Double Standards
This summit was the third meeting of PGCC members since February 14th, when the popular uprising against the government in Bahrain began. The six country members also discussed the situation in Libya, and expressed their support for the no-fly zone imposed over Libya by the international community. Previously, two members of this council, namely Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, had cooperated with the NATO no-fly zone operation over Libya.
PGCC's blatant double standards were visible in the way they dealt with the developments in Bahrain and Libya. We have also seen this double standard in the attitude of most Western countries in regard to the Middle East and North African developments. They support the popular uprising in Libya, but in Bahrain, the PGCC actually helps the government crackdown on its people, and meanwhile, the West stays quiet. Among the uprisings in the Arab world, which started last December, Bahrain is considered an exception. Despite the participation of the majority of the people in the protests, the West and their media have not welcomed their movement.
Since the beginning of the new wave of protests in Bahrain, it was anticipated that the rulers of this country and their allies in the region, including Saudi Arabia, would use Iran-phobia and magnify the so-called tribal or religious intrigue to justify their use of violence in cracking down on protesters. Therefore, when the situation got tense and the Bahraini government was close to surrender, Saudi troops followed by UAE forces entered Bahrain and cleared the streets of protesters.
The US Secretary of State claimed that she did not consider Saudi troops occupying forces, and evaded further dealing with this strange event. However, the US half-heartedly advised the PGCC not to use violence against the Bahraini protesters. This advice, albeit, carried no actual enforcement threat with it. Meanwhile, during the very first days of the protests in Bahrain, Obama asked King Hamad (in a phone call) to immediately order his military to the their garrison; this advice was immediately taken into consideration and the military forces were ordered back to their garrisons in less than 24 hours.
The US silence, and implied confirmation of the Saudi and Emirati military intervention in Bahrain suggests the formation of a secondary understanding or agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia and other PGCC members over their conduct in the Bahrain. When the uprisings began in Bahrain, there seemed to be a lack of coordination between the US and Saudi Arabia over how to deal with the protesters. This disagreement was even visible within the Bahraini government, in the different positions taken by the Crown Prince of Bahrain, Sheikh Salman, who was responsible for negotiating with the opposition, and the Prime minister of the country Sheikh Khalifa, who the protesters demanded the dismissal of.
Besides Bahrain, Saudi Arabia also had its disagreements with the US on how to engage with the wave of uprisings in other Arab countries. They were disappointed at the rapid overthrow of Hosni Mubarak and Ben Ali, and they believed that the US was responsible for the continuation of these protests and the undermining of traditional Arab rule. Therefore, they believed that the US had to pay more attention to their recommendations regarding the uprisings taking place in their neighboring countries, especially Yemen and Bahrain.
In Bahrain, which is an important country for the Saudis, the Sheikhs dispatched their troops, but in Yemen, despite the vast popular protests against Ali Abdullah Saleh, the Saudis refused to even move a finger to remove him from power. The PGCC has proposed to mediate the negotiations between the opposition and Ali Abdullah Saleh, and this proposal seems to be in favor of the failing president of Yemen. We witness that the US has taken a different stance in this country compared to Egypt, and has not pressured Ali Abdullah Saleh to leave.
It seems that there have been some behind closed doors trade between the PGCC and the West regarding the situation in Yemen and Libya. The West needed some Arab countries to accompany it in its intervention, so as to lessen a negative reflection of its conduct. Qatar and the Emirates provided this cover for the West; in return Saudi Arabia and its allies are free to do as they wish in Bahrain, and no pressure is put on Ali Abdullh Saleh to leave.
The set of recent events, especially those that took place in Bahrain, once again created a fragile and complex relation between Iran and the PGCC. Iranian officials have seriously warned Saudi Arabia against its intervention in Bahrain. The PGCC has also taken an unprecedented harsh tone with Iran. We can say that Iran's relation with the PGCC has entered one of its most critical stages since the Iranian Revolution.
However, these relations were not in full bloom with Ahmadinejad's administration at work. Arab countries of the Persian Gulf did not welcome Ahmadinejad's administration or his policies from the very beginning. Even some extreme cases of leniency on Iran's side, such as attending the PGCC summit in Doha, or one-sided trips to the capitals of Persian Gulf countries, did not prevent this deteriorating relationship. Now the two parties are seriously confronting each other over Bahrain's case.
In such circumstances, usually past irritating events are added to the case, increasing the degree of the conflict. Kuwait's accusation against Iran and its sentencing three of its citizens to death for spying for Iran, is among these events. The interesting point is that this case goes back to last May, and despite all the accusations made against Iran by the media, Kuwaiti officials did not confirm the accusations back then and in a visit to Iran, the foreign minister of Kuwait denied the case and its influence on their relations with Iran. But now, while the disputes over Bahrain are escalating, this case is brought up again.
Another issue, besides the concessions made by the West with the PGCC, could cause this neglect toward the Bahraini people’s uprising. Amid the worsening of relations between Iran and the PGCC, the Bahraini people, who had almost succeeded in overthrowing Khalifa, fell victim to the historical conflict between the North and South of the Persian Gulf. The best solution for the kingdom was to relate the crisis to outside the borders so that the Sheikh could temporarily eliminate his people's demands.
Saudi Arabia intentionally and Iran unintentionally provided the kingdom with this chance. That is why the Bahraini opposition leaders do not seem that pleased with Iran's harsh tone over Bahrain's crisis. The gap between the US and Saudi Arabia created an opportunity for the Bahraini people to realize their demands. On the other hand, the escalation of tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia and the assumed increasing threat of Iran will change this opportunity to the benefit of Al- Khalifa, forcing the US to at least temporarily abide by Saudi Arabia's recommendations.
Our foreign policy officials must know that Iran plays a preventive role in achieving the people's will wherever its shadow has cast upon the Arab uprisings and revolutions. Wherever the Arab rulers are able to show traces of Iran, the international community will doubt supporting the people. Perhaps the ignorance of the international community in the case of Saudi military intervention in Bahrain was due to the same reason. Moreover, perhaps that is why the criticism of independent media and observers of the double standards of the West in the Arab uprisings were of no use. Yet the PGCC action in deploying troops in Bahrain, based on its constitution, could not be justified according to any international norm.
The international conscience should basically reject the use of military force, both domestic and foreign, in cracking down on civilians. No defense pact can justify this situation, either. The defense pact and the constitution of the PGCC obligate the member states to defend each other's security against any foreign threat. Nevertheless, we have to bear in mind that the security of a country is not limited to the security of its rulers; rather, the security of the people is of greater importance.
Therefore, a legitimate defense pact cannot provide the excuse for foreign troops to invade another country. Can the PGCC leaders actually state that the constitution they are referring to only guarantees the security of the leaders and not the people?
Although the behavior of Saudi Arabia and the PGCC is not defensible, and using coercive force against civilians is considered an obvious violation of international norms, it seems that as long as the issue of Bahrain is defined as an issue between Iran and the PGCC, the international community will not be willing to back the Bahraini people against Saudi Arabia.