Role of the UN Security Council
Bahrain’s repression of human rights activists and political opposition groups posed a potential risk to international peace and security. Bahrain’s unrest and repression were fueled by a regional rivalry. This rivalry between predominantly Sunni Saudi Arabia and predominantly Shiite Iran. Officials in Manama and the Saudi capital Riyadh have repeatedly claimed that Iran has had a hand in outbreaks of unrest in Bahrain. However, they have presented no evidence to support this. The perception of a threat from Iran was one reason why Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates sent troops to Bahrain during the 2011 uprising. The Saudis saw Bahrain as a potential launching point for an Iranian effort to stir up discontent in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province. This area is home to a large Shiite population and most of the country’s known oil reserves. Opposition groups, meanwhile, frequently condemned foreign involvement as an “occupation.” In light of ongoing tensions among the United States, Iran, and other Persian Gulf countries, renewed violence in Bahrain risked becoming a flash point. Ongoing violence in Bahrain could incite a greater regional conflict. According to the UN Charter, the UN Security Council has a duty to investigate and act on any dispute or situation that could lead to international friction. As a result, the UN Security Council had good reasons to consider taking action on Bahrain.
The UN Security Council has taken action to protect civilian populations from violence on several occasions in the past, including in Libya in 2011. The Bahraini government’s use of force to quell protests and the arbitrary imprisonment, torture, and use of the death penalty for human rights activists and political opposition violated several articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). In addition, those acts violated several human rights treaties that Bahrain had previously signed. Although the UN Security Council is not formally charged with enforcing treaty obligations or articles in the UDHR, ignoring the situation in Bahrain risked being seen as a signal of uneven international commitment to upholding human rights.
However, taking action on Bahrain could hurt other multilateral efforts. Several other issues in the Middle East occupied the Security Council’s agenda in 2014, including violence in Syria, terrorism by the self-proclaimed Islamic State and other groups in the region, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Iranian nuclear development. To achieve peaceful resolutions to these pressing issues, the UN Security Council had to rely on cooperation with multilateral efforts from Middle Eastern countries. This included Bahrain and its allies in the Gulf. Intervention against Bahraini repression therefore risked harming future efforts at international cooperation.
Members of the Security Council had to assess the situation. They had to determine whether it warranted a response. Some countries were likely to see the Bahraini government’s behavior as a crackdown that violated the human rights of its Shiite citizens. Others characterized this behavior as a sovereign country’s reasonable effort to keep order. Moreover, many of the UN Security Council’s veto-wielding permanent member states had longstanding, close economic and military interests in Bahrain. These relationships had the potential to hinder any UN Security Council action toward Bahrain. The United States, China, France, and the United Kingdom all had strong trade relationships with Bahrain and had economic interests in the region due to its rich supply of oil. The United States maintained a major naval base in Bahrain. Furthermore, the United States regarded the country as an important foothold for its interests in the Middle East. Supporting aggressive measures against Bahrain to encourage democratic reforms could therefore go against council members’ economic, political, and military interests. Considering these conflicting interests, UN Security Council members had to carefully consider whether and how they should take action to put meaningful pressure on Bahrain.
UN Security Members could consider the following options:
Policy Options
Call for All-Inclusive National Dialogue Between the Bahraini Government and Political Opposition Groups
The UN Security Council could direct Bahraini government officials and leaders from political opposition groups to conduct a peaceful dialogue about reform. The goal would be to discuss implementing democratic reforms in the country and curbing the use of state force to subdue opposition. This dialogue could take place under the auspices of the UN secretary-general or be mediated by an outside organization.
This option was the least ambitious but the least likely to be controversial among permanent council members. It likely would not damage relationships or agreements between Bahrain and member states. A national dialogue could promote peaceful conflict resolution. It could also allow political opposition members a forum for discussion which could ease political unrest. However, there was no guarantee that either side would respond to requests for a dialogue or accept mediation. This option would have no way to assure or enforce any political changes in Bahrain. If either party refused or negotiations failed, further conflict could result. Additionally, the UN Security Council could face criticism for not acting strongly enough.
Call for an Investigation of the Bahraini Government’s Suppression of the Political Opposition and Activists
The UN Security Council could pass a resolution calling on Bahrain to admit inspectors to monitor the political situation and Bahrain’s human rights practices. This option could provide legitimate, independent insight into the extent of Bahrain’s human rights abuses and undemocratic actions. It could also look into Iran’s alleged involvement in Bahrain’s political unrest. An independent investigation could conclude with recommendations to improve Bahrain’s human rights practices. In addition, it could outline a timeline for reevaluation. Furthermore, it could establish consequences, such as sanctions, should Bahrain fail to adopt reforms. International human rights organizations criticized the BICI report and investigation of the events that took place in Bahrain in 2011. Freedom of the press was limited in Bahrain. This underscored the need for an international organization to investigate claims of human rights abuses and undemocratic practices. If Bahrain allowed independent inspectors into the country under the auspices of the United Nations, the inspectors could have greater access to information.
However, requesting access from the Bahraini government could prove challenging. Security Council members would need to secure Bahrain’s consent to allow UN inspectors into the country. Bahrain’s government had routinely refused prior requests to allow independent investigators into the country, including UN special rapporteurs (experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council). However, a Security Council resolution calling for an investigation could bear significant weight. Council members could also consider backing up their request for an inspection with threats of sanctions should Bahrain refuse. However, this could be met with resistance from Security Council members with close ties to Bahrain.
Enact Sanctions on Bahrain
The UN Security Council could enact sanctions on Bahrain in an attempt to coerce Bahrain’s government to cease its crackdown against protests and negotiate with opposition groups to implement certain reforms. These sanctions could be targeted against individuals in the Bahraini government. The sanctions could also take the form of broader restrictions, on items such as luxury goods and manufacturing materials. Security Council members could also call for a halt on international arms sales to the country. Since 2011, Bahrain had ignored or deflected calls from the United Nations to enact democratic reforms and end the use of force to suppress the political opposition. Sanctions would ensure that Bahrain faced consequences for ignoring the international outcry against it. They could put significant pressure on Bahrain to change its behavior. Sanctions could also set a forceful example to other countries that violate international human rights treaties.
However, garnering the support needed to pass sanctions would be difficult. Given the strategic military relationships that both the United States and the United Kingdom had with Bahrain, their support would be unlikely. Other permanent council members, such as China and Russia could see Bahrain’s actions as an internal matter. China and Russia could consider strong action a violation of Bahrain’s sovereignty. Due to the veto power of each of these permanent council members, the chances of gaining the required consensus to approve sanctions were low.
Do Nothing
The Security Council could decide it was unable to take meaningful action on the dispute in light of conflicting interests among council members. In this case, the UN Security Council could adopt a statement expressing concern about violent crackdowns on protests, the lack of a free press, and the use of torture, mass arrests, and numerous other human rights violations. Such a statement could show support for Bahraini opposition groups and draw international attention to the issue. Increasing international attention could help pressure the Bahraini government into adopting reform. If the situation worsened, council members could also revisit the matter. However, inaction on this issue could draw criticism from human rights groups. Especially given the council’s willingness to approve a military intervention in Libya in 2011, remaining silent on Bahrain could be seen as upholding a double standard when council members’ interests are involved and erode confidence in future Security Council action.