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.
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...
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!
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!
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."
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.
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!
