Indian Ocean. Thus, security remains tight and ready to respond violently if Bahrainians try breaching base defenses.

Libyan Protests

On February 17, Al Jazeera headlined “Deadly ‘day of rage’ in Libya,” saying:

Reports say over a dozen demonstrators were killed in clashes with security and pro-government forces. Faiz Jibril, an opposition leader in exile told Libyans to “br(ake) the barrier of fear, it is a new dawn.” A Benghazi eye witness told Al Jazeera he saw police kill six unarmed protesters Thursday. He also said 30 released prisoners were armed and paid to attack people demonstrating peacefully.

Mohammed Al Abdellah, deputy leader of the exiled National Front for the Salvation of Libya, said al-Baida hospitals were short of medical supplies because authorities refused to supply them for dozens being admitted, some critically with gunshot wounds.

In Zentan, southwest of the capital, government buildings were set ablaze. Deaths were reported in a number of cities. Darnah and protesters in other cities were chanting “the people want the ouster of the regime.”

Libya is tightly controlled, run by Muammar Gaddafi for over 40 years, the region’s longest ruling strongman. Thursday is the anniversary of the February 17, 2006 Benghazi clashes when security forces killed several protesters attacking the city’s Italian consulate. Wednesday night in al-Baida alone, 11 protesters were killed, scores wounded.

In a telephone interview with Al Jazeera, Libyan novelist/writer Idris Al-Mesmari said plainclothes security forces dispersed Benghazi protesters with tear gas, batons, and hot water. Hours later he was arrested. Authorities also temporarily cut off telephone connections, blocked social networking sites, and removed Al Jazeera from state-owned TV. It’s still available online, including in America where cable companies block its access as in Chicago by Comcast and smaller competitors.

Yemeni Protests Continue

Day seven of violent Yemen protests continue, a group of senior clerics calling for a national unity government to save the country from chaos. Al Jazeera said:

“influential figures are demanding a transitional unity government that would see the opposition represented in key ministries, followed by elections in six months.”

They commented as fresh clashes erupting between pro and anti-government protesters in Sanaa, Yemen’s capital. Deaths and numerous injuries were reported.

“Police are trying to form lines to separate protesters and pro-government supporters – but they’re also attempting to disperse crowds with live ammunition, a sign of the very tense situation in the capital ahead of calls for today’s ‘Friday of Fury,’ ” according to correspondent Hashem Ahelbara.

President Ali Abdullah Saleh meets daily with powerful tribal chiefs, requesting their support at this crucial time. “He has struck a very harsh tone, describing the protesters as ‘anarchists.’ ”

Demonstrators reject his demand to delay elections to 2013, saying: “The only way is for us to keep fighting in the streets to bring about the dramatic changes that have taken place in Tunisia and Egypt,” that, in fact, remain very much unresolved, entrenched power in both countries retaining firm control.

In Sanaa, hundreds of students joined other protesters. So did workers at several state-owned companies, demanding their managers step down. Like others, they also want higher wages in the region’s poorest country plagued by extreme poverty, unemployment and hunger.

According to Sanaa University Professor Abullah Al-Faqih:

“This is what both Saleh’s ruling party and the opposition feared most – loud and violent protests organized by people that have no allegiance to any of the political parties.”

Protests in Iraq

In Iraq, protests spread over anger about government corruption, unemployment, few public services, spotty electricity if any, repression and occupation by hated Americans.

In Kut, 2,000 protested for lack of work and electricity, among other grievances. It turned deadly when private guards employed by the provincial government open fire at crowds, killing three or more and injuring dozens.

Eyewitnesses told the Washington Post that:

The provincial “governor escaped through a back door with his bodyguards….Footage broadcast on Iraqi television showed black smoke billowing from the headquarters as protesters clambered over walls into the compound. Other members of the provincial council also reportedly escaped, and the Iraqi army was called in to quell the turmoil.”

They rushed reinforcements to the city, blocked its entrances, and prevented people in surrounding areas from joining demonstrators. Several government buildings were set ablaze, including the governorate’s main administration one and the governor’s official residence.

Unrest was also reported in Afak in neighboring Diwaniyah province, where demonstrators stormed a building housing the local city council, setting it afire. Several killings and numerous injuries were reported there and elsewhere, including at gatherings of lawyers, judges, students, oil workers and others voicing specific complaints.

Political analyst Ibrahim Sumaiedi called outbreaks “very dangerous. Society is divided along ethnic and sectarian lines, and everyone is armed. If this (spreads), we will face not reform or change but something far more devastating, because there are a lot of weapons in Iraq.” In Yemen also, heightening the chance for greater violence.

Anticipation is now building for February 25, called a “Revolution of Iraqi Rage,” a month after the Facebook-organized “Day of Rage” that toppled Mubarak. Numerous groups urge Iraqis to take to the streets that day to protest. What began localized potentially could spread and engulf the entire country, despite low Internet access unlike Egypt. However, once protests erupt, they gain momentum of their own.

Striking Egyptians Persist

Ignoring military council prohibitions, tens of thousands across the country demand higher pay, better working conditions, and corrupt officials purged. In Mahall al-Kubra, Egypt’s largest industrial center, 12,000 workers struck the Misr Spinning and Weaving factory, wanting their grievances addressed.

In Damietta, 6,000 textile workers continued their walkout at the company’s facility south of Cairo, also for similar demands. Across Cairo, Alexandria, Qaliubiya, and the Suez Canal area, strikes and protests continued. In Port Said, 1,000 demonstrated, demanding closure of a chemical factory polluting a local lake. At Ismailiya, irrigation, education and health ministry workers want higher wages and other grievances redressed.

Cairo International Airport workers walked out, hundreds demanding higher wages, better healthcare coverage and other benefits. Other strikes affect banks, transport, oil, tourism, and various government agencies. One of the most important actions impacts major Cairo banks, forcing many businesses and factories to close because customers can’t get funds to buy products being produced.

Many factories closed when even small numbers of workers struck to prevent actions gaining traction and spreading to other facilities. Plants affected include textiles, chemicals, cement, ceramics, steel and others.

According the the newspaper Al-Masri Al-Youm:

“In the wake of the 25 January uprising, employees in many sectors – including state-owned publishing houses and the supply directorate (rations) – took to the streets for the first time. While their demands were primarily economic, they also included pleas against corruption and nepotism.”

Social injustice is a major concern it stressed, saying:

“Although protesters have clear economic grievances, they primarily lament what they perceive as unfair procedures, either in regard to unequal pay among employees of various government institutions or the arbitrary dismissal of workers.”

So far, banks, businesses, factories, schools, universities and the stock exchange remain closed. Workers also expressed anger over the state-controlled Egyptian Trade Union Federation (ETUF). Thousands demonstrated outside its headquarters, demanding its chief, Hussein Megawer, resign along with members of his governing board.

AP reported that:

“Since the military took power from (Mubarak), Egyptians have been airing grievances everywhere over just about everything, from meager wages to police brutality and corruption.”

What unites them is being able to voice complaints publicly for the first time. Driven by economic despair, they now demand redress, their passion perhaps strong enough to resonate, grow, and spread for real change if millions join them in solidarity, knowing ousting Mubarak was a small first step, achieving nothing so far with generals still in charge. They’re part of the old regime resistant to change.

Egyptians’ main task lies ahead against formidable odds for success, but nothing was ever achieved without sustained, determined trying. A better world is possible, maybe first in some unlikely places, but never easily, quickly, or without great cost.

Stephen Lendman

Stephen Lendman

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/