Soviet dissident, Yelena Bonner
I haven't been writing that much lately, as life does get in the way, but I still follow to a degree with what is happening around the world and, most significantly, how it is being packaged. What recently grabbed my attention was the
recent death of prominent Soviet dissident Elena Bonner, wife of Andrei Sakharov. What amazed me was that she was still around! Ever since the fall of the USSR, in my mind she had totally disappeared from the radar, if you were to go by the amount of coverage she had been receiving (i.e. next to nothing). I wouldn't be surprised if many of the younger journalists out there would have had no idea who she was. Her comparatively low profile of late in the Western media would lead to believe that Bonner was quite pleased with the way Russia and the successor republics have turned out and her job in Soviet times had been completed by 1992. However, what surprised me about this report of Bonner's death is that she had continued her struggle for human rights. Initially under Yeltsin's rule in the 1990s (which according to accepted, but essentially flawed, Western lore was a time of 'true freedom'), Bonner was supportive of and played an active role in the new 'democratic' clique; however that changed when Bonner split with Yeltsin over the launch of the military campaign in Chechnya in December 1994. From then on, and more so after Putin's ascendancy to power in 2000, Bonner yet again became an opponent of the new, authoritarian Russian government. She also was quite vocal in her opposition to elements of various proposed Israel-Palestine peace accords, siding her very much on the Israeli hawkish right-wing - something of an inconsistency in principles when human rights for all is concerned. Bonner's continued dissidence is surprising in that prior to 1992, under Soviet times, Bonner had very high Western media exposure, to an extent that went far beyond her the level of her influence or profile in the USSR (many ordinary Russians still have no idea who she is!). Given that Bonner continued with her struggle in much the same intensity over the past two decades, despite the fall of the Communist Party, why did the Western media turn her back on her?
OK, I can answer that on - Bonner was no longer useful for Western interests. As I have previously commented about how
different emphasis is placed by the media around the world in highlighting a cause or 'dissidents' out of self-interest above principle, Bonner and her fellow Soviet dissidents helped in achieving what the West wanted - to provide a 'moral' basis for the overthrow of Communist Party rule and to pave the way for the installation of a new capitalist system in Russia (note, not necessarily a 'democratic' system). By doing so, big business in the West stood to make loads of money from Russia. Bonner post-1992 had turned from someone who could help to make this change happen to someone who just made a lot of hot air. So not only was Bonner no longer needed by the West, she was an anachronism, hence the lack of Western exposure about her continued work.
Margaret Thatcher, Andrei Sakharov and Yelena Bonner. Who's serving who?
So how does Elena Bonner connect with Libya, Syria and Bahrain? Well, again, it involves coverage priority and an agenda grounded by Western big business interests with right-wing ideology. All three countries have experienced uprisings of various degrees, and all three have responded violently to them. However, the Western response to these 'revolutions' have not been consistent with principle. Libya is experiencing a Western intervention on the side of a murky group of rebels in what has now become a civil war. Syria faces constant demonstrations by the majority Sunni Muslims in regional centres, with constant reports of violent crackdowns. Bahrain, after mass protests in its capital, called Saudi Arabia in to quash the 'Shia' uprising and its authorities, through police intimidation and show trials, ever since have created an atmosphere of terror and fear so as to maintain the political status quo. However, what differentiates these crises is how the Western media is reporting about them.
When Nato decided to lob missiles into Libya, the first casualty was the truth. Since then, we in the West have been forced fed a steady stream of Nato propaganda. Having learnt from extensive experience in military campaigns in Yugoslavia in 1999 and Afghanistan since 2001, Nato has successfully convinced the West's media to toe the line that the mission there is 'humanitarian' and 'moral'; Nato is killing the 'killer' before it kills, so to speak. News about the Nato bombing of Libya comes solely from Nato sources i.e. Western governments. There is never any news of civilian casualties, let alone images - out of mind, out of sight, so to speak. Any Libyan news of the civilian deaths is quickly made out to be crude propaganda - well, takes one to know one. And the 'rebels'? A certain ambiguity is maintained as to their agenda, plans, structure and composure. This helps in keeping a fragile hope that they may conform to the self-formed, idealised and romantic image Western media consumers would like to have for them. What really seems to be the case with Western policy in Libya, is that Western big business can see huge amounts of money to made. Coverage of this bombing only serves to provide popular consent and a moral high horse for the Western public. The money in Libya comes not just from large oil reserves, but also because of Libya's centralised and socialised economy. Libyan public services and utilities are still largely in government hands, so a new Western-client state in Libya would then be forced to sell off its rather valuable assets such as telecommunications, water supplies and transport. This sell-off would mean bargain investments and, considering how cashed up Libya has appeared to be, potential huge profits for big business. The connection with Bonner here is that the 'rebels', who may be quite sincere with their aims for a fairer Libya, are just being used by the West now as they are useful in creating change to a capitalist system and, subsequently, massive profits for Western big business. Plus, to some on the extremes of ideology, Libya's war can be seen as a crude but visual battle of the Right triumphing over the Left.
Nato being 'humanitarian' by destroying Libya to save it
Extensive and prominent media coverage is given to Syria's opposition protests. Images are shown of civilian casualties, numbers of deaths heavily emphasised and a simplistic, good vs evil scenario is being painted with the majority Sunni Muslims portrayed as pro-West, pro-democracy and 'good', while Bashar Assad and the 'ruling elite' from the 'Alawite sect' ('sect' has negative connotations - it is deliberate that this is how the West describes the Alewis) are evil. There have been no calls (as yet) for foreign intervention in Syria on humanitarian grounds like Libya, but Western media coverage too has sacrificed principle for interests. The West too would like to see Syria's left-wing government fall for much the same reasons as with Libya. Syria's economy is still very much in publicly-owned, much to the chagrin of the West's ideology of privatisation at any cost. A new, pro-West government in Damascus, like the West's plans for Libya, will be forced to privatise its assets, only to be purchased at bargain prices by the rich. The only difference with Libya though is that Syria does not have as much oil, so that would explain why there has been no pressing need by the West to engage in a military campaign to 'avert a humanitarian crisis'. As to what exactly this 'humanitarian crisis' is, well, details have never been fully given, nor is it that certain that this hypothetical 'crisis' would have actually happened otherwise.
Anti-Assad protest in Syria
Why get bothered with technicalities?! OK, maybe we should with Syria. The country is much like Iraq - a sectarian mosaic. The majority Sunni Muslims, many of whom are rather pious and see the ruling Alewis, as well as all other religions and other Islamic denominations, as heretics, have in the past displayed solid support for fundamentalist-based movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood. The more religious parts of Syria have mainly been the scene of demonstrations while the largest, and more cosmopolitan, cities such as Aleppo and the capital Damascus has displayed very little support for the opposition. Even though it has been mentioned (although downplayed by the Western media), many Syrians still support Assad as they see secularist Baath rule is the only way of guaranteeing avoiding the sectarian violence that has plagued Iraq since its 'liberation' in 2003. Christians and Shias are particularly worried as they know very well that a Sunni-majority rule, by virtue of imposing its majority in all aspects, will spell the end Syria's harmonious coexistence among the faiths. As mentioned previously, the West has adopted Sunni fundamentalist terminology in describing the ruling Shia Alewi minority as a 'sect'. Based on Western (misguided) perceptions of what constitutes Shias (i.e. like the stereotype of Iranians of today), and as a 'sect' (like doomsday sects), they would appear to be sinister and evil. However, if you were to actually delve into the practices and history of the Alewis (and the related Alevis in Turkey), it would make more sense that based on Western principles of democracy and humanism, the West would support them. The Alewis strongly believe in equality of the sexes (men and women pray side-by-side, Alewi women are not required to wear hijab, and monogamy is strictly enforced), humanism and espouse respect for other denominations and religions - aspects many Sunni clerics believe to be heretic. However, the West supports the Sunnis who, if successful in toppling the secular system under Assad, would most likely impose an austere and considerably intolerant environment in place - a new Iraq. And just like Iraq, Syria would witness a mass exodus of all of its religious minorities (particularly Christians and the last remaining Jews), while the increased Sunni Muslim religious atmosphere would also make the situation for gay Syrians even worse than they are now. Again, like Bonner, the Sunnis are being used (for now) so that the ultimate aim of fulfilling Western interests are served. And then, we are fed with the rather simplistic but inherently false paradigm that Shias are supposedly all anti-West while the Sunnis are all pro-West...
Pro-Assad demonstration in Syria
Then we come to Bahrain. The island state is ruled by the Sunni Al-Khalifa family while the population has a downtrodden Shia majority. Bahrain has an oil-based economy which was one of the first in the Gulf to diversify and become an important banking centre. When the Arab Spring revolution spread to Bahrain, with giant protests in the capital Manama's Pearl Square, the Gulf (especially Saudi Arabia) and the West became tense. Reason being is that if Bahrain's revolution succeeded, then this could precipitate a domino-effect in which the other undemocratic emirates of the region could fall. On a principled basis, this should be what the West wants - human rights and democracy for all. However, in this case this is not in the West's interests. These absolute monarchies, of which Saudi Arabia is the largest, provide the world with much oil and are engaged, and engage in, considerable business worldwide. On an ideological basis, these emirates are extremely right-wing and capitalist. In a move, and for much same rationale that the Soviet Union intervened into Afghanistan in 1979, Saudi Arabia even staged a Western-sanctioned invasion of Bahrain to restore 'order'. According to Gulf propaganda and carried by the Western media, Bahrain had apparently 'invited' Saudi forces in; again, this is what the Soviets claimed Afghanistan did in 1979. Going by Western 'logic', it was wrong for the Soviet Union to go into Afghanistan to contain the spread of Islamic Fundamentalism reaching the bordering, poor, Muslim republics of Soviet Central Asia, but it is fine for Saudi Arabia to enter into Bahrain to stop the spread of democracy and people power. Since the Saudi invasion, many have been arrested, there has been a climate of fear and terror, and even a group of doctors and nurses, serving their Hippocratic oath of treating people regardless, have been handed life sentences for treating protesters shot by Bahraini and invading Saudi forces.
When Saudi forces are 'invited' into Bahrain, it's no party.
So what has the Western media done? While there are occasional reports about the repression occurring in Bahrain, such as the sentencing of the doctors and nurses (this one by the BBC is particularly good), overall coverage has been comparatively light and low profile. This clearly shows that the West sees no use or financial benefit out of democracy in Bahrain, despite maintaining supposed principled and 'humanitarian' stances on Libya and Syria. The fact that the West has given its blessing to Bahrain's repression of democracy-supporters came when a Bahraini prince, who is connected to Bahraini security structures responsible for conducting arrests and torture of democracy activists, and the Bahraini ambassador to the UK were invited to the recent royal wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. The prince clumsily declined the invite, though the ambassador was there. This came despite much fanfare made by David Cameron's government through the media how the Syrian ambassador was taken off the invite list due to his country's 'repression of democracy activists'.
Naturally, the West, and especially the US with its navy's 5th Fleet based in Bahrain, have no desire for the Gulf state to fall into the hands of the Shia majority. This is not so much the case, as claimed by the corrupt Gulf emirs and their Western benefactors, that this would open the door for Iran to spread its influence, but because after almost 40 years of unbridled capitalism which has seen little of that wealth trickle down to the majority, a new government in Bahrain would move towards a more socialised economy and environment - not what Western big business wants. Plus, the comparative and perceived instability of having democracy in these countries would play havoc on oil prices, driving Western economies into greater economic turmoil. It's always easier to deal with unaccountable dictatorships in these cases, rather than face negotiating with popularly-elected parliaments.
Where are Western principles? These doctors are now facing life imprisonment for doing this.
The opposition in left-wing Libya and Syria are like Elena Bonner pre-1992 - a useful tool for Western big business and government in spreading free-for-all capitalism, while right-wing Bahrain's repressed activists are post-1992 Bonner - a threat. But like Bonner post 1992, the terrible situation in Bahrain threatens to wither away into aberration and out of Western focus. This would allow the Bahraini authorities to get away with the atrocities and injustice the Libyan and Syrian governments are also accused of perpetrating.
I have intended to point out here how self-interest and ideology plays a bigger role than principle in determining Western policy and manufacturing public consent, rather than give my standpoint on the actual situations in Libya, Syria and Bahrain (let the people in those countries decide how they want to be run). The fact that the West would claim that principles play the main role is hypocrisy to the extreme and acts just as a ploy to hide its true agenda. Mind you, the West is not alone in doing this. In the end, those who genuinely hold principles, even if they are like Bonner and apply them unevenly, will lose out to those who stand to profit in our disposable society.
