Bahrain Opinion: The US and "The Wrong Side of History"

For many, Bahrain's protest movement has been overshadowed by the murky political future in Egypt and the continued bloodshed in Syria, but it may be time for some reflection in the White House. At least one media outlet has recognised this --- in Foreign Policy, Josh Rogin interviews Nabeel Rajab, the President of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, under the headline, "Is the U.S. on the Wrong Side of History in Bahrain?" 

Rajab gives substance to the challenge:

What I have realized is that there's a difference between the way the American government and the American people look at the Arab uprisings or the Arab revolution. I have received great support from American civil society, human rights groups, etc., in support of the Bahraini revolution. But that is totally different than the position of the United States government, which has disappointed many people in the Gulf region. And they have seen how the U.S. has acted differently and has different responses for different countries. There is full support for revolutions in countries where [the U.S. government] has a problem with their leadership, but when it comes to allied dictators in the Gulf countries, they have a much softer position and that was very upsetting to many people in Bahrain and the Gulf region. This will not serve your long strategic interest, to strengthen and continue your relations with dictators and repressive regimes....

The U.S. is more influential in Bahrain than the United Nations. If they are serious about something, they could do it. They have lots of means to pressure the Bahraini government but so far they are soft. They act as if both sides are equal.

The "wrong side of history" question is far from new: it has been put in various forms, in relation to various developments, about US policy throughout the past year's events in North Africa and the Middle East. But it is a question that is an insult to any thinking man's intelligence.

The question implies that there is going to be more than one side to how history will view the events in Bahrain. Somehow that history will record at least two paths the White House could have taken through the collective wisdom of its officials.

The problem is that there's only one logical step that the US could have taken for the "right side".

Bahrainis showed up on the streets to demand that the monarch, King Hamad bin ISa Al Khalifa carry out reforms, ushering in a new Bahrain where the majority were not marginalised and living under effective apartheid. These protesters wanted rights for every Bahraini to be codified into law, rights already agreed in principle by the regime.  

These unarmed protesters were met with overwhelming force. When they did not give up, they were also confronted by the armies of Saudi Arabia and the other countries of the Gulf Co-operation Council, invited to Bahrain by King Hamad. These protesters were detained, tortured, and killed ---- some of the acts would be documented by the report of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry.

Any claims that protesters had arms to match those of the police and the Gulf militaries or that Iran supplied these demonstrators with funding and/or weapons is laughable. Indeed, people literally laughed at the claim recently, when a prosecutor tried to put AK-47s, swords, and other arms in the hands of 20 doctors and nurses facing sentences of 5 to 15 years.

In these circumstances, it is folly that the US has done little to calm the situation.  Instead, President Barack Obama and his foreign policy team have done their best to ignore the inconvenient --- even keeping the head of the Bahrain Commission at arm's distance --- and to maintain the support of Bahrain's government in practice, if not in rhetoric.

There used to be a saying, "History is written by the victors." That does not hold anymore. Though Bahrain's protest movement may have been suppressed, history is not going to remember this as a valiant defence by Bahrain's regime against a violent minority, aided by malevolent foreign powers. This will be remembered as an apartheid regime crushing a democracy movement, assisted by its biggest foreign ally still portraying itself as a beacon of liberty and justice.

The White House appears unaware of this re-writing of history. That failure will not just land it on the wrong side of history. It will also put it, on a daily side, on the wrong side of those who observe and wonder for what "America" really stands.