Bahrain's Unrest

[Dayuhan]

I told you. You just disagree so cannot hear. But now you are suddenly the "do something there" guy? Pick one.

You're telling me about broad generalities that offer no practical support for the diplomatic pressure you want to exert.

You're the one who wants us to do something. You want us to change how these governments govern. I'm asking what you propose to do to achieve that goal. Sermons and suggestions are not going to do it: there have to be immediate, meaningful, practical carrots and sticks on the table if we want to change anyone's behaviour. What are they?

Lecturing these governments on how we think they ought to govern is meaningless. It will be ignored. It has already been ignored: we told the Bahrainis what we thought they should do, and they went to the Saudis instead.

But none of that needs to be in the conversation. It is implied. The conversation needs to focus on what these leaders do to best stabilize their own countries.

Unless we have some way to persuade or compel them to do what we think they need to do, discussion of what we think they need to do is abstract to the point of meaninglessness.

Sure, we can lecture them on democracy and human rights, in public and private. That makes us sound noble to ourselves, and preachy and obnoxious to others, but it's tradition. Just don't expect it to produce change.

Here's what I'm hearing from you:

I do think we should sit down and talk with these guys about how to best regain stability in their respective countries....

By employing our influence to convince these gentlemen to engage their people in conversation rather than with cluster bombs and chainguns

I would encourage them to consider their role in causation and to make smart changes in how they govern. Yes, I would say "see what the US did, now understand why, and see if you can achieve similar functions that make sense for your country and your culture.

convince these leaders that the best way to stay in power is to make smart, reasonable, moderate concessions to their people. To trend toward a parliamentary system with a more ceremonial role for the Royals seems logical to me; while granting greater justice in the judicial systems, and a greater voice in governance to the populace.

So now, I submit, the terms of the contract have changed. If these governments want US support to sustain them in power they are going to have to deal with some invasive new terms.

How does this not come down to lectures and sermons? If they are ignored - which they will be - what do you propose to do? How do you propose to impose "invasive new terms" on these countries? You say we have "influence", but how specifically are we going to deploy that supposed influence to achieve the result you want to achieve?

Take it a step forward. You've given your lecture on how we think they should govern. It's something we've done before. They've nodded gravely, promised to take your opinions under consideration, and ignored you, which is what they've always done before. What's the next move?

Granting that our self-image requires us to lecture a bit, what's the point, in this case, in spouting words that we aren't prepared to back up with action?