Grand Prix faces turmoil in Bahrain

I've never been much of a car racing person let alone Formula 1 racing, but it's an extremely popular sporting event outside of the US. There's been a growing controversy over the race scheduled for Sunday and many have protested to force its cancellation. Bahrain's prince claims that the event is a "force for good" but others disagree. In an effort to chase big money in Middle East, Forumula 1 (and the possibly also the soccer World Cup) have put themselves in this position, siding with horribly repressive governments. If the event turns out to be a fiasco and they lose money, they only have themselves to blame. The Guardian:

The prime minister, David Cameron, responded: "Peaceful protest should be allowed to go ahead. But Bahrain is not Syria. There is a process of reform under way and this government backs that reform." The problem, Bahraini and foreign critics argue, is that key reforms recommended by a high-powered commission appointed by King Hamad Al Khalifa have not been implemented.Bahrain's claim to be a bastion of freedom in the Gulf was further tarnished when non-sports journalists were turned back at the airport or denied visas. Prince Salman said that was not his decision, hinting at rifts with hardliners including his uncle, who has been prime minister since independence from Britain in 1971.Last year's Bahrain Grand Prix was cancelled in the wake of the unprecedented protests that followed the Pearl Revolution, the Sunni-led monarchy's short-lived experience of the Arab spring, at an estimated cost of $480m-$800m (£500m). Around 50 people have been killed in unrest since then.

Chomsky: U.S. security requires something approaching absolute global control

I'm approaching a short trip, so posting will be light. But I want to put this up before I head out. Not that this — the headline statement — is surprising, but that it's said out loud.

This is from a recent set of pieces by Noam Chomsky printed at Alternet. I believe these are excepted from his new book, Making the Future: Occupations, Interventions, Empire and Resistance, a collection of commentaries on U.S. politics and policies, written between 2007 and 2011.

The piece at Alternet is in two parts. Its subject is America's self-inflicted decline and covers a lot of topics — George Kennan and the 1948 foreign policy decision; Vietnam; Iraq; South American democracy; China; the twins Israel & Palestine; and Iran. Here's Part 1; and here's Part 2.

This is from near the end of Part 2. It deals with Iran and includes some of the conclusion (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

Let us turn finally to the third of the leading issues addressed in the establishment journals cited earlier, the “threat of Iran.” Among elites and the political class this is generally taken to be the primary threat to world order -- though not among populations.

In Europe, polls show that Israel is regarded as the leading threat to peace. In the MENA [Middle East/North Africa] countries, that status is shared with the U.S., to the extent that in Egypt, on the eve of the Tahrir Square uprising, 80% felt that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons. The same polls found that only 10% regard Iran as a threat -- unlike the ruling dictators, who have their own concerns. ...

Why exactly is Iran regarded as such a colossal threat? The question is rarely discussed, but it is not hard to find a serious answer -- though not, as usual, in the fevered pronouncements. The most authoritative answer is provided by the Pentagon and the intelligence services in their regular reports to Congress on global security. They report that Iran does not pose a military threat. Its military spending is very low even by the standards of the region, minuscule of course in comparison with the U.S. ...

It makes very good sense to try to prevent Iran from joining the nuclear weapons states, including the three that have refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- Israel, India, and Pakistan, all of which have been assisted in developing nuclear weapons by the U.S., and are still being assisted by them. ...

[But] the primary threat to the U.S. and Israel is that Iran might deter their free exercise of violence. A further threat is that the Iranians clearly seek to extend their influence to neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, and beyond as well.

Those “illegitimate” acts are called “destabilizing” (or worse). In contrast, forceful imposition of U.S. influence halfway around the world contributes to “stability” and order, in accord with traditional doctrine about who owns the world.

Then, after discussing the U.S. rule about coastal waters (we can come near yours; you can't come near ours), we find this (natural) conclusion:

This “classic security dilemma” makes sense, again, on the assumption that the U.S. has a right to control most of the world, and that U.S. security requires something approaching absolute global control.

Who can argue that this is how the U.S. and its military-minded supporters think? Chomsky and the militarists differ only in their justification (or lack of it) for these acts.

This is, after all, the fact assumed by American Exceptionalism, the belief that rocks many domestic boats, swells many heads with pride. In fact, this idea is almost mainstream, and usually applauded in its more carefully worded forms.

Noam Chomsky is not a popular guy, but (or because) it's hard to say where he's wrong. Read through and see if you don't agree with most or all of what he says.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
 

UN criticizes Syria for failing to comply with cease fire

The UN is still trying to get the ceasefire back on track but it also still involves unarmed observers. The observer model has failed to deliver in Syria despite multiple attempts though with Russia on Assad's side, the options remain limited for the UN. With violence by the Syrian government continuing - even increasing - it's important for the world community to stay involved. More from The Guardian on the faltering peace process in Syria.

UN observers arrive in Syria as cease fire falters

The shelling of civilian targets hasn't stopped but maybe this next round of outside observers will help more than the initial round. With Assad's troops bombing Homs (again) he continues to show little regard for international authority. With friends like Russia, Syria knows that they have the flexibility needed to ignore world outrage. More from Al Jazeera.