Bahrain's Information Minister Samira Rajab said today that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and possibly a third GCC country will announce on Monday the formation of a new political union with common foreign, security and military policies. The announcement will be made in Riyadh at the GCC summit, Reuters reported.
The three countries will maintain their national sovereignty and membership in the UN and other international organizations, much like the EU members. The extent of their economic and monetary cooperation and integration, however, was not reported. Qatar is believed to be the third member. The membership in the newly formed union would remain open to the remaining GCC countries.
"The great dream of the peoples of the region is to see the day when borders disappear with a union that creates one Gulf," said Bahraini prime minister [BNA, 13 may].
The decision to form a regional union is believed to have been prompted by the need to respond to the growing uprising of the Shia majority in Bahrain and the perceived threats by Iran, heightened by Ahmadinejad’s visit to Abu Musa Island which is claimed by the UAE.
Wonder if its lifespan will be any longer than the short-lived UAR.
Saudi Arabia has always been the natural enemy of Iran even before the installation of the theocracy.
Back in 1975 they lowered the price of oil behind Irans back, which lead to the future problems.
They are scum and a tool of the oil cartel.The Iranian people must realize that the theocracy is leading Iran to an dead end.It must be our patriotic duty to install an secular government in Iran with unconditional freedoms for our people.Men and women equality in rights as well economic prosperity.
Without the overthrow of the theocracy Iran will fester and sink deeper into quicksand of no return.There is no reforming this theocracy,period.
I don't care what the cretinous mullah lovers say because these are the facts.
"The decision to form a regional union is believed to have been prompted by the need to respond to the growing uprising of the Shia majority in Bahrain and the perceived threats by Iran, heightened by Ahmadinejad’s visit to Abu Musa Island which is claimed by the UAE."
Really? And the uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, etc, had nothing to do with prompting this move? Nader this has nothing to do with protecting these autocratic pimpdoms from Iran, it's all about protecting themselves from their own people. The Shia in Bahrain ARE Bahraini not Iranians.
Also it wasn't a "Shia uprising" in Bahrain, just as it wasn't a Sunni uprising in Egypt, and only people that are promoting narrow political goals dilute the pro-democratic credentials of the uprising, applying myopic sectarianism to the identity of the revolutionaries.
Although I find your political inclinations quite conservative I doubt that it was your intention to identify with that reactionary camp.
The uprising in Bahrain and the perceived threats from Iran were the two main factors, not all of them. In non-exhaustive analyses, you need to concentrate on the main factors. Yes, everything is related to everything else, but we need to account for the crucial factors.
Find it very strange that you believe saying “the growing uprising by the Shia majority in Bahrain” is reactionary. Which parts of it do you find reactionary? That there is a growing uprising in Bahrain? That the uprising is led by the Shia majority of the country? That the majority has the right to lead the government? And why should we think that because the uprising is led by the Shia majority it cannot necessarily be democratic?
Do you believe that most of those revolutionaries do not identify themselves with Shia religion? I didn’t see that in Bahrain. We might have preferred to witness a revolution led by secular forces, but this is not what is happening on the ground there.
Nader, why is it that only the uprisings in Bahrain and Syria are referenced in such explicitly sectarian terms?
Because "Shia" is code for Iran, and Iran must be resisted since it is the root of all evil, says the reactionary geopolitical narrative championed by the Saudi-Israeli-Western axis, and their fellow travellers.
So you get "Shia" oppressors in Syria, who must be overthrown, and "Shia" agitators in Bahrain, who must be defeated. You as a prolific news watcher, and disseminator, should already be aware of this.
I for one, and evidence in Bahrain, reject the sectarian (Shia=Iran) premise as the basis for the uprisings in Bahrain, and the survival of the Assad dictatorship.
Since the sectarian (Shia=Iran)premise is false then the reason for it as a basis for the GCC union must also be false.
Thank you for taking the time to read and print my comments, and opinions.
Post a Comment