Apartheid Under the Mandate of Islam: The Case of Bahrain
by Samir Yousif (July 2011)
Introduction
The rulers of these Apartheid Regimes were convinced that any change in the status quo will ultimately lead to their departure from the throne. To stay in power, they practised all kinds of discrimination and ethnic cleansing. The presence of the British troops, and later the Americans, unwittingly enhanced such discrimination, and made it a fact of everyday life.
Al-Khalifa Family
But the collapse of the Berlin Wall in Nov 1989 changed international priorities, the Balance of Power, and made the Khomeini Regime no longer desirable or needed. It is this last development that influences the current events in Bahrain.
Elements of Apartheid in Bahrain
Third. Through economic and commercial blockage, the Al-Khalifa family aimed at starving or at least keeping the indigenous Shia population very poor.[8] They believed that this policy, in the long term, will eventually lead to a reduction in the total Shia population, while increasing the favoured Sunni Minority.
There are no hopes of introducing any real political reforms in Bahrain without outside pressure. The only country that can play a positive role is the USA.[12]
The Deceptive Role of Mass Media
Actually the picture is completely different when one tries to make a comparative study of the professionalism exhibited by Al-Jazeera on two specific recent cases. This comparative study will show how Al-Jazeera is un-professional in both its coverage, and focus. Relationships between Qatar and Libya (as well Syria), and Qatar and Bahrain are very different.[14]
As the situation in Libya during February 2011 started warming up, and the demonstrations became nation-wide, Al-Jazeera presented a situation where the Libyan dictator Kaddafi was about to collapse. According to the coverage of Al-Jazeera, change in Libya was imminent, and in a few hours the dictator would be overthrown. This false message encouraged Western leaders to make urgent calls based upon reactions to incorrect Al-Jazeera daily news. NATO got involved, and the UN Security Council intervened. According to Al-Jazeera coverage, a non-fly zone was required to overthrow Kaddafi. That was done, but Kaddafi was not overthrown.
On the other side, we find that the role played by Al-Jazeera and Qatar during events of Bahrain do not coincide with its declared role of defending freedoms, human rights and liberty. The demonstrations, arrests, torture and killings were not covered by Al-Jazeera. To the contrary, Qatar sent its military troops to join in crushing the demonstrations in Bahrain, instead of helping them in gaining their legitimate rights.
Western journalists managed to register many of the terrible events that took place in Bahrain. No calls were made to help the demonstrators, or to provide them with military help as the case of Libya. The UN was not involved although the crimes committed in Bahrain were worse than Libya taking into consideration the fact that the demonstrators in Bahrain were unarmed. Barak Obama himself talking on May, 19th, referred to the situation in Bahrain,[16] and mentioned the destruction of Shia religious places by the Bahraini government. Such a crime did not take place in Libya, Syria, Egypt or Tunisia.
This is a live example showing how the mass media is pushing hard to defend an existing Apartheid regime.
Bahrain and Western Journalists
[crimes against humanity committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” On 30 November 1973, the United NationsGeneral Assembly opened for signature and ratification the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (ICSPCA). It defined the crime of apartheid as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” See: United Nations (30 November 2006). “International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid”. Archived from the original on 1 October 2006. Retrieved 8 October 2006.
Great Britain. This treaty granted the Al Khalifa the title of Rulers of Bahrain.
Rez? Sh?h demanded the return of Bahrain in a letter to the “League of Nations”. Britain believed that weakened domination over Bahrain would cause her to lose control all over the Persian Gulf, and decided to bring uprisings amongst the people of Bahrain under control at any cost. To achieve this they encouraged conflicts between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in Bahrain.
[8] What is interesting is that such discrimination is practiced before the whole world without proper reaction. Add to that the presence of the American 5th Fleet in Bahrain did not change this picture.
[9] One of the famous examples was the land granting, and buy-back policy. The government offered pieces of free land to Sunnis, then bought them back at very high rates per meter. The aim of this policy was to create a rich Sunni class, and it did.
[10] Shia-Led demonstration against the Apartheid regime in Bahrain has a long history, and did not start in 2011.
[11] Ali Abdulemam is among the activists who disappeared. He was known for his call for personal liberties, and freedom of speech. He was the young man who inspired a whole generation.
[12] Foreign observers can assume that Bahrain successfully convinced the USA of not giving the its citizens their legitimate rights in order to contain the Iranian influence in the region.
[14] GCC countries are against both Libya, and Syria, but not Bahrain which is a member of the GCC.
[16] Obama delivered a speech, on May 19th, defining the role of the USA before the developing events of the Middle East. He mentioned Bahrain several times.
If you enjoyed this article and want to read more by Samir Yousif, please click here.