WILAYAH NEWS VOICE OF THE GLOBAL AWAKENING
Related Articles
Nearly three years have passed since violence erupted in Syria and peaceful anti-regime demonstrations were touched off in Bahrain. However, the approach adopted by the West and even countries in the region is deeply paradoxical to the point that it poses a challenge to most international norms and conventions.
A review of the ongoing events in Syria and Bahrain will help understand a number of deep differences in the nature of these two cases as well as the regional and international approaches vis-à-vis them.
The popular revolt in Bahrain started on February 14, 2011. At that time, the Bahrainis, following uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya, decided to express their demands to the government. In the beginning, they only wanted constitutional monarchy and elimination of ethnic and sectarian discrimination, particularly against Shias in the tiny Persian Gulf sheikhdom, but the ruling Al Khalifa regime chose to quell the protests from day one.
The protests in Bahrain were totally popular and independent, but the Al Khalifa regime, frightened by the downfall of several dictatorial regimes in the Middle East, resorted to Saudi Arabia in an attempt to quash popular protests.
Despite massive crackdowns in Bahrain, protests have been continuing peacefully and even killings, detentions and torture have failed to dissuade Bahraini freedom-seeking people from pursuing their objective. But their demands have since changed and at present their sole objective is the overthrow of the Al Khalifa monarchy. Three years on, protests in Bahrain remain peaceful and the protestors have not held up arms even for a single day.
The Syrian crisis was initially considered a sort of revolt in nature. It started on March 15, 2011, one month after Bahrain’s revolt. Some Sunni groups and even followers of other sects and ethnicities have been calling on President Bashar al-Assad to embark on reforms particularly in the political arena and open up to the activities of political parties and participation of followers of other religious sects.
Like any other head of government, President Assad thought the protests would be short-lived and he even agreed to several proposed reforms. But protests in Syria changed in nature quickly and degenerated into an armed confrontation which gradually plunged the country into a massive civil war.
From an international point of view, protests in Bahrain are mainly popular and the UN Human Rights Charter recognizes people’s right to hold peaceful rallies. But Bahrain is violently denying people this obvious right.
No human rights regulations endorse resorting to arms to meet one’s demands and therefore the Syrian government can take into consideration the demands of opposition groups as they do not resort to armed struggle. Therefore, the Syrian government has only taken action to ensure stability and integrity in the country. Any other government facing armed threats would have done the same.
The important point concerning protests in these two countries is the approach adopted by the international community vis-à-vis the two crises. While Bahrain’s mainstream media have imposed a news blackout on torture, detention and massacre of democracy-seeking people and notwithstanding the Saudi interference in the crackdown on the Bahraini protesters, international bodies view the violence in Bahrain as an insignificant domestic issue.
However, in the meantime, the international community focuses heavily on the developments in Syria and specifies alleged human rights violations by the Syrian government while keeping mum on the extent of crimes committed by foreign-backed Takfiri militants.
Over the past three years, the Western governments have not been content with media hype against the Syrian government and they have financed and armed militants fighting against Damascus. Politically and internationally, the Western governments continued to support the opposition and even established the so-called Friends of Syria group.
On what grounds are so many double standards vis-à-vis Syria and Bahrain justified? In response to this question, one should refer to the strategic interests of the West, the Israeli regime and Saudi Arabia in Bahrain and Syria.
Bahrain is a close ally of the United States in the Middle East and hosts its fifth Navy fleet. Despite their slogans for freedom and democracy, the US and other Western countries favor a controllable dictatorial government in Bahrain in order to move ahead with its military and spying activities in the region. The long-term objective followed by the US is to have troops and spying agents in all Middle East countries. In recent years, this opportunity has been provided for the US in Bahrain, but at the same time, the US fears that a possible victory of the popular revolt in Bahrain will bring to power a government born out of people. In that case, the US interests will be undermined. That is why the US remains silent vis-à-vis the popular revolt in Bahrain and it even backs the ruling regime.
But US interests in Syria are exactly the contrary. The Syrian government has been considered the axis of resistance against Israel in the past years. In recent years, the triangle of Iran-Syria-Hezbollah has challenged the interests of the US and the Zionist lobby in the Middle East. A high-profile result has been the neutralization of the US-led Greater Middle East Plan.
Devised by Zionists, the Greater Middle East Plan started with the 33-day Israeli war on Lebanon’s Hezbollah, its invasion of Gaza, civil war in Syria and tough economic sanctions on Iran under the pretext of the country’s nuclear program.
The link between security, military and political interests of the US and Israel are no secret to anybody. US officials, both Democrats and Republicans, always insist on defending the Israeli interests at any price.
Nevertheless, Israel was defeated in the war against the Lebanese Hezbollah and in attacks on Gaza, and the nuclear agreement between Iran and six powers on November 24 of last year shattered the Zionist regime’s dreams.
For this reason, we are witnessing two different approaches in Syria and Bahrain, two approaches which are unlike the deafening slogans used by the West about the necessity of observing human rights, protecting freedom and democracy. A review of the situation in Bahrain and Syria shows that the West only moves to secure its interests, and wherever it needs it, resorts to cunning slogans about human rights.
