On Aug. 14, the 42^nd anniversary of Bahrain’s independence from Britain, an online group called Tarmarod (“rebellion” in Arabic) officially joined Bahrain’s democracy movement that began in February 2011.

A montage of the Bahraini Uprising created from images available on the Wikimedia Commons.

Tamarod’s name and inspiration came from the Egyptian movement that led to the ouster of former president Mohamed Morsi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In its first statement, issued on Jul. 4, Tamarod said it wants “a homeland that embraces all its citizens, an Arab and independent Bahrain where the people can have greater decision-making power within their country.

“This movement is a ‘rebellion’ against the injustice and illegitimacy of a regime that has exerted its power through the exploitation of the country’s natural resources and draconian legislation that limits human rights and judges its citizens based on their ethnicities,” the statement said.

Countering the rebellion

Ahead of Aug. 14, which Bahrain’s government anticipated as a day of protest, high-level official statements describing Tamarod as a sham version of the Egyptian movement were released.

The Ministry of Interior warned against responding to Tamarod’s calls of protest and civil disobedience, and King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifah issued a decree ordering the National Assembly to convene and, for the first time in Bahrain’s history, toughen anti-terrorism laws.

Bahrain’s broad definition of terrorism can be applied to the act of burning tires, blocking streets, the use of Molotov cocktails and protesting in the capital, Manama, which the government argues can damage the country’s economy.

Bahrain’s National Assembly came up with 22 recommendations on Jul. 28, including the banning of all demonstrations and gatherings in Manama and the withdrawal of citizenship from “perpetrators of terrorist acts” and “instigators”, all of which were issued as law by the king on Aug. 1.

In the run-up to Aug. 14, at least five online activists, bloggers, photographers and other members of citizen media were arrested, according to the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR).

More than 70 websites and online forums that the government alleges promote terrorism were also blocked.

Tamarod called for peaceful but escalating civil disobedience by closing stores and refraining from shopping or fueling vehicles. The movement also called on people to temporarily halt financial transactions, including the paying of bills, and to switch off all lights at sunset.

Protest spots were also declared in nine different locations, for people to march to on foot – not as groups but individually – without any slogans, banners, flags or other such manifestations, and by avoiding all confrontation with security forces.

Bahrain’s security forces were meanwhile implementing their response plan.

Since Aug. 12, an intensive security presence was felt throughout the capital, villages and other areas. This included checkpoints and the arresting of activists.

Bahrain’s pro-government media also campaigned against Tamarod by calling for the withdrawal of citizenship of oppositional political and religious leaders.

Bahrain’s unique struggle

In comparison to the uprisings that began in other Arab or African countries in 2011, Bahrain’s protest movement was not a direct response to economic disadvantages faced by its people. The protests have been aimed at achieving freedom and self-determination.

Bahrain’s Shiite majority has long said that it is not given the same chances as the Sunni minority, such as jobs assigned by the Sunni royal family to top tier positions in commerce and governance. Shiite Muslims are also not allowed to join the island-nation’s security forces or army.

Bahrain’s authorities claim the opposition movement is aided by Iran and aims to remove the monarchy through terrorism.

The monarchy has responded by cracking down on demonstrators through hundreds of arrests recorded by international rights-monitoring organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, as well as systematic torture, the killing of demonstrators and the removal of alleged protestors from their jobs.

Bahrain’s citizen media

Bahrain’s government has gone to lengths to prevent foreign media from visiting the country since April 2011. International media were also largely barred from entering the country close to Aug. 14, all of which has resulted in citizens working to disseminate information.

Bahrainis were mostly impeded from protesting on Aug. 14 or on the days after because of the heavy police presence on the streets. Local and international media were meanwhile focused on the bloody events in Egypt following the killing of hundreds of pro-Muslim Brotherhood protestors that also took place on that day.

Two-and-a-half years after Bahrain’s uprising began, international media attention also remains scarce and the support provided to the monarchy by neighbouring countries such as Saudi Arabia has not contributed to positive change for either side.

Not even the results of a Bahraini independent inquiry, which expose substantial human rights violations, have spurred meaningful reform.

But Bahrainis are still showing their resolve to achieve their rights and live in a country where the rule of law is implemented through democracy and not by a tribe.

This is one reason why the Tamarod movement has established itself in Manama – despite the authorities’ attempts to quell protests there – and promised to continue its peaceful “rebellion”.

Nazeeha Saeed is the Bahrain correspondent for Radio Monte Carlo and France 24. Her coverage of Bahrain’s 2011 uprising led to her detention by Bahraini police. She now works closely with international organisations to defend freedom of the media in Bahrain and for the rights of both Bahraini and non-Bahraini journalists.

Like Mubarak, like Morsi: the majority of Egyptians disapprove of President Morsi's performance, a new poll shows. Credit: Cam McGrath/IPS

By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Jul 2 2013 (IPS)

U.S. President Barack Obama Monday called for both the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi and opposition forces to compromise in the fast-developing political crisis.

Speaking at a press conference in Tanzania Monday, Obama appealed for all parties to “remain peaceful” and “show restraint” – messages that were echoed repeatedly by U.S. officials during the day, particularly after the Egyptian military issued a threat that it was prepared to intervene Wednesday if no settlement emerged by then."I don’t think the Americans have been on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood or the military; whoever can consolidate rule is who they will back." -- Joshua Stacher of Kent State University

“(W)e’re going to continue to work with all parties inside of Egypt to try to channel this through legal, legitimate processes,” Obama said during a joint appearance with Tanzania’s president, Jakay Kikwete.

“But I do think that if the situation is going to resolve itself for the benefit of Egypt over the long term, then all the parties there have to step back from maximalist positions,” he noted. “Democracies don’t work when everybody says it’s the other person’s fault, and I want 100 percent of what I want.”

The speed with which events have taken place appears to surprised officials here. They include the turnout of millions of people in the anti-government protests that took place Sunday across Egypt and the military’s thinly veiled threat Monday to “announce a road map for the future and the steps overseeing its implementation…” in 48 hours if Morsi failed “to meet the demands of the people”.

And while the administration appealed for compromise, it was careful to avoid taking sides at a critical moment in the fate of the Arab world’s most populous and potentially influential nation, according to a number of independent analysts.

“The U.S. needs to avoid any appearance of interfering in Egypt’s domestic politics right now,” said Thomas Caruthers, a democracy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) here. “The opposition, in particular, has been frustrated with the U.S. for months, feeling it’s on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

His assessment was echoed by Paul Pillar, a CIA veteran who served as the National Intelligence Officer for the Near East from 2000 to 2005. “Any U.S. actions that could be perceived as interference in Egyptian politics would only result in antagonising one or another element in Egypt,” he told IPS in email exchange.

“The United States should be prepared to work together, in the interest of good Egyptian-U.S. relations, with whoever is in charge in Cairo whenever the dust settles,” he added.

Thus far, however, it seemed as if Obama’s efforts to appear neutral while appealing for compromise have not borne fruit. Both Morsi and the Brotherhood issued defiant statements Monday, although the president, who was elected one year ago in what were regarded as Egypt’s first free and fair elections, reportedly met with key generals late Monday.

“I think there will be a lot anxiety here about how the next 48 hours unfold,” said Stephen McInerney, the head of the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED). “People in the administration are very much hoping a coup can be avoided, and I would expect them to be encouraging Morsi to take the steps necessary to avoid one.”

“There could be very serious consequences if there is a military coup since it would be against an elected government, and there’s language in the (foreign aid) bill that bans the provision of assistance – military or economic – to (regimes) in which the military is used to overthrow elected governments,” he told IPS.

Washington currently provides about 1.6 billion dollars in aid to Egypt, 1.3 billion dollars of which goes to the military.

“It wouldn’t be surprising if (a coup) led to large-scale civil violence in Egypt,” McInerney added. “You could even see something like Algeria in the 1990s. The fact that things are happening so quickly limits a lot of options for the administration and may deny it from having the kind of influence it would like.”

Faced with the military’s threat, analysts here said it appeared that Morsi and the Brotherhood faced several choices: to resign or call early elections; negotiate a power-sharing agreement with the mainly secular opposition, specifically the National Salvation Front (NSF), which has been led by the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and former Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa; or forcing a showdown – and the attendant risks of violence – with both the military and opposition forces.

But events have been moving so quickly, according to Caruthers, it’s not clear that negotiating an accord with the NSF would be sufficient to calm the situation. “His best bet is to reach out to those people in the (NSF) and try to strike a deal with them, but I don’t know whether they can deliver the street.”

The massive demonstrations on Sunday were organised by Tamarod, a grassroots, civil-society movement of which the NSF was only one – albeit important – part. On Monday, Tamarod issued its own ultimatum calling on Morsi to resign by Tuesday afternoon or face a campaign of “complete civil disobedience”.

Monday’s coup threat by the military has effectively “terminated” Morsi’s presidency, according to Joshua Stacher, an Egypt expert at Kent State University in Ohio. He told IPS that ultimately Washington will choose “whatever political force can exercise authority in the country, maintain the state, and keep U.S. security interests afloat in the region.

“If it’s the military, so be it; if it’s an elected government, so be it – they don’t distinguish. I don’t think the Americans have been on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood or the military; whoever can consolidate rule is who they will back.

“At this point, [Washington’s] motives and ambitions are far too suspect by the population, so distance is probably the best course of action,” he said.

“If anything, they should call for the military to stay out of any transition and ensure that it would be civilian-led,” he told IPS. “Their main interest is calming the popular mobilisation and getting people off the streets. And they prefer the process to be electionised, because the more elections, the better the chances of neutralising popular mobilisation.”

Robert Springborg, an Egypt specialist at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, partially agreed with that analysis.

He complained that what Washington has done since the arrival of the “Arab Spring” was to show, through U.S. backing for both the military and then the Muslim Brotherhood and its failure to support the secularist opposition, that “we are more interested in American security concerns than in democracy in Egypt.”

That policy, he told IPS, has “now run up against the disenchanted Egypt where very significant numbers of people don’t want the Muslim Brotherhood in power.

“We entered the political balance putting our weight on the side of the military and the Brotherhood; we should now remove our weight from that balance and have an outcome that has all three political forces reach an agreement in which the interests of all three are protected through democracy, …and none of the three would be able to dominate the political system.”

*Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com.