Thursday, February 22, 2007
on the 4th branch of the government
So, the GDN has long been marking itself out as the purveyor of a campaign to criminalise Bahrain's oppressed majority. Anwar Abdulrahman's latest "opinion" column is only the latest.
Warning to the reader: do not ingest this hammour before dissection (below):
1. Anwar complains that the "radical conservative Christians" at the American enterprise are courting political agitators "to destabilise and alter traditional patterns of life, values and moral ethics under the vast umbrella of American globalisation".
And how? By hosting a seminar featuring Bahrain Centre for Human Rights president Abdulhadi Al Khawaja (spelt Khowhaja for some reason) and 'Bandergate' whistleblower Dr Salah Al Bander.
What Anwar fails to mention is that this group is closely linked to the Bush administration courting our government. It's as easy as a wikipedia search to learn that its scholars and fellows include: the odious troll and former US permanent rep at the UN John Bolton, Lynne Cheney (Mrs Dick), Richard Perle (remember him? I'm sure the Iraqis do) and that its financiers include those lootin pollutin folks at ExxonMobil.
Basically, what Anwar tries to create is the impression that "extraordinary meetings" are being held between Bahraini opposition figures and this shadowy neo-conservative Christian (nothing like our country's favourite ally George W Bush who was allegedly guided by God in his destruction of Iraq) organisation.
He passes the column off as his "responsibility" to speak out against a "conspiracy being weaved". I think fear mongering would be a much more honest description. In fact, if he only had an (honest) editor it would change his column from this:
A full report of their 'deliberations' has been passed to me, and I see it as my duty to make citizens and residents, as well as our government, aware of what can only be described as a conspiracy being weaved against our peaceful country.
to this:
A full report of their 'deliberations' has been passed to me, and I see it as my duty to make citizens and residents scared of the Bahraini opposition just in case they start to think they might have legitimate demands, as well as to remind our government what a loyal citizen I am to our peaceful country.
2. Apparently chair of the meeting Daniella Bletka (who is in fact called Danielle Pletka) is well known for her Zionist inclinations. Well it appears she was also a bigtime championer of suspected fraudster Ahmad Chalabi, not that Anwar seems to mind that.
And since we're pretending to have some standards about associating with people who have Zionist inclinations, why then did I not hear a peep out of Anwar when Condoleeza Rice was being welcomed to Bahrain? Condoleeza Rice, who described Israel's war on Lebanon as "birth pangs of a new Middle East".
Where were the complaints from Anwar when her guilty hands (currently tying the long beleaguered Palestinians into another noose) were being shook and no doubt kissed by members of our government?
3. "In opening remarks Bletka described Bahrain as a dictatorial regime whose reforms are purely cosmetic."
Well are you going to show us something that proves her wrong Anwar?
3. "Dr Al Bander then pronounced that although Bahrain has achieved much, it has failed to establish an impartial judicial system, the Press is stifled, and Western nations should be aware that although a banking centre for many Islamic financial institutions, it is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood and fundamentalist Wahabis who pose a real danger to American interests!"
Considering that:
a) Anwar's newspapers carry regular features on the lives of women ruined by 'political' Sharia judges,
b) that the GDN front page carried a letter protesting the Bahrain government's decision to insitute a PRESS BAN on coverage of the Bandergate report, and
c) that according to the GDN's coverage of the same report, the government is courting Sunni Islamic fundamentalists through financial insitutions in the country
it seems that he too has been saying the same thing as Dr Al Bander!
4. "Toby Jones' paper to the 'conference' alleged that our election was unfair, branding MPs non-democratically chosen and therefore not truly representative of Bahrain's people."
And this is supposed to... surprise us? Maybe all those floating votes just floated right past Anwar's nose unnoticed.
5. In dealing with the 'shocking testimonials': as someone who has in his columns spoken on philosophy and literature it shouldn't be too hard for Anwar to understand that not all questions can be answered with a yes or no:
"Bletka asked the speakers a question to be answered only with a 'yes' or' no' - 'Would you serve American interests if you attained power?' Khowhaja was unable to answer. However, Al Bander's reply was: "No one in Bahrain is against America"."
In this example, I would presume that Abdulhadi was 'unable to answer' because his answer was no - or perhaps because American policies and pledges claim their "interests" are to "promote democratisation", while their actions show their "interests" in fact to be maintaining the current world political and economic order and supporting 'stability' (not democracy) to protect their interests (investments) in countries.
So which would he be expected to serve? The same one that is currently being served I suspect, and perhaps hence Abdulhadi's silence.
As for Dr Al Bander's response - again, how to answer the question? How many of us are 'against america'? What does that mean? A useful quote here is by Arundhati Roy who dissects the too-often used phrase "anti American":
"But what does the term "anti-American" mean?... Does it mean you are anti-jazz? That you don't delight in Toni Morrison or John Updike? ... Does it mean that you don't admire the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who marched against nuclear weapons, or the thousands of war resisters who forced their government to withdraw from Vietnam? Does it mean that you hate all Americans?"
So what does it mean to say that no one in Bahrain is against America? There are many people here, yes, who are against what America has done, against what America continues to do in the protection of its 'interests' and 'allies'.
Many of us are against America's deadly, disastrous invasion of Iraq.
Many of us are against America's deplorable invasion and destruction of Afghanistan.
Some of us are against America's unlawful detentions at Guantanamo Bay, their disregard for the environment at the Kyoto summit, their continual support of Israel's brutal occupation and its
But how many of us are just "against America"? And what does that mean, what does it include?
6. As to the statement by Toby Jones:
"I asked protesters: 'if we help you what will you do?' Jones claimed that they said 'We will raise the American flag'."
I don't know anything about Toby Jones, but I don't think the random statement he quoted carries much weight and was certainly not made on behalf of those with the responsibility to represent Bahrain (i.e. Abdulhadi Al Khawaja).
7. "American officials visiting Bahrain or living here are only too happy to praise excellent relations between the two countries. As a result trade has passed the $1 billion mark for the first time. Yet they allow such a shameful gathering to take place in their land."
So, from this statement are we to understand that since trade relations are doing so well that people should turn a blind eye to legitimate concerns raised about the direction in which this country is being led? And what is Anwar advocating, that they practice Bahrain style democracy and ban the seminar?
8. According to the column, "In Bahrain there is no black money". Aside from this statement being completely laughable, it seems Anwar has not been reading his own newspapers' almost daily coverage of prostitution rackets and illegal visa deals being run in this country.
9. While searching for the right words to sum up Anwar's column, I can find no better expressions than those used by American intellectuals Edward Hermann and Noam Chomsky in their book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.
Speaking on the role of the media in serving power:
[It] "serves to mobilize support for the special interests that dominate the state, and private support for the special interests that dominate the state and private activity..."
And the role of those who wish to wield or serve power:
"The unstated premise ... has to do with the question of how they get into the position where they have the authority to make decisions. The way they do that, of course, is by serving people with real power.
The people with real power are the ones who own the society, which is a pretty narrow group. If the specialized class [media] can come along and say, I can serve your interests, then they'll be part of the executive group."
God bless us all!
Warning to the reader: do not ingest this hammour before dissection (below):
1. Anwar complains that the "radical conservative Christians" at the American enterprise are courting political agitators "to destabilise and alter traditional patterns of life, values and moral ethics under the vast umbrella of American globalisation".
And how? By hosting a seminar featuring Bahrain Centre for Human Rights president Abdulhadi Al Khawaja (spelt Khowhaja for some reason) and 'Bandergate' whistleblower Dr Salah Al Bander.
What Anwar fails to mention is that this group is closely linked to the Bush administration courting our government. It's as easy as a wikipedia search to learn that its scholars and fellows include: the odious troll and former US permanent rep at the UN John Bolton, Lynne Cheney (Mrs Dick), Richard Perle (remember him? I'm sure the Iraqis do) and that its financiers include those lootin pollutin folks at ExxonMobil.
Basically, what Anwar tries to create is the impression that "extraordinary meetings" are being held between Bahraini opposition figures and this shadowy neo-conservative Christian (nothing like our country's favourite ally George W Bush who was allegedly guided by God in his destruction of Iraq) organisation.
He passes the column off as his "responsibility" to speak out against a "conspiracy being weaved". I think fear mongering would be a much more honest description. In fact, if he only had an (honest) editor it would change his column from this:
A full report of their 'deliberations' has been passed to me, and I see it as my duty to make citizens and residents, as well as our government, aware of what can only be described as a conspiracy being weaved against our peaceful country.
to this:
A full report of their 'deliberations' has been passed to me, and I see it as my duty to make citizens and residents scared of the Bahraini opposition just in case they start to think they might have legitimate demands, as well as to remind our government what a loyal citizen I am to our peaceful country.
2. Apparently chair of the meeting Daniella Bletka (who is in fact called Danielle Pletka) is well known for her Zionist inclinations. Well it appears she was also a bigtime championer of suspected fraudster Ahmad Chalabi, not that Anwar seems to mind that.
And since we're pretending to have some standards about associating with people who have Zionist inclinations, why then did I not hear a peep out of Anwar when Condoleeza Rice was being welcomed to Bahrain? Condoleeza Rice, who described Israel's war on Lebanon as "birth pangs of a new Middle East".
Where were the complaints from Anwar when her guilty hands (currently tying the long beleaguered Palestinians into another noose) were being shook and no doubt kissed by members of our government?
3. "In opening remarks Bletka described Bahrain as a dictatorial regime whose reforms are purely cosmetic."
Well are you going to show us something that proves her wrong Anwar?
3. "Dr Al Bander then pronounced that although Bahrain has achieved much, it has failed to establish an impartial judicial system, the Press is stifled, and Western nations should be aware that although a banking centre for many Islamic financial institutions, it is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood and fundamentalist Wahabis who pose a real danger to American interests!"
Considering that:
a) Anwar's newspapers carry regular features on the lives of women ruined by 'political' Sharia judges,
b) that the GDN front page carried a letter protesting the Bahrain government's decision to insitute a PRESS BAN on coverage of the Bandergate report, and
c) that according to the GDN's coverage of the same report, the government is courting Sunni Islamic fundamentalists through financial insitutions in the country
it seems that he too has been saying the same thing as Dr Al Bander!
4. "Toby Jones' paper to the 'conference' alleged that our election was unfair, branding MPs non-democratically chosen and therefore not truly representative of Bahrain's people."
And this is supposed to... surprise us? Maybe all those floating votes just floated right past Anwar's nose unnoticed.
5. In dealing with the 'shocking testimonials': as someone who has in his columns spoken on philosophy and literature it shouldn't be too hard for Anwar to understand that not all questions can be answered with a yes or no:
"Bletka asked the speakers a question to be answered only with a 'yes' or' no' - 'Would you serve American interests if you attained power?' Khowhaja was unable to answer. However, Al Bander's reply was: "No one in Bahrain is against America"."
In this example, I would presume that Abdulhadi was 'unable to answer' because his answer was no - or perhaps because American policies and pledges claim their "interests" are to "promote democratisation", while their actions show their "interests" in fact to be maintaining the current world political and economic order and supporting 'stability' (not democracy) to protect their interests (investments) in countries.
So which would he be expected to serve? The same one that is currently being served I suspect, and perhaps hence Abdulhadi's silence.
As for Dr Al Bander's response - again, how to answer the question? How many of us are 'against america'? What does that mean? A useful quote here is by Arundhati Roy who dissects the too-often used phrase "anti American":
"But what does the term "anti-American" mean?... Does it mean you are anti-jazz? That you don't delight in Toni Morrison or John Updike? ... Does it mean that you don't admire the hundreds of thousands of American citizens who marched against nuclear weapons, or the thousands of war resisters who forced their government to withdraw from Vietnam? Does it mean that you hate all Americans?"
So what does it mean to say that no one in Bahrain is against America? There are many people here, yes, who are against what America has done, against what America continues to do in the protection of its 'interests' and 'allies'.
Many of us are against America's deadly, disastrous invasion of Iraq.
Many of us are against America's deplorable invasion and destruction of Afghanistan.
Some of us are against America's unlawful detentions at Guantanamo Bay, their disregard for the environment at the Kyoto summit, their continual support of Israel's brutal occupation and its
But how many of us are just "against America"? And what does that mean, what does it include?
6. As to the statement by Toby Jones:
"I asked protesters: 'if we help you what will you do?' Jones claimed that they said 'We will raise the American flag'."
I don't know anything about Toby Jones, but I don't think the random statement he quoted carries much weight and was certainly not made on behalf of those with the responsibility to represent Bahrain (i.e. Abdulhadi Al Khawaja).
7. "American officials visiting Bahrain or living here are only too happy to praise excellent relations between the two countries. As a result trade has passed the $1 billion mark for the first time. Yet they allow such a shameful gathering to take place in their land."
So, from this statement are we to understand that since trade relations are doing so well that people should turn a blind eye to legitimate concerns raised about the direction in which this country is being led? And what is Anwar advocating, that they practice Bahrain style democracy and ban the seminar?
8. According to the column, "In Bahrain there is no black money". Aside from this statement being completely laughable, it seems Anwar has not been reading his own newspapers' almost daily coverage of prostitution rackets and illegal visa deals being run in this country.
9. While searching for the right words to sum up Anwar's column, I can find no better expressions than those used by American intellectuals Edward Hermann and Noam Chomsky in their book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.
Speaking on the role of the media in serving power:
[It] "serves to mobilize support for the special interests that dominate the state, and private support for the special interests that dominate the state and private activity..."
And the role of those who wish to wield or serve power:
"The unstated premise ... has to do with the question of how they get into the position where they have the authority to make decisions. The way they do that, of course, is by serving people with real power.
The people with real power are the ones who own the society, which is a pretty narrow group. If the specialized class [media] can come along and say, I can serve your interests, then they'll be part of the executive group."
God bless us all!
