Day 7 - Mark (Breaking Fast)

The liquid fast has not been as difficult as I expected - I had less energy and felt hungry occasionally, but I think the body gets used to this kind of thing quickly. It definitely helped me keep Bahrain in my mind on a regular basis and compelled me to talk about the situation to other people. I met some people in the U.S. who are interested in meeting to talk more about solidarity with Bahrainis and I also connected with people at the Bahrain Center for Human Rights.

Nikki and I were talking about the idea of fasting as a form of solidarity or resistance, depending on the situation. I suggested that we might use the money we save to donate to the cause we're concerned for. This would work particularly well with an activity that she's done in the past, which is to eat for a dollar a day to see what it's like in some impoverished places. But again, there are so many programs to support and so many people asking for donations - I now put a lot more value into connecting personally to the people involved. I'm in discussion with some people in Bahrain about connecting over the internet to have discussions about how we can support their cause. If anyone is interested or has ideas of how to do this more effectively, let me know.

And of course, if anyone wants to join this fast or help out in other ways I strongly encourage you!

Day 7: Nikki--Endgame.

Not eating (though I was drinking juice and milks) while focusing on Bahrain during these last 7 days somehow made me feel more conscious of what I was doing and my goals, which were to focus more on Bahrain, and to try to talk to other people about the current issue. I feel like I could have devoted a week to doing that without fasting, but it might have been less of a conscious act without that low-level hunger reminding me of this choice that I made. My hunger consumed me, in a sense, and it wasn't really even hunger, because once you get used to that it is fleeting. It was more a slight lethargy, slight fogginess, combined with a slight starvation that was a basically a constant presence. It was difficult to ignore, and thus the situation in Bahrain became difficult to ignore--which is frankly something I feel good about. I ignore tons of human rights issues every day while I focus on others, or on myself, or on what I am going to cook for dinner, and I like how the physical consequences of fasting disallowed me from ignoring what's happening in Bahrain right now.

I also felt more aware of my emotional states, and less able to numb myself from unpleasant emotions. After Mark posted a translation of that terrible news story, I remember reading the words "condolences to the family of the deceased infant" and basically instantly weeping. I wonder if I would have blocked out that reaction, and gone on with the day, if slight starvation wasn't holding me in a somewhat raw state.

On a personal level it was also a neat exercise. I stopped eating meat in high school because I was interested in altering what I consumed to see how it affected how I felt (and how I performed, as a runner). I was personally intrigued by the idea of this hunger chain for the same reason, though I certainly abstained from running while I myself was 'running' on empty.

This week also made me feel pretty committed to the outcome in Bahrain. I have two friends who are considering taking a week in the Chain, and I had numerous conversations with sympathetic ears of people who will probably end up calling their senators about the arms deal. It was interesting to watch myself develop a relationship with a country, and some of its people, by engaging in something like this. I've never been to Bahrain and I don't speak the language there, yet I now somehow feel connected to it, and invested in the outcome of the Bahraini Spring.

Day 6: Nikki-- Political Engagement.

I really agree with Mark about personal connections.

I have a lot of friends (and family) who are basically asking me if I really think that fasting for Bahrain is going to do anything?

I've answered in the same way each time: well, I am not sure, but I do hope so, and to be honest, a friend who I recently made and have totally fallen in friend-love with (Fatima), asked me to do it and so I needed to.

When it's about connecting with others, it becomes two-sided and I am allowed to benefit as well, and I like that. The conversations I've had over this week have been so enriching for me, building friendships that I will hold onto. I think human rights issues get called "causes" sometimes in a way that makes protestors or activists seem selfless, even holders of a higher moral ground. And I think this really turns people away from political activism, even urges them to criticize it. ("The same protestors on Wall St. are holding iPods...")

When I was talking with my cousin--a high-powered businesswoman--about the Occupy movement, her comment was: Nikki, do you know how many people at Goldman & Sachs would be open to a discussion about more fairly distributing wealth? You just need to reach out to them and make a clear statement, not go occupy Wall St, what does that even mean?

Furthermore--and I've seen this in the DRC--activism can go awry when you do not connect with people on the ground. I have heard many misrepresentations about the story in Congo from people whose voices are often valued sources on the matter--actors, politicians, and politicians’ spouses--which can lead to legislation like the Dodd-Frank Act in the DRC. This act was meant to make deals between miners, smelters and electronic companies sourcing minerals more transparent. But much of the criticism shows Congolese voices that say the Act ended up hurting them.

The Pole Institute, a Congolese think-tank based in Goma, put out a statement which is exactly in line with what people in Congo have told me about this issue. They basically say, thanks for the Act, it was a good idea, but this amounts to an embargo, given all the rules the Act has set up.

I've also talked with both Congolese miners and Mining Co. Big Whigs in eastern DRC who feel certain, more than just hurting the economy by acting like an embargo, this Act brought more conflict because it put selling power in the hands of artisanal miners, who are more likely and able to work with the more violent militias--which they have historically done.

It seems like this Act, which was such a good idea, such a wonderful way of trying to harness the positive potential in US foreign policy, could have benefited from a couple of conversations with local Congolese folks.

When I spoke with local miners this summer (in 3 different mining regions), most of them said they weren't consulted about the matter. I found two people in all who said they remember researchers coming through, but that they were operating solely in French and therefore couldn't communicate with really anyone.

The politicians behind the Act came to Goma this summer and I had a chance to meet with them. When I voiced some concern over the human consequences, they scoffed at me with a don't you think this was better than nothing, Ms. D'Errico?

I am not sure I do.

So while this sounds like a giant rant, I don't mean it to. I actually think it's quite exciting that there are politicians thinking about how their securities and exchange acts could affect countries in conflict. And I actually think the solution here--the theme of today's posts--is personal connections. Those are free! And easy to acquire, if you just ask :) How wonderful!

Day 6 - Mark (Being Politically Engaged)

I was reminded this morning of how we take our freedom for granted in the U.S. when I read the following tweet:

marhoon Husain Marhoon

نشطاء"وول ستريت"يغلقون موانئ الساحل الغربي للولايات المتحدة من كاليفورنيا إلى ألاسكا. خمّن نوعية التهم لو أن ذلك حصل في البحرين! #bahrain

"Wall Street Protestors close down Port Authority in the western United States from California to Alaska. Imagine the accusations if that happened in Bahrain."

This is a simple but powerful statement. Maybe it's a joke, maybe it's a complaint, maybe just an expression of frustration. But people in the Arab world are acutely aware of how valuable the freedom of expression and the ability to criticize your government are. Many of them are giving are giving their lives for it (more than 5,000 in Syria this year). I've heard people make open calls for Americans to protest or put other forms of pressure on our government on the behalf of the Arab spring. For example, nobel prize laureate Tawakkul Karman called on Americans to join her in a protest outside of the UN to demand President Saleh's resignation.

But not everyone has time for this sort of activity, so how else might we stay informed and express solidarity? My opinion is constantly evolving, but lately I feel that personal connections are the most important foundation for real solidarity. I think that most people living abroad would be more than happy to talk about their difficulties and explain how Americans can help. Not only are we able to vote in (relatively) free and fair elections, but we can make calls and even visit our representatives to talk to them in person. I would be the first one to argue that our political system needs a total overhaul, but in the meantime it would be naive for us not to express our discontent to people who are willing to listen. I'm always open to discussion on this point, though, because I know people who have been trying that method for a long time and feel that there is little hope of internal reform except when big money doesn't get in the way.

One very important way we can offer help is by supporting small businesses abroad, especially in places facing political instability. Nikki has purses for sale made by Congolese women, all profits going directly to the person who made it. Egypt, for example, is facing serious economic trouble, especially as tourism has decreased, so it will be important for us to search for ways to support small businesses, and ideally to connect with them personally in the process. If anyone is interested in that sort of thing, let us know!

Death of Infant

There have been lots of tweets and a few articles about an infant that died after exposure to tear gas in Bahrain this weekend. I'm sure this will be controversial, but here is a translation of one article I received, which also has more details than others. I'm not clear on all of the medical terminology, but this is seems to be strong evidence that the death is linked to tear gas:

"The Administrative Director of Public and International Relations in the Ministry of Health made an announcement about the 4-day old infant named Sajdah, who died Saturday, December 10, 2011 in the Salmaniya Medical Center. The medical report indicated that the cause of death was acute poisoning of the blood and septic shock due to bacterial poisoning in the blood. The Ministry of Health expressed its deepest condolences to the family of the deceased infant. We ask the Magnificent and Lofty God to protect her with his vast mercy and to inspire them with patience and solace."

Day 5: Nikki--Reflecting on the DR Congo

W A R N I N G : The lack of caloric energy going to my brain may be responsible for an absence of clarity, organization, and/or grammatical correctness in this post.

When I first met Fatima and another Bahraini woman about six weeks ago, during a few points in their narration of the events in Bahrain, I remember thinking: one could trade out Bahrain for DR Congo (DRC) and be telling the same story.

This is not to say there is a Congolese Spring going on, nor is it to deny the innumerable and important differences between the two countries, and the conflicts within them. But seeing the parallel issues in the two stories made me feel hopeful that potentially understanding political afflictions in one location may shed light on another. Then perhaps levers of change might be similar, even recyclable.

So here are some thoughts:

In both Bahrain and the DR Congo, identity (ethnic or religious) has been mobilized by government figures for the sake of dividing the populace. A non-unified populace is far less likely to organize to in opposition against their government. The time that could be doing that will instead be spent thinking about their hatred of the other group.

The few Bahrainis I have spoken with about this issue said that the distinction between Shia and Sunni has not always been important to the average Bahraini. They expressed the opinion that this religious difference has been mobilized at politically opportune times by their government, for the purpose of keeping the populace divided.

The same argument has been made about ethnicity in the DR Congo. Some say that ethnicity was used as a tool of divisiveness as early as the colonial era, and that many subsequent leaders of the country followed in this tradition. Many people have expressed this view to me in the country, saying that politicians are very purposeful in choosing when and why to talk about ethnic differences.

Issues of nationality and citizenship of course get tied into this. In Bahrain, a woman who marries a man from Saudi Arabia cannot pass on her national identity to her kin. In the DRC, if you are from the Tutsi ethnic group, your nationality might depend on your ability to produce documents that your grandparents were born in the DRC. But that might change in the next political season, whereas you might only have to show that you were born in the DRC.

So the argument could be made that these differences only matter to certain people when they can benefit from them.

I've heard people in Africa say that language policy in post-colonial African states were used to unify (in the case of Tanzania, where Nyerere, the first president, united everyone by making Kiswahili the national language, which is still the language of government today) or to divide (in the case of the DRC, where a divided population was necessary for Mobutu to reign for 32 years, and there are several national languages, from several ethnic groups).

Lastly--and this one is so basic--when you can get so rich as a president, prime minister or king, you will not be quick to pass power to someone else. Furthermore, you might be willing to use any means necessary to hold onto power. Absolute power sure does corrupt absolutely and the well-being of citizens doesn't seem to matter to those trying at all costs to hold onto power.

So on a practical level, the fact that the Prime Minister of Bahrain bought the financial harbor area for $1, or the fact that Mobutu could decide whenever he wanted that the government could appropriate land for free, could be seen as valuable pieces of information to those making US foreign policy in these nations.

Day 5 - Mark (Reflecting on other international conflicts)

I explained earlier why I consider political oppression in Bahrain to be particularly relevant to U.S. foreign policy, which is also why I feel compelled to pressure our government on this issue. However, there are of course many other places in the world that are facing far more dire circumstances. More often than not, it's unclear to me what our government or non-governmental agencies should do.

For example, Somalia is still facing a famine, but the resistance group al-Shabaab has been blocking aid workers from delivering aid to certain regions. Is it almost impossible for aid workers to deliver food without foreign military intervention? Nikki could certainly comment on the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where she has lived, but it seems clear that Congolese people are too concerned with basic health and safety issues to organize politically. In other Arab countries, the government oppression has been so fatal that protestors are afraid to be outside in large groups, which requires new forms of civil disobedience. In Syria, for example, someone has organized people to shut their shops as a form of resistance, which does not require anyone to be on the street for protests.

All of these issues have divisive political dimensions, but at the most basic level people are unified around the need for food and basic health services. Nikki discussed this in a previous post, and I think it's a great way to start a discussion about what we have to offer.

I also think it's worth distinguishing between the responsibility of the U.S. government on the one hand, and our responsibility as citizens. Our government often makes "diplomatic choices," such as Secretary Clinton's visit to Myanmar. Some people might argue that real change in Bahrain will be more likely if our government maintains diplomatic relations and is thus able to pressure them diplomatically. However, that's not a choice the typical American citizen has to make. Politicians are limited by what's "politically possible," while the role that social movements, protests and hunger strikes play is to change the discourse of what is possible.

That's why I think that pressure from U.S. citizens should not be limited by what is "diplomatic" or possible in the realm of real politics. The international solidarity movement is stronger now than it has ever been, in my opinion, and people notice when the American people criticize the hypocrisy of their own government. I often heard people in Egypt and Yemen tell me that they "love the American people, but hate the American government." It's worth thinking about what that really means. I used to use "we" when talking about U.S. foreign policy choices, as in "should we intervene in such and such country," but I've started to talk about what the U.S. government does apart from what "we" as Americans can do.

Day 4 - Mark (Response to Documentary)

Today I watched parts of the al-Jazeera documentary, “Bahrain: Shouting in the Dark.” I had seen this soon after it first came out, but haven’t gone back to watch it in a long time. It is of course well known now that the doctors in Salmaniyya Hospital were imprisoned and tortured for treating wounded protestors as well as police, that Saudi Arabia sent troops to help quell the protests, and that Bahrain used (and continues to use) weapons produced in the U.S. to harm their own civilians. However, the most disturbing part of the documentary, in my opinion, is the “confessions” that were broadcast on state television upon the release of certain prisoners (see the documentary at minute 41). This can only be conveyed effectively through video, and it makes me think of an Orwellian novel.

I’ve gotten tweets today from people in Bahrain describing more protestors injured by American weapons and seen articles about police breaking up protests this weekend using tear gas. It would be wrong to consider the material in this video a tragic mistake that has been mended by promises of reform. The same repression continues and, as a Bahraini told me recently, pressure from outside of Bahrain is extremely effective. The U.S. government has been critical of Bahrain in rhetoric, but this should be backed by action.

Day 4: Nikki--Shouting in the Dark

I like this documentary for several reasons.

First, it was filmed after the Bahraini government took control of the television stations and kicked out international journalists. So viewers get to look inside of (and potentially connect with) a situation that they would have been otherwise prevented from hearing much about.

I appreciate that there was a fair amount of interview footage in the documentary, which made transparent the assumptions driving the film's conclusions. This interview footage allowed me to feel like I was in conversation with some Bahrainis present during the protests, something I wouldn't have gotten given the deliberate censorship of opposition views by the Bahraini government and the consequent danger associated with speaking out.

Finally, I thought the filmmaker's choice to focus this documentary around the hospital, and thus around the concept of human health, was effective and smart. In the past, I have been drawn to the theoretical underpinnings of a movement called Peace through Health.

Peace through Health (PtH) basically promotes the idea of using health as a unifying concept, and the activities around health as unifying actions, amidst conflict. The movement has been fairly criticized for its lack of an evidence base, but I still think there are some potentially helpful concepts raised in discussing the feasibility of peace through health. One of the major tenets of PtH is using the neutrality inherent to the provision of health care as a platform for unification, an entry way for discussion between opposition parties. PtH-centered interventions, which have taken place in many spots on the globe, are known to struggle in the Middle east, the most commonly in the West Bank .

The focus on the bustling hospital, which progressively becomes the protagonist of Shouting in the Dark, presents a challenge to the tenets of PtH, bringing another example from the Middle East. What happens when health does not bring neutrality? Worse, what happens when the provision of health care is mobilized for political purposes?

I still think there are valuable conversations to be had surrounding PtH, and I've seen PtH interventions in other parts of the world that are working in small ways.

So. If the provision of health care can be used a litmus test for the respect of human rights, then I am not sure the investigations into the torture of protesters is really needed to inform the decision around the arms sale. I mean, is the evidence not already written on the wall?

It is worth noting, however, that there were certainly critiques of this documentary, namely that it presents a one-sided view (see comment 1) of the Bahraini Spring. The Bahraini government also came out against the documentary, but I can only seem to find the details of their response in Arabic. (Maybe Mark can help here!) From what I could read in English, the ruling family suggested that the documentary was a political tool used by the government of Qatar, where Al Jazeera is based. One of the reasons cited is the fact that the documentary was shown on the English channel of the television network, said to be less influential in the Middle East and more influential in the West.

While it could be argued that the documentary is dramatic and sensational (conforming to the demands of the medium), I still think it plays an invaluable role in understanding the current situation in Bahrain--if only for its display of some raw footage (analysis can be biased, but can footage be biased?) from the protests, and from the television channels where Bahraini government officials spoke, during the protests.

Maybe I would have had a different reaction if I was able to eat popcorn during the show...

Day 3--Nikki: Connecting with others

As I wrote in my first post, one of the things that attracted me to getting involved in the Hunger Chain is that there are, in my opinion, such clear statements American citizens can make here. Mark wrote an update about the human rights investigations called for by the US government, and there is such a small amount of information needed, again in my opinion, to be able to take a (loud?) position on the issue.

This current situation--do we sell arms ($53 million of them) to a government that is almost certainly killing its own people--can be found in so many other pockets of the globe. Just change out Bahrain for country X, arms for good X, and human rights investigation for condition X. I don't mean to take an apolitical stance here, but I do mean to point out that the story is not always as complicated as it can seem.

So it was fun for me to call my senators--which I did in both NJ and FL, two locations where I have zip codes--and express the above view. And it was also fun to connect with another American--a lovely staff member at my local grocery store (where I was buying apples to make juice, not food ;)) who I chat with whenever I see her--about my thoughts on the arms sale. I told her where Bahrain is--having just learned myself a month ago!--and explained in a few sentences the situation as I see it.

And she decided to call her senators too! So, Senators Lautenberg and Mendez, please listen to the voicemails we left you today.

Talking politics in the grocery store--how wonderful!

Looking forward to the video tonight!

Day 3 - Mark (Connecting with other folks)

In addition to e-mailing friend and family and visiting Occupy DC to spread the word about the fast, I called my Ohio Senator's offices. It always surprises me how easy it is to get in touch with someone at their office. They even have something like "office hours" once a week, which I'm thinking of visiting some time soon. I called to express my support for the bill passed by the Senate to delay the U.S. arms sale to Bahrain, and to suggest that the arms sale should now be canceled entirely.

To clarify, the Senate passed Resolution 28, which delayed the arms sale until certain conditions were met, one of which was that the Secretary of State certifies that "the Government of Bahrain is conducting good faith investigations and prosecutions of alleged perpetrators responsible for the killing, torture, arbitrary detention, and other human rights violations committed since February 2011." (SJ 28 IS, p. 6) The results of this investigation have been released, but human rights groups continue to call for the release of political prisoners and Bahraini activists consider the commission to be illegitimate, since the members were chosen by the Bahraini government. For this reason, I think it is important for American citizens to express opposition to the arms sale.

It is easy to understand why the opposition continues to oppose the entire process, since the condition of investigating human rights violations rely on "good faith" as defined by the U.S. Secretary State, and the commission itself is chosen by the Bahraini government, who are being accused by the violations. As Nikki said, "you can't ask the accused to investigate his own crime." (rough quote)

We're planning to write our responses to the al-Jazeera video tonight or tomorrow. We would love to read other people's responses if you have time!

Day 2--Nikki: In her own words.

Meet Hadia*: a Bahraini woman who says she was at the protests before there were tents. “It just started growing and evolving and then it became a village.”

*This is not Hadia’s real name, but she does want you to know that she was in Bahrain when the protests began, though she is currently living abroad, and has been in for several months.

( I planned to write up a summary but this story was so beautiful that I wanted to keep it closest to its original form. Here is a first person narrative.)



"When I heard about the protests I honestly didn’t think they would be that big...

I didn’t go out until a few days after the 14th [the first day of the protest, in February 2011], right after someone had been killed.

The Bahraini Spring, The Bahraini Spring--we had all heard it online, but who knew what would happen?

I was asking everyone: are you going to go? And everyone said no. We had been excited by Egypt, but no one thought anything like that could actually happen in Bahrain...

The day we went we parked our car at the mall. This was our plan. This way, if the police started removing cars of protesters, we could say, no, no, we were just at the mall.

Driving to Pearl Roundabout, no one spoke a word. We didn’t know what would happen to us.

That’s how I first got there. After that day, I would go to work, and then go to the Roundabout. Almost every day. I wanted to start a woman’s movement within the protest.

I conducted a survey, nearly 200 men and women, asking them about rights, questions like: what do you think about the fact that a woman cannot pass her citizenship to her children? [ex: if a Bahraini woman marries a Saudi man, her children cannot have Bahraini citizenship]. For women, I asked them things like are you demonstrating today because you were given permission or did you come out of your own volition?

But I know that some people lied to that one. A long time ago I myself lied about not being able to travel abroad without male accompaniment because I was so embarrassed. So I am sure some people said they came because they wanted to when it wasn’t true...

After the crack down I had to get rid of all the answers, had to throw them all away. What a shame. I do remember some responses, like many men thought women should be able to pass their nationality to their children. And many woman answered that they shouldn’t be able to travel abroad without accompaniment.

My parents didn’t know I was at the protests, I couldn’t tell them. I couldn’t tell them because they are Sunni and they are more or less pro-government. They are actually more anti-Shia than pro-government...they know that the government is taking money from the people. [Bahrain is majority Shia but ruled by a Sunni monarchy.] But yes, they are anti-Shia.

This animonsity--between Shia and Sunni--it comes mostly from American and Bahraini propaganda! Iran is a Shia country and America is very anti-Iran! America wouldn’t want any Iranian influence in Bahrain, and they have good relationships with the Bahraini government and with Saudi [Arabia]. So everyone is fine with the Bahraini royal family because they do things like keep the Shia out of the military.

The country wasn’t always divided with animosity between Shia and Sunni. This is recent. If you want to keep Bahraini people quiet and hold power over them, what do you do? You divide them. That’s where the propaganda comes from.

I am quite sure the Bahraini government supports this kind of divisiveness because of American influence. The Bahraini gov can’t displease America! So they hold people [away] from being involved in their own country.

There are tons of American corporations in Bahrain! Tons of banks, and investments. If Bahraini people could really have a say in their own country I do not think they would want this to be the case!

And now, the US is selling weapons to the Bahraini government, which are being used to hold the protesters back. If the government changes in Bahrain America will loose a lot of its interest there!

I think this is because Bahrain is a really wealthy country. We have a lot of oil. The US has been very friendly with some very brutal dictators over this!

I asked many people about the US naval base and many don’t support it. No, no, they just don’t...

The beginning of the Bahrain Spring was so huge. But this aftermath is just so heartbreaking. They have removed the people, and they have torn down Pearl Monument. They want to remove our memory.

So many people are dead right now. Why? Because of bullets from the US.

But wow, it was so exciting when it was happening. We were speaking freely for the first time! We were learning about different people from many different parts of our country! We had never done that before!

What do I want the outcome to be? I think what I want is way too radical. I want people to be able to elect their own leaders. But really, this is too far from what we will get. Some are saying constitutional monarchy and maybe that’s what we’ll get. But I would just like so much if people could elect their own members of parliament, and for Shias to be able to serve in the military! There are so many of them without jobs, yet we bring in people from Yemen and Jordan for our army! I never even knew there were so many people without jobs until I met them at Pearl Roundabout. Oh, and I want women’s rights, of course! But that won’t happen in my lifetime, not with this kind of government.

I just want to say that the more information there is out there, the better. Some doctors from the UK stood up against the torturing of medics in Bahrain and there was enough press that the government had to stop. So it really makes a huge difference when people speak out. I mean, you [directed at me] come from one of the most important countries in the world. It’s you guys behind your own government. That’s amazing, that you can write about something, or make a video and it can make a difference.

This is why I am so excited to see the Occupy movement. It’s just so outrageous that America takes from Bahrain but then it doesn’t even really go down to the American people.

So your movements can affect our country--please realize that."

Day 2 - Mark (Connecting with a Bahraini)

For the second day of the fast, my plan has been to connect with someone from Bahrain. I wrote to Nabeel Rajab this morning and found a response this evening. Nabeel is the President of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights. He has been advocating for human rights in Bahrain for over a decade and was recently arrested and beaten by the Bahraini police. His organization is an excellent source for information, so please visit their site.

I had actually seen him speak a week ago during his trip to DC, when he suggested that it would be great for young activists in the U.S. to connect with youth in Bahrain. I reminded him of this in my e-mail, and suggested that he might connect me with youth in Bahrain. In his response he offered his support for the fast and cc'd some people at the Bahrain Center for Human Rights who might be interested. If anyone reading this would like to connect with Bahrainis, whether or not it is a part of the fasting chain, let me know.

I've gotten into some conversations with people, at least one of whom is thinking of joining the fast. Fasting has been relatively easy so far, but I'm already feeling a little more centered than I usually am.

This isn't part of the schedule, but I want to add an update about the arms deal, which Nikki mentioned. Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania is leading an effort to stop the arms deal. This is a great step and I urge people to call their Senators in support. However, I find it sad that we still justify these kinds of moves for our own national security. Consider these lines from the letter signed by these Senators:

We recognize the administration’s commitment to the United States’ strategic relationship with Bahrain, which has been an important feature of our national security strategy in the Middle East for many years.

Completing an arms sale to Bahrain under the current circumstances would weaken U.S. credibility at a critical time of democratic transition in the Middle East.

Does this mean that it is okay for us to maintain a relationship with a country that is important for our national security, so long as our image isn't being weakened? Should I be more concerned about the security of someone I've never met living in Arizona, since they're American, more than I do about someone I've never met in Bahrain? Maybe we'll discuss this at the end of our fast, when we talk about other countries.

Day 1 (a little late)--Nikki

Why a hunger strike for Bahrain?

Why Bahrain? is such a good question, and it's a question I asked, and continue to ask myself. After all, when I met Fatima (the wise and lovely organizer of this "event") and first heard about the situation in Bahrain, I would not have been able to locate the country on a map. I live and work in completely different parts of the world, and do not speak the language of Bahrain.

What I can say is that I get personally overwhelmed by political situations that do not seem clear to me. Sometimes getting more information makes the story less clear to me, and sometimes getting information makes the story more clear to me.

The situation in Bahrain falls into the latter category for me, so I was excited by the opportunity presented by this hunger chain to be a part of the information dissemination.

Mark has thoughtfully and eloquently summed up the situation in his post. In short, democracy protests have been going on since February in Bahrain, and the Bahraini monarchy is using tremendous measures to ignore the demands of the movement, which is comprised of politicians from opposition parties, and men and women from different religious sects, all of whom are unified in their call for serious changes in governance.

Since this began and up until today, protesters are being jailed and sentenced with the death penalty, doctors who are treating protesters arrested (and sometimes disappearing), and excessive force measures are being used to quell peaceful protests, such as the use of electric shock in forcing protesters to publicly apologize for their opinion.

So the story seems clear, no? It gets even clearer when you consider the role of the US. There is a pending $53 million arms deal with the Bahraini government, and the US government has its 5th naval fleet stationed in Bahrain. So I like what Mark said: its not involvement or not, we are already involved.

Given this straightforward story, I feel the need to be part of the movement calling attention to the situation, and saying, unequivocally, that we should not be selling arms to a government that is violently repressing its people.

There is no need to allow the US government to act as a moral authority here, when they say they are "delaying" the arms sale for the good of the Bahrainis. We all know the situation with Iran is tense right now, and the US ought not act to please its allies with the motivation of preserving the ability to target Iran from allied soil. And it ought not act with the concern over global oil prices in mind. The US government cannot claim to be a moral authority here, because we have been involved, and we continue to be involved in making life less safe for those living in Bahrain.

This is a time when the US government needs to not filter statements about human rights simply because they are not in our best interest. And it needs to not filter actions about human rights simply because they are not in our best interest.

Though I wish one person's (myself!) hunger strike could change a great deal, the neat part is that it won't.

I agree with Mark about the individual nature of a fast. I too am attracted to the idea of altering my material and physical environment in order focus intently on an issue I would like to ponder. But I am also drawn to the inherent unity of this "event"--as its very premise as a "chain" has made this a collective statement.

The fact that there are people from more than one country involved in this is part of the draw for me. I can be connected to someone in Bahrain, or in Ireland, without touching them with my hand, because we have made a unified choice about altering something as personal as one's own physical nourishment. So what we do to ourselves can potentially have an affect on what we do to each other.

This message sounds like the moral at the end of a children's book, and I think that's why I like it.

I am interested to continue to reflect on this idea as time goes on. Please share thoughts and ideas!

Day 1 - Mark

Day 1:

As I’m starting the Hunger Chain for Bahrain, I wanted to explain (1) why Bahrain and (2) why fasting.

I’ve lived in Lebanon, Yemen and Egypt. I have family and friends who are either from the region or living there now. But I’ve only recently gotten to know Bahrainis well. When I met Fatima Bunafoor, we talked about the most effective ways to be politically engaged and how best to support the Bahraini people. So, the simple answer is that I’m personally inclined to be interested in the Middle East and Fatima told me she was starting a fasting chain. But why do I feel particularly interested in advocating for Bahrain and why was I drawn to fasting?

(1) During the summer, I was talking to a friend about the situation in Bahrain, and he was legitimately confused about why I felt so strongly about this place to the exclusion of others: “Are you trying to say you’re in favor of intervention in Bahrain?” I think my response to this question is a good place to start on this blog. I don’t think we should consider our response (as American citizens) to the situation in Bahrain as a choice between either intervention or isolation. We are already involved in Bahrain, so I consider the U.S. government to be complicit. The Fifth Fleet of the U.S. Navy is based in Bahrain, strategically positioned between our enemies in Iran and our allies in Israel. The U.S. government is in the process of an arms deal with Bahrain. Our allies in Saudi Arabia have actively suppressed the protests in Bahrain, as well as protests within their own country. I plan to write about this in more detail this week. So, there are actually three choices (this is obviously still an oversimplification):

1. Intervention: Take an active role in pressuring the Bahraini government to respond to protester’s demands

2. Isolation: Remove the Fifth Fleet, stop the pending arms deal to Bahrain, and denounce the intervention of troops from Saudi Arabia to attack protestors in Bahrain as a human rights violation.

3. Remain complicit: Keep our Fifth Fleet where it is, ignore human rights violations and support the current regime so long as they support our foreign policy in the region. Empty rhetoric, in my opinion, also falls in this category.

So, I consider Bahrain to be the most obvious example, at least in the Arab world, of how U.S. foreign policy has prevented real democratic reform. In a country where we have little to no economic and political relations the situation is much more confusing, because we are faced with a choice between imposing our will or ignoring human rights violations. In Bahrain, we’re already involved. If we benefit from a relationship with another country, then it should not be at the expense of the local population’s freedom of expression and security.

(2) That summarizes my opinion about why I feel some level of responsibility on a political level. So why fasting? Talking to Fatima and Nikki about this idea has made me really appreciate how important it is to connect personally on these issues. I could just write a blog, march in a protest, send e-mails to my congresswoman, or even donate money. Fasting, however, is a much more personal expression of solidarity. I’m also planning to connect with Bahrainis who have suffered from political oppression, so there will hopefully be a direct personal connection. This kind of action is also more powerful than words can express. Obviously if someone is willing to abstain from eating for a week, it will be clear to the people around them how strongly they feel about this issue. And even if it is not dedicated to a political or social cause, fasting is one of the best ways I know of to force yourself to reassess your values. In my experience, when I fast my mind slows down and focuses on the questions and personal struggles that I consider to be truly significant. So, it’ll be interesting to see what I’m writing as time goes on.

Nikki and I have also tried to organize our week and plan out what we’ll write about on each day. The general outline of topics, one for each day, is as follows:

1. “Why a Fasting Chain for Bahrain”

2. Connect with a Bahraini

3. Connect with other people in the U.S.

4. "Bahrain: Shouting in the dark" Video from Al Jazeera

5. Universal aspects of political oppression

6. What does it mean to be politically engaged?

7. What's next?

Generally, it shifts from a focus on me, to one other person, to friends and family (Days 1-3), and from a focus on politics in Bahrain to a discussion about engaging with the rest of the world (Days 4-7). We will be very interested to hear what friends and family think about this process. Is it useful? Do you have time to keep up with it? Are these questions you think we should be asking? Is it something you want to be involved in? Do you think our expectations are too high or we should be focusing on other things? In any case, there’s no need to keep up with this blog if you don’t have time or aren’t interested. I’ve certainly been bad about keeping up with blogs and facebook in the past. But we’ll be very grateful for any contributions or input you offer. Thanks!