Follow the author John Horne on Twitter
Click here to read article in Arabic. Thanks to مترجِم 14 فبراي for the translation.
Visiting the website of Condor Technologies, a Brazilian "non-lethal" arms company accused this week of exporting tear gas to Bahrain, one is instantly impressed that they have thought very hard about how to present their business. The front page picture asks us to ponder: what on earth is "Lethality Reduction"?
On Sunday in Bahrain, a funeral was held for Abdulali Ali Ahmed, a 73-year man who choked to death in his home from tear gas inhalation. The funeral itself was attacked by police with tear gas.
This was a far from unprecedented development. The streets of Bahrain have been filled all week --- indeed, all year --- with the acrid, poisonous toxicity of tear gas. Abdulali's death comes a week after the death of a 5-day-old child, Sajeda Faisal Jawad, killed in similar circumstances, and at least ten more deaths from tear gas have reportedly occurred in Bahrain since the wave of protests in February.
Footage from this week's protests indicates a possible escalation of the use of tear gas, with activists reporting a new, harsher, "yellow" variety and police trapping people in buildings that have been gassed. The tactics also suggests that security forces are putting up a "smoke screen", obstructing and preventing filming so police can beat protesters without the risk of being captured on camera.
Several companies in different countries stand accused of exporting tear gas to Bahrain. Canisters produced by French company SAE Alsetex and American firms Defense Technology (Federal Labs) and NonLethal Technologies have been identified by activists. British companies, similarly, have been doing good business with the Bahraini government. Indeed, in 2010, according to CAAT, the UK Government identified Bahrain as a "key market for UK arms exports" and granted export licenses to sales of "tear gas and crowd control ammunition, equipment for the use of aircraft cannons, assault rifles, shotguns, sniper rifles and sub-machine guns".
This week Condor Technologies joins the list of accused, with activists in Bahrain seeing new canisters used by security forces: GL-202 LONG RANGE TEAR GAS PROJECTILE --- "MADE IN BRAZIL".
.
Photographs of the canisters were obtained and published online by political cartoonist Carlos Latuff, with Epoco magazine running a full story. As Gabriel Elizondo of Al Jazeera English notes, the idea of Brazil being involved in the export of arms, particularly for the purpose of political suppression, is anathema to a country whose "foreign policy ethos, for decades now, has been one of peace-maker, not peace-breaker". Latuff is now calling for protests at Brazilian embassies against the sale "of Brazil-made tear gas".
Given their stated aim of "lethality reduction", it is not without a tragic irony that Condor Technologies' information leaflet for the "non-lethal" GL-202 tear gas, from which protesters have been allegedly suffering, carries the following warning: "it can cause serious harm or death".
Condor Technologies have denied that they have exported tear gas directly to Bahrain. And domestic sensitivities and export controls often means that arms are not necessarily traded directly between two countries, but rely on third, or even fourth, national conduits, with multiple legal loopholes ripe for exploitation. For example, the 2005 British export of military Land Rovers used to support a massacre by Uzbekistan troops, was deemed legal because the vehicle parts were exported to a Turkish company who then sold them onto the Uzbekistan military. Furthermore, arms considered "non-lethal" often fall under far less stringent export criteria, as British activist Mark Thomas proved in 2006 when he and a group of schoolchildren successfully setup their own arms company selling "police and security equiptment" overseas.
The question still remains: how did the Condor tear gas get into the hands of Bahraini security forces? Moreover, is the GL-202 version the same as the "yellow", harsher, gas that protesters are increasingly experiencing? If so, this would suggest a tactical shift on the part of Bahraini forces, while the regime assists the British, French and US governments over potential PR issues by turning to a different national source for their weapons of suppression.
At the end of the day, it is immaterial whether Condor Technologies sold the tear gas directly to the Bahraini government. Somebody did, and Condor will have profited from the suffering and possible death of civilians while democratic protest is suppressed.
Of course, the defence may be offered: "We never intended this." As their product warning asserts: "This product can only be utilized by people who are legally qualified and trained. If employed in an inadequate manner, it can cause serious harm or death". But if Condor Technologies, as their website is so keen to point out, is dedicated to "ethics, social responsibility, respect for the environment and human rights", maybe somebody should tell their web designer that it it is a bit jarring to see such concern expressed underneath an image of two masked men poised to fire tear gas directly in your face.
Condor Technologies, along with companies in Britain, France, the US, and other countries, might consider taking "social responsibility" seriously and not treating it as a neat marketing term, hiding any consequences behind empty rhetoric and glossy terminology. Until then, such companies should stand accused of perpetuating suffering in Bahrain and beyond.