Can we stop arming Bahrain’s tyrants please?

A former foreign minister makes a valid point, as another Arab tyranny wobbles.

It's getting ugly in Bahrain – the BBC is reporting three dead and hundreds injured, as the emir's security forces disperse thousands of anti-government protesters in Pearl Square in the centre of the capital, Manama.

It's also getting worryingly sectarian. As the BBC notes in its online report:

Since independence from the UK in 1971, tensions between the Sunni elite and the less affluent Shia have frequently caused civil unrest. Shia groups say they are marginalised, subject to unfair laws and repressed.

Along with Iran and Iraq, Bahrain is one of three Shia-majority countries in the Middle East. There are rumours of Saudi support for Bahraini security forces; the Sunni elite have long been paranoid about a so-called Shia crescent emerging in the region. As the New York Times's Nicholas Kristof tweeted earlier:

Witnesses say #Bahrain police cursed Shia as they attacked peaceful demonstrators. I haven't found 1 Sunni victim.

So what can we do, here in the UK? I have a suggestion. How about we stop arming the Bahraini security forces? Is that such a radical or crazy suggestion, in the midst of all this bloodshed? The Labour MP and former Foreign Office minister Denis MacShane has just sent out a press release stating that:

According to the Department of Business's report on weapons exports, minister in the third quarter of 2010 agrees to export licences to Bahrain for the equipment listed below:

Q3 2010 Pivot Report
OIEL issued for CS hand grenades, demolition charges, demolition devices, exploding simulation devices, fire simulation equipment for small arms ammunition, illuminators, military devices for initiating explosives, signal flares, signal hand grenades, smoke ammunition, smoke canisters, smoke generators, smoke hand grenades, stun grenades, tear gas/irritant ammunition, tear gas/riot control agents, thunderflashes, training anti-aircraft ammunition, training hand grenades; (Source House of Commons Library)

MacShane says:

William Hague is shockingly complacent about the exports of British weapons used to kill, wound and repress innocent people protesting for their rights in Bahrain. At the very least all these exports should be suspended.

He makes a valid point. I'm not sure what the government's counter-argument would be!

If I wanted to be mean, though, I might remind Denis that the New Labour government – and Foreign Office – he was part of had no qualms about supplying weapons and training to some of the world's most repressive governments, including regimes in the Arab world. Plus ça change . . .

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.