Dr. Jeffrey Sachs at OWS

I had just arrived when I saw a group gathered around, I got close and recognized Dr. Jeffrey Sachs sounding pretty pumped (that is, as pumped as I've ever seen economists get). I am not - as shocking as this is - an expert cameraman. The video is of poor quality, but I was pretty close. Take of it what you will.

Video 1: Only 17 seconds of Dr. Sachs (and here) stating that the two political parties in the US are fighting for the 1% - not the 99%. The two videos were taken back to back, I wasn't sure how long he was staying. He stayed a long time and moved around the crowded square so as to not create too much traffic and to hear people's questions/give interviews.

 

Video 2: (Much longer) Dr. Sachs takes all sorts of questions while I struggle to get footage of it. There was definitely a political campaign feel to it - like he was running for office and psyching supporters (I'm sure this is NOT the case, I'm only saying how I felt watching it). I've never seen Dr. Sachs speak before, and I'm only basically familiar with his work, but I got the feeling he was out to rally people and give a nuanced outlook on what was happening. 

Occupy Wall Street

On Friday (10/7) I took the trip into NYC to spend a few hours taking in the protest off Wall Street. What I saw was a large group of people dedicated to the important but vague issue of the disparity in income distribution in the United States. In addition to protesting the unfairly large share of resources the richest 1% control, they're protesting the undue influence of these same people in controlling national policy.  

The message was not united. Some people just really like to protest and a handful of loud people in the park are doing exactly that. There was one guy screaming for a return to the gold standard, another protesting the treatment of 9/11 victims, and another promoting animal rights. 

The movement is growing. It's an effective strategy to not coalesce around one united set of goals, for fear of alienating would-be joiners. I would say though, that the time is coming when a specific set of demands will be laid out to be addressed by the President and GOP candidates. I don't think a leader of the movement will be named for fear of his/her faults being exploited and costing the movement.

I grabbed some video of Dr. Jeff Sachs speaking at the event, its not expert footage but I'll be posting it soon. The following sources are also useful: 

New Yorker 

Facebook Rant

Atlantic

4 Reasons to OWS

Alan Grayson

The rest of the pictures are my own. Comments welcome. 

To be a fly on that wall…

Yesterday (8/9/2011) the Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu met with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. Davutoglu went into the meeting telling the press that he had come to deliver a “strong message” to Assad – expressing that Turkey had “lost its patience” with the massacres in Syria. After nearly seven hours of meetings with Assad, Davutoglu was singing a very different tune. Citing close cultural connections, Davutoglu stated that the future of Turkey was “related” to that of Syria and that all contacts between the two countries would continue. Even more problematically, he stated that he was confident that in the coming weeks, peace would return to Syria and that Assad was capable of reforms that would satisfy the protestor’s demands. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in that meeting to hear what could have changed Davutoglu’s mind so drastically. 

It must have been the meeting, because nothing on the ground reflects any change in Assad’s stance. New assaults are starting right now. In the south, near the Iraqi border, near the Turkish border, tanks are shelling homes and businesses and soldiers are opening fire on innocent civilians. The death toll is believed to be around 2,000 and climbing.

The State Department had announced that the United States would be working with Turkey to pressure Assad into ending the killings. It appears from Davutoglu’s statements that that effort is not progressing enough. Yesterday we also heard that the Obama Administration is considering calling for Assad to step down formally and toughening the sanctions. However, without the support of Turkey, a tougher stance from the United States will have limited effect. A multilateral approach is necessary in Syria. Given that any sort of military option is out of the question, diplomatic action must be strong. Turkey holds huge importance in Syria. Trade has increased drastically in the past couple of years and ties among people living in the border area are strong. The killing in Syria must stop and Assad is no closer to stopping them. International pressure must be applied and it must include a strong stance from Turkey. Here’s to hoping the Foreign Minister changes his mind again.  

The GCC’s in Their Glass House is Throwing Stones

The governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain withdraw their respective ambassadors from Syria this week. This move is coupled with a statement from King Abdulla of Saudi Arabia condemning the violence in strong terms.

We’re encouraged by this movement from regional powers against the Assad regime. Since the start of Ramadan, the Assad regime has stepped up the war it is waging on its own people. More towns were attacked this weekend, more tanks shelled homes – raining bombs and gunfire on innocents and killing dozens if not hundreds more each day. The regime is clearly feeling the pressure, and instead of responding in the ways Assad promised – reform and dialogue – he’s trying to slaughter his people into submission. From the newest assault on Deir al-Zour, the New York Times quoted one activist saying: “They are shooting at us to kill us, not to scare us off.” 

Given this reality and the limited US and European leverage, HRF has called for regional pressure to be increased on Assad. The actions of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and with more action expected from Turkey, are exactly the sort regional pressure necessary. Once a regional consensus has been reached, Assad will be effectively isolated and it will be very difficult for the UN Security Council to justify inaction. As noted here, regional powers –especially Turkey – have far more leverage and credibility in Syria than the US, UK, or anyone in the West. The sooner a direct multilateral approach can pressure out Assad in favor of a legitimate, secure transition, the better for thousands of Syrians currently living in fear of their own government. 

Nonetheless, the actions of these Gulf countries do smack with irony. The hypocrisy involved in the King of Bahrain withdrawing his ambassador to Syria, citing the bloody crackdown, or the King of Saudi Arabia calling for “quick and comprehensive reforms” is truly staggering. HRF has done extensive work covering the abuses against pro-democracy and human rights activists in Bahrain. (Fantastic AJE special here) Dozens of people were killed in Bahrain, hundreds injured from the crackdown on protestors backed by the GCC. In a massive performance, the government led national dialogue talks, which started as a sham and ended as a waste of time when the opposition pulled out early on. For years GCC countries have censored, paid off, and simply eliminated all forms of opposition or any calls for real democracy. No form of democracy exists in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE despite some undeniably democratic aspirations from within the population. While the criticism of Assad is welcomed and a positive step towards breaking the taboo of regional leaders denouncing their own, the hypocrisy on display here cannot be ignored. 

The US government needs to be careful to avoid indulging this hypocrisy. While the United States was slow on responding to abuses in Syria, it was slower and less effective on the abuses in Bahrain. Traditionally, gulf countries have enjoyed a shield from US criticism on human rights abuses and anti-democratic crackdowns due to the entrenched oil trade and resulting partnerships. In contrast, the United States rarely pulls any punches on Iranian abuses (rightfully so). Imagine the US reaction to Iranians sending in hundreds of troops into Syria to aid the Assad regime – would it not be much harsher than when Saudi Arabia did the same in Bahrain? Fear of Iranian influence through the Shiite community is part of the reason the US is quiet on Bahrain, but by staying quiet it gives the Iranian regime opportunity to defend its actions with anti-American rhetoric. To build and maintain credibility in the region the United States needs to treat violence against Sunnis the same as violence against Shiites and abuses by allies the same as abuses by adversaries. That will mean consistent diplomacy in the field of human rights and as President Obama said: “speak honestly about the principles that we believe in, with friend and foe alike”.

Posner Speaks on Syria at Lantos Committee Hearing

This was originally written on July 13th. It has been edited and is not my work alone.  

Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner spoke before the House of Representatives Tom Lantos Committee on Human Rights yesterday. His remarks served as an update to evolving US policy in Syria, and a welcomed one at that. As a recap, in the past few days, the U.S. Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, visited Hama, “pro-regime” mobs retaliated with an attack on the American and French embassies, and Secretary of State Clinton stated that Assad’s regime has “lost legitimacy” and is not “indispensible” to US interests. While his condemnation of “gross human rights abuses” is well received, the impact of the current U.S. policy will be limited if no next step is presented. 

Clearly, American policy options on Syria are limited. The U.S. and Syria had strained diplomatic relationship before the start of the crackdown. Sanctions were also already in place and naturally the US holds almost no leadership role in the country, which is also one of the fiercest enemies to Israel, a US ally. The military option used in Libya is also not possible in Syria, because of poor strategic opportunity, diminished credibility for following Libya-like mandates, and lack of political will in the region. All this being said, the US can go further than Posner’s remarks, which stop at condemning the Assad regime without presenting any plan of action. The US should be publically pursuing a multilateral diplomatic campaign to see the peaceful transition of the Assad regime from power. 

While Posner mentioned the US and EU sanctions and UN Human Rights Council action, only passing reference was given to a resolution in the UN Security Council condemning the Assad regime. As HRF’s Neil Hick’s stated last week, the US must take public lead on the UNSC resolution and hold the Assad regime accountable. Security Council action, if successful, would isolate the Assad regime further and provide fertile ground for transition. 

Regional leaders, especially Turkey, must be engaged to secure their action to ensure a stop to the brutality and Assad’s peaceful transition from power. Turkey has already expressed outrage at the extent of the “savagery” and can logically be expected to increase pressure as it continues.  Public outreach to countries like Russia must take place, communicating that an end to the killing and a transition are not just items on a US agenda, but the responsibility of the international community towards human rights. Recent Russian mediation efforts in Libya, negotiating Qadhafi’s exit, is encouraging and the same type of action should pursued in Syria. Other Arab states must also be engaged. Taking a clear stance against Assad’s actions and for a change in government, completely in the hands of the Syrian people, would create distinct separation between Assad’s Syria and the reforms pursued elsewhere in the region. 

The State Department is right about the situation in Syria, but without a plan, the situation will get worse. 

Posner correctly referred to the hundreds of deaths since President Obama’s May 19^th speech as “needless”. That speech, like Posner’s remarks, was an opportunity to take an active role in stopping the abuses in Syria. Unless action is taken soon, there is no telling on how many more “needless” victims we’ll see. 

Pelosi and Boehner End the Page Program

I was crushed to hear that the Page Program was canceled. It's end is a sad day for the House of Reps. The following is a piece I wrote expressing my thoughts, sharing my experience, and giving some alternatives to this bad decision. I've already sent around some shorter versions, trying to get the word out. If you're a former page, or have heard about and believe in the program, please share. 

I was a page in 2006-2007, fall and spring for Rep. Nadler (D-NY)

Boehner and Pelosi Ends the House Page Program

Today House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi jointly announced to end the House Page program after 175 years of operation. To the hundreds of page alumni over the years this is a deeply disappointing and avoidable decision. We are disappointed not at the end of the program, but in the fashion in which the decision was made. 

I fear that in cutting the program and citing the costs, Pelosi and Boehner - in a fashion sadly typical these days - have failed to see the expenditure as an investment. The hundreds of successful, engaged page alumni ranging from Bill Gates to Rep. John Dingell and the many other sitting and former members of Congress would surely be found to be a high return on America’s investment. Broadly, the page program is proven successful at engaging American youth in public service for life. Many go on to serve in some capacity, and even those who don’t go on to be better voters and live civically educated lives – no small feat.

To speak briefly on my experience, the page program opened my mind to the world. It challenged me at a young age to take ownership of the issues of our time. I no longer could read the news passively. I can still rattle off the tidbits of wisdom our nation’s leaders shared with us. At 16 I felt I had a far more nuanced view of government than many far older and more experienced. I saw Members of Congress who honorably served every day, working ethically and diligently – people I would happily model myself after. Likewise I saw men and women I knew I didn’t want to become, both influences were equally beneficial. Further, my fellow pages formed perhaps the biggest part of my education. Night after night we stayed up late, debating, discussing and learning from one another. It was in that year I shaped many of my convictions, and at the same time learned how to change them. The page school also made a positive impact. Never before did I feel intellectually engaged like I did in page school, at 16 I was excited about assignments and issues for the sake of the process, not just to finish and get out of class. I started to figure out that year what I was academically curious about, what made me tick, and where my skills might lie. The teachers were professionals of the highest standard (which the articles today, quoting prices, ignored). They cared about the pages and where we ended up, and years later this continues to be true. 

I went from being a page my junior year to going to a United World College in Hong Kong, living and working with students from around the country under unusual circumstances flowed naturally to living and learning with students from around the world. My inside knowledge of government and politics meant that I was able to better wrap my head around other cultures, foreign national narratives and circumstances; compare them to our own and make connections on a universal level. I’m now a student at Princeton University planning a career in national and international service and I can say with the utmost honesty that without the page program I would be nowhere close to where I am now. I take seriously the huge investment of American tax dollars that was made in me and I know my fellow pages do too.

Obviously not all former pages feel the way I do. There are some who didn’t get nearly the same as I got out of the program and wouldn’t give it much credit for where they ended up. This is inherent in any youth program. As for scandals, I would like a list of Members of Congress who feel that rather than throw out colleagues who lack the basic decency required to be in a room with a 16 year old and behave, we should throw out the 16 year olds. 

In the past scandal was used as a reason to end the program, but today cost was cited. The method of announcing today’s decision, blaming costs, was deeply frustrating. There were multiple options Pelosi and Boehner could have chosen. They could have downsized the program or inform the Page board (specially set up for such purposes) that the program was at risk who would have in turn notified the alumni group. Rather than consult, Pelosi and Boehner took the high handed approach of simply abolishing a time honored, successful program. Pages have already left for the summer, presumable there are 16 year olds out there who thought they were coming in the fall, or have the chance to apply. But of course, when the special interest group is 16, can’t vote and don’t have much money, there’s not too much risk in angering them. 

The program is very expensive by any measure and was, in my opinion, overdue for an overhaul. Pages are paid a fairly high salary for the work. This is meant to make the experience affordable despite the fact that almost all of the program’s costs are covered. Removing the salary and replacing it with a modest living stipend would save money. Pages are also appointed on a partisan basis and are managed separately based on affiliation. The majority (usually) gets 2/3 of the 72 slots. This means twice the staff for supervision. Pages should be nonpartisan and require one supervisor. To further mitigate the costs, alumni and other private individuals should be contacted for donations. I won’t name too many notable alumni (except Bill Gates) but we know that it numbers thousands of successful individuals and setting up an endowment like system should be possible. To address the technology and efficiency issue, the work can and should be changed to make the experience rewarding for the pages and beneficial to the House. There’s no shortage of work to be done in the Capitol. We have options. There are ways to continue the program in a sensible fashion but instead of exploring these options, our leaders abandoned a good program, further removed America’s youth from the political process and left part of the Capitol’s history behind. 

Too Little Too Late

This is something I originally wrote as a blog for HRF, but was used in a much different form, so here's the original. Written on August 4th 2011.

Too Little Too Late – United Nations Finally says something on Syria

This week the United Nations Security Council issued a Presidential Statement (available here) on the situation in Syria. This statement, which given the parliamentary rules in the council is weaker than a resolution, comes only after over six months of continuous brutal crackdown and most recently outright assault from the Assad regime towards unarmed civilians. The statement is not attached to any sort of further action of any kind, such as intervention or sanctions, and simply expresses the council’s “concern”.

Albeit weak and late, the statement represents a significant diplomatic development which will further isolate the Assad regime. Notably, a Presidential Statement from the UN Security Council requires unanimity from the 15 members. This means that Russia and China finally agreed to make a statement which is an encouraging step. The recent signs coming out of Russia also seem to imply a slow policy shift on Syria, which could in turn convince China.  At least Russia is now acknowledging that the Assad regime needs to do something, although Russia seems to still think Assad will reconcile while he’s sending tanks to massacre civilians.

More action is immediately needed. In no uncertain terms, Assad is killing his own people by the hundreds. Artillery has been used on populated urban areas, refugees by the thousands are fleeing and destabilizing the region and there is no end in sight. All promises for reform and dialogue have been broken or ignored. Should this continue, and by all indications so far it will, strong multilateral action is necessary. The UNSC must pass a resolution stronger than the “watered down” presidential statement. The United States and European Union should also be vigorously engaging regional powers, especially Turkey, to take a strong stand against the violence and Assad. Turkey’s response to Assad’s most recent assault was its strongest yet and like Russia, might be increasingly convinced the Assad’s action make him illegitimate as a ruler and is destabilizing the region.

Further than a UNSC resolution, more sanctions could come from the United States and European Union, specifically targeting the Syrian energy sector. Several European nations continue to buy oil from Syria and the revenue from oil sales makes up a considerable chunk of the regime’s income. Travel bans and account freezes on regime officials and major supporters in Syria could also force a stop to violence. In terms of accountability for the crimes already committed, the UN should immediately open an investigation on the violence in Syria, and pending the results recommend the International Criminal Court take action.

While more measures are possible and necessary the Obama administration is right for treating Syria with the utmost caution. The US policy options in Syria remain limited. No military option has been – or should be – pushed for and the United States did not have much leverage over Syria before the crackdown. Also, despite the need for tougher measures, Ambassador Ford must not be pulled from Syria. Having an ambassador on the ground means a more direct link to activists and news on the ground. Despite Assad’s warning, Ford should be traveling in Syria and playing witness to the atrocities. US leverage and credibility in Syria is limited but if Ford’s reception in Hama last time is any indication, the Syrian people appreciate knowing that the world is watching.

Conditions Grow Harder in Syria While Policy Grows Softer

First Published for Human Rights First. July 27th, 2011

While conditions on the ground in Syria deteriorate, the Obama administration’s position seems to be growing softer. As it stands now, almost 1,500 people are confirmed dead, 12,000 arrested and thousands more forced out as refugees to Lebanon and Turkey fleeing their own government. Over a week ago the administration stated that Assad had “lost legitimacy” and there were hints that a tougher stance was to come. While the most recent release condemns the abuses, since last week, rather than take a tougher stance – call for Assad to step down – the United States  has backtracked.

The United States’ stance towards the Assad regime needs to get stronger, not weaker. The crackdown has not let up and in many places has gotten worse. In the past few days alone security forces have arrested hundreds in Damascus, tanks have been deployed in Homs, where more than 50 people have been killed. Assad has also replaced the governor of Deir az-Zor, an eastern province bordering Iraq, after an estimated 500,000 people marched against the regime.

We have multiple clear recommendations for U.S. policy in Syria. The most visible of these calls for the continuation of actions like Ambassador Robert Ford’s visit to Hama. That action, in line with our recommendations for State Department guidelines on human rights defenders, needs to be repeated. Ambassador Ford should be routinely sent to sites in Syria experiencing attacks by security forces. He visited Hama, now Ford should go to Homs, and he should be seen in Damascus, and talking with owners of shops closed in protest. The Assad regime has threated Ford with expulsion should he travel at all, but here the risk is worth the penalty. By expelling the U.S. Ambassador Assad will further lose credibility. Ford’s visits, as we’ve discussed previously, lend direct U.S. support to human rights defenders and very well could serve to physically protect peaceful protestors from assault through his presence.

In addition to increasing Ambassador Ford’s trips, the United States must directly lead multilateral diplomatic action aimed at stopping the crackdown and ensuring human rights activists a safe environment for them to pursue their goals. The most obvious way to do this would be in the U.N., where the Security Council has yet to adopt any resolution critical of the Assad regime. A strong, public push led by the United States, something that has yet to happen, could spark the attention of the international community and change the direction in which national governments are currently betting on Syria. Given the continued, unjustifiable opposition such a measure faces due to the Russian and Chinese vetoes, the United States should also pursue alternatives.
Turkey and other nations in the region must be engaged in an effort to show public rejection of Assad’s actions and regional solidarity with the Syrian people. Turkey has already moved in this direction, condemning the continuing violence. Qatar, by withdrawing their ambassador, is a clear example that Arab opinion is not unanimous on the issue and shows that with a strong diplomatic push, Assad can be further isolated and the violence put to an end.

The situation in Syria is not the same as it was in Libya. The military option that presented itself in Libya has not and will not present itself in Syria.

Furthermore, given the already strained relations before the start of the crackdown, U.S. policy options are severely limited. All of that being said, the United States is still not doing all it could prudently be doing. Targeting Syria’s energy sector (in a similar manner as suggested here) with sanctions would damage the regime and limit its ability to carry out violence against its people. While sanctions already exist in Syria, the energy sector can be targeted to a much greater extent than it is now. Also, the United States could be convincing allies in Europe to adopt similar sanctions against the Assad regime. The European Union has implemented some, but the sanctions in the United States are stronger and a public diplomatic push, coupled with the existing support for human rights enforcement in Europe can make this possible.

Secretary Clinton’s shift on Syria policy, from resolve that Assad will not reform to patient hope that he will, and will peacefully, is problematic. From what we see on the ground in Syria there is no reason to believe that real reform will come out of this regime, as they have not yet stopped the violence – a basic first step to any progress. The recent announcement of the legalization of political parties is to be welcomed in spirit, but in reality the law, even if implemented, means nothing as the constitution still forbids any party other than the Baath to rule. As with the talks in Damascus a few weeks ago, Assad is buying time with this distracting move in order to continue his campaign of violent repression. The position of Assad’s regime on human rights is not softening, and the United States’ policy on Assad shouldn’t either.

U.S. Ambassador Doing the Right Thing in Syria

First for HRF 7/8/11

U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford is to be commended for visiting the city of Hama yesterday. His visit, expressly in solidarity with protestors, is exactly the kind of action the US should take in Syria, where policy options are limited but serious human rights violations are taking place. As the death count rises in Hama and protests continue, outreach by the international community to Syrian protesters  and activists will demonstrate that the legitimate demands of protesters calling for basic rights and freedoms have international support.
Ambassador Ford was joined in his visit by the Ambassador of France.  Such visits should continue and other nations should  follow suit to demonstrate international solidarity with the Syrian people.
The Syrian authorities were quick to criticize the visit. Following the foreign conspiracy playbook, the Syrian Foreign Ministry stated that Ford’s visit was unmistakable evidence that the US is  orchestrating the nationwide protests. Syrian state television reported an unnamed Foreign Ministry official as saying:
“The presence of the US ambassador in Hama without previous permission is obvious proof of a clear evidence of the United States’ involvement in current events in Syria and its attempt to incite an escalation in the situation, which disturbs Syria’s security and stability,”
The U.S. State Department was right to back up Ambassador Ford.  State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said “The fundamental intention was to make absolutely clear with his physical presence that we stand with those Syrians who are expressing their right to speak for change.”

Justice Delayed in Egypt Could Mean Justice Denied

First on HRF 7/8/11

Thousands are gathering in Egypt today demanding justice. It’s not hard to see why.
Since the revolution, thousands of Egyptians have been arrested and tried in military trials. The Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) conducts the trials through use of the much hated emergency law, which is still in effect. These trials are unfair, violate due process and deliver swift, harsh punishment for what are often petty offenses.
While the need for law and order in post-revolution Egypt is essential to stability, a recovering economy, and political development, the SCAF should move away from Mubarak era practices and embrace true justice. Ending the unfair trials of civilians by military courts is necessary to continue Egypt’s move to democracy.
In stark contrast to the swift pace of Egypt’s military trials is the slow grind of justice for the families  of  the 846 victims of violence killed during the revolution. No Mubarak regime official has been convicted for any of these deaths, and the only individual convicted, a low level police officer, is still at large. All individuals currently charged with violence are being tried under Egypt’s civilian system, which allows for greater flexibility and defendant rights. While the use of civilian courts is commendable, the delays experienced are inexcusable. Multiple trials, including that of the former Interior Minister Habib al-Aldy, have been delayed. Most recently, the delay in the trial of  police in Suez accused of killing protesters led to clashes between protesters and police.
Delays now mean that trials will not resume until after the month of Ramadan, in September. The danger is that with parliamentary elections scheduled for September and the Egyptian judiciary likely to be assigned to supervision of  the elections, the trials could well be delayed again. Following elections, it is possible that the political climate will be more sympathetic to former regime officials and security forces, leading to mounting concerns that justice delayed now will mean justice denied later.
A more imminent  danger of  delay has been seen recently in Suez and is on display now in Tahrir Square. After the announced delay of the Suez trial, protestors stormed the streets and were in turn met with violence. This also occurred in Tahrir last week when a demonstration by victims’ families sparked clashes with police. The snowball effect of street demonstrations can be dangerous. The outrage of victims’ families, who have yet to see justice, is a cause that many  Egyptians can sympathize with, and protests will continue to gain widespread support until these trials move forward. The SCAF must prove that, unlike under the previous regime, security forces, including police and army, are not above the law by vigorously pursuing these prosecutions. The recent announced shake-up of the police force is a positive step, but comprehensive reform—making all security forces subject to the  law—is necessary to build confidence in the transition to a democratic, just state.

Sham Trials in Bahrain Prove Need for Greater U.S. Pressure

From: HRF 6/28/11

On Wednesday a military court in Bahrain announced its latest outrage. Twenty-one activists were sentenced in a “sham trial” with eight receiving life sentences and the remanding 13 given between two and 15 years. Among those sentenced was Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, a prominent human rights activist.

There has been word from family members that he had been beaten both before and after his sentencing. His daughter was violently removed from court after she shouted in response to the sentence. She was charged with contempt of court and later released. In a recent Twitter post she says: “Just got news that my father was severely beaten after court yesterday! He was hit mostly on his face, on the already fractured bones!” Other defendants also show evidence of torture on their bodies.
A national dialogue is set to begin on July 1^st, but former MPs have already denounced it while the Bahraini government continues to sentence and arrest human rights activists, host Gulf Cooperation Council troops (mostly from Saudi Arabia), and violently put down protests. Trials are continuing around the country, with an estimated 400 people charged in relation to calls for democracy, including 47 doctors and nurses arrested for treating those assaulted by security forces. Human Rights First’s Brian Dooley was refused entry to one of these trials on his recent visit to Bahrain on May 12^th.
The U.S. Government has continued its relatively muted line on Bahrain. While many say the United States has privately increased pressure, it’s time for that pressure to become public. Naming Bahrain as a violator of human rights is one good step, but another could be a discussion of the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet. It has been previously suggested that the fleet be moved or even disbanded.
The U.S. Government must make clear that its relationship with Bahrain is not unconditional – that it does not want to be seen as friends with torturers. And that to be a partner of the United States, Bahrain must act in a responsible way.  The partnership needs renegotiating, and the future of the Fifth Fleet ought to be part of that discussion.