Bahrain brings back the Sectarianism Is Libya a Turning Point on Humanitarian Interventionism?

By Marc Lynch

While the American and international debate overLibya continues, the situation in Bahrain has just taken a sharp turn for the worse.  A brutal crackdown on the protestors followed the controversial entry of security forces fromSaudi Arabia and three other GCC states.  Media access has been curtailed, with journalists finding it difficult to gain entry to the Kingdom (I was supposed to be inBahrain right now myself, but elected not to try after several journalists let me know that they were being denied entry and several Embassies in Doha warned me off).  The road to political compromise and meaningful reform -- which appeared to have been within reach only a few days ago -- now appears to be blocked, which places the long-term viability of the Bahraini regime in serious question.

The response of the Bahraini regime has implications far beyond the borders of the tiny island Kingdom -- not only because along with Libya it has turned the hopeful Arab uprisings into something uglier, but because it is unleashing a regionwide resurgence of sectarian Sunni-Shi'a animosity.  Regional actors have enthusiastically bought in to the sectarian framing, with Saudi Arabia fanning the flames of sectarian hostility in defense of the Bahraini regime and leading Shia figures rising to the defense of the protestors.  The tenor of Sunni-Shi'a relations across the region is suddenly worse than at any time since the frightening days following the spread of the viral video of Sadrists celebrating the execution of Saddam Hussein.

The sectarian framing in Bahrain is a deliberate regime strategy, not an obvious "reality." The Bahraini protest movement, which emerged out of years of online and offline activism and campaigns, explicitly rejected sectarianism and sought to emphasize instead calls for democratic reform and national unity.  While a majority of the protestors were Shi'a, like the population of the Kingdom itself, they insisted firmly that they represented the discontent of both Sunnis and Shi'ites, and framed the events as part of the Arab uprisings seen from Tunisia to Libya.  Their slogans were about democracy and human rights, not Shi'a particularism, and there is virtually no evidence to support the oft-repeated claim that their efforts were inspired or led by Iran.

The Bahraini regime responded not only with violent force, but also by encouraging a nasty sectarianism in order to divide the popular movement and to build domestic and regional support for a crackdown. Anti-Shi'a vituperation spread through the Bahraini public arena, including both broadcast media and increasingly divided social media networks. This sectarian framing also spread through the Arab media, particularly Saudi outlets.  The sectarian frame resonated with the narratives laid in the dark days of the mid-2000s, when scenes of Iraqi civil war and Hezbollah's rise in Lebanon filled Arab television screens, pro-U.S. Arab leaders spread fears of a "Shi'a Crescent", and the Saudis encouraged anti-Shi'ism in order to build support for confronting Iranian influence. 

Now, the struggle for democracy and human rights in Bahrain seems to have been fully consumed by this cynical sectarian framing, and the regional Saudi-Iranian cold war which had been largely left behind by the Arab uprisings has suddenly returned to center stage. The sending of Saudi and GCC security forces to Bahrain follows on similar political campaigns, while the regime's positions and sectarian framing have been backed across the Gulf media -- including al-Jazeera Arabic, which has barely covered Bahrain even as it has focused heavily on Libya, Egypt, and Yemen.  Meanwhile, leading Shi'a political figures across the region, from Hassan Nasrallah to Ali Sistani, are rushing to the defense of the protestors. Both have the effect of reinforcing the sectarian frame and distracting from the calls for democratic change.

The United States may see the preservation of the Bahraini regime as essential to its strategic position, given its concerns about the Fifth Fleet and about losing a key part of its decades-long strategy of containing Iranian power.  But what the Bahraini regime is doing to maintain power may badly hurt America's position as well.  The harsh repression, immediately and publicly following the visit of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, suggests either American complicity or impotence.   The refusal of serious reform probably makes the survival of the regime less rather than more likely. And finally, the sectarian framing of Bahrainhas the potential to rebound upon other Arab states with significant Shi'a populations, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It may also drive Iraq's leaders into a more assertively Shi'a and pro-Iranian stance, as Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and his rivals seek to win popularity with Iraqi Shi'a who identify with their Bahraini counterparts.  If the Obama administration hopes to define a new vision for the region, it needs to leave behind such outdated concepts and lines of division.Bahrain, sadly, with the help of its regional allies, has brought them back into fashion.

Longtime Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi's bloodcurdling speech yesterday promising an imminent massacre of his opponents in rebel-held Benghazi may prove to be one of the classic political backfires. After he made it, the UN Security Council narrowly approved an unprecedented multilateral military intervention in Libya, what may turn out to be a landmark decision.

In Kosovo, NATO, without the support of the UN Security Council as Russia and China were in staunch opposition, intervened with air power to try to block Serbian "ethnic cleansing" efforts. Before that, in the Gulf War, US and allied forces acted with UN backing to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.

Now the UN has approved a military intervention against a government trying to suppress an internal uprising against it, setting what may become an important new precedent in the process. And it might not have happened had Gaddafi not delivered his fateful speech as the Security Council was preparing to vote.

This bloodcurdling speech by longtime Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi, which I listened to live yesterday afternoon, may prove to be one of the classic political backfires. After Gaddafi pledged to put his remaining opponents in Benghazi to the sword, the UN Security Council approved an unprecedented mulilateral military intervention in Libya.

I listened to Gaddafi's speech live on Al Jazeera. It was almost as though he was daring Western military intervention.

"The moment of truth has come," he said. Gaddafi warned that only those who put down their arms would escape his vengeance on "rats and dogs."

"It's over. The issue has been decided," Gaddafi said. "We are coming tonight" to Benghazi. "We will find you in your closets," he warned his enemies. "We will have no mercy and no pity."

It was a dramatic moment. Gaddafi, calling in to Libyan state television, said his troops would "rescue" the people of Benghazi, the last big stronghold for the uprising that two weeks ago looked to many to be just about to prevail. "Prepare for this moment to get rid of the traitors. Tomorrow we will show the world, to see if the city is one of traitors or heroes."

Just after that appalling performance, the UN Security Council in New York adopted a far-reaching resolution ordering an immediate ceasefire and authorizing a no-fly zone and actions necessary to protect civilians, a wide-ranging charter as it includes preemptive air strikes against Libyan ground forces. No foreign ground troops are to be inserted. The vote was 10-0 with 5 abstentions, including Russia and China, which had previously indicated their opposition to any such measure. By abstaining, these two countries avoided exercising their veto power.

Before the UN Security Council acted, Libyan government forces loyal to longtime dictator Moammar Gaddafi yesterday were on the offensive against increasingly embattled rebel forces across the country, closing in on the remaining rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

Celebrations erupted in Benghazi, where the live Al Jazeera feed revealed constant cheering as the UN vote unfolded in the US, then as as the various ambassadors, including U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, delivered their statements. As the coverage unfolded, an unprecedented military coalition seemed to be coming together, with Britain, France, the US, other European nations, and Arab nations involved. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE (United Arab Emirates), Jordan, and Al Jazeera host Qatar are the Arab nations named so far. And in a sign of how unusual this is, US military experts are appearing on Al Jazeera, once regarded by many as an ally of Al Qaeda.

Incidentally, Al Jazeera is proving to be an indispensable tool in following the Arab revolt. I've appeared on it many times, and have had a live link to its feed on my site for a few years now. It's imperfect, to be sure, a matter for another time, but its news flow is way ahead of the curve in comparison to American media outlets.

In the aftermath, Gaddafi's regime announced that it has agreed an immediate ceasefire. There was just one problem. Al Jazeera reported that Gaddafi's forces are still attacking. Not in Benghazi, which Thursday's UN move has probably saved -- even if the logistics of the no-fly zone are not yet in place, air and missile strikes against armored columns can take place -- but in at least two other places.

When Obama appeared at the White House today to lay out his reasoning, he warned Gaddafi not only to stay away from Benghazi but also to pull back from Adjabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya, all of which his forces have been besieging.

Appearing today at the White House, President Barack Obama laid out his reasons for authorizing U.S. participation in an international military intervention in Libya.

In addition to being an unprecedented move internationally, it's a big shift for the Obama Administration, which was hamstrung early on by the need to get Americans out of Libya, then by the danger to Libya's oil supply, upon which much of Europe is very reliant.

Foreign Policy's The Cable blog reports that Obama took the decision at a strategy meeting on Tuesday night to intervene in Libya with his longtime liberal advisor Samantha Power, Vice President Joe Biden, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in favor and Defense Secretary Bob Gates and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon opposed.

A no-fly zone in itself probably wasn't enough, as Gaddafi has been rolling up the rebels mostly with ground forces. And Gates was concerned about the America being military over-stretched.

But a doctrine of humanitarian interventionism, which we heard a lot about in the 1990s from Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, carried the day. A doctrine that contains not just a no-fly zone but what many are calling a "no-drive zone."

Of course, it wasn't just America that had struggled to find a Gaddafi strategy.

The G8, European Union, and NATO had all struggled fruitlessly to come up with a position opposing Gaddafi's ruthless suppression of the rebellion.

 British and French military forces may move against the Gaddafi regime in Libya today.

And just a week ago, new Director of National Intelligence James Clapper stepped in it with his classic candor-as-gaffe assessments before the Senate Intelligence Committee on the Libyan civil war and deeper threats to America.

On a day in which NATO, and the Obama Administration's most publicly hawkish voice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, backed away from military intervention in Libya, Clapper said that Gaddafi was likely to prevail.

Which he was, absent the new moves approved by Obama and the UN Security Council.

Is this a new precedent opening a Pandora's box allowing intervention in the internal affairs of a rogue but still sovereign state?

Maybe so.

The resolution barely passed the UN Security Council. Russia and China each declined to use its veto power as part of the five permanent members of the Security Council. But with Brazil, India, and Germany also abstaining, the resolution garnered only one more vote than it needed.

And Gaddafi, a longtime international bogeyman, had just delivered a very chilling speech carried live on Al Jazeera that was hard to ignore.

But once something has happened, it can happen again. And the UN imprimatur isn't always necessary even in the most trumped up of circumstances, as we've already seen in Iraq.

We'll see how this goes.