Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is the first time that I have spoken in parliament on matters to do with Bahrain, although it is certainly not the first time that I have spoken on matters concerning human rights. What I have learnt in my almost 48 years is that nothing is black and white in this world and that, when we consider politics in the Middle East, that is most certainly the case. As the so-called Arab Spring uprisings demonstrated, hopes for liberal democracies in the region are somewhat forlorn. I suspect that when the dust settles in so many of these nations there will be increasingly Islamist sectarian regimes that are legitimised by elections but are not what we would call democracies. A democracy should guarantee freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion and the equality of the sexes. I am not sure that this will be the case in any of these countries that have seen revolution or changes of political systems.

Although I would like to see secular democracies throughout the Middle East, I believe that it is highly unlikely that this will happen. The reality is that there are deep complications standing in the way of such an eventuality. As I understand it, some 70 per cent of Bahrainis are Shiite Muslims, while 30 per cent are Sunnis, including the royal family and the government. The situation is further complicated by the ongoing attempt of Iran—whose people are not Arabs, though they are Shiite Muslims—to further its influence in the region. I suspect that the military assistance to Bahrain by Saudi Arabia, an Arab Sunni majority nation, is also affected by a determination to block Iranian influence in the region. We should also remember that Bahrain is the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet—another complication.

Given the manoeuvring of Saudi Arabia and Iran on Bahrain and the region, we should be careful about making too many assumptions about the nature of what is happening in that country. I know that the member for Werriwa is a deep thinker on these matters, and I consider his motions to be particularly interesting; but, in reading the words of this motion, I cannot help but feel the weight of the complications that affect Bahrain. There is a history of enmity between Sunni and Shiite Muslims across the world. Indeed, it seems that, through the dictatorships and autocracies that have dominated the Arab Middle East, sectarian enmities have been kept in check, albeit replaced with dominance by and advantages for a particular ruling elite. That is probably a description that applies to Bahrain, although it is notable that the Bahraini ambassador to the US is Jewish and the head of mission in the UK is a Christian lady. So the Bahrainis highlight religious tolerance, and that is quite impressive in comparison to Bahrain's near neighbours.

I turn to the specifics of this motion. In February 2011 members of the majority Shiite community took to the streets demanding more of a say in government. After some weeks of protests, the Bahraini government asked for the assistance of the Gulf Cooperation Council, and that included troops from Saudi Arabia. Iran is suspected of influencing and backing Shiite opposition groups, and both Iran and the GCC warned against foreign interference in Bahrain. Yesterday eight men were sentenced in a Bahraini court to up to 15 years jail each for plotting with Iran against Bahrain. The plot included plans to target the interior ministry, the causeway to Saudi Arabia and the Saudi embassy. Three of the men were said even to have had contacts with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Basij militia.

What is clear is that the issues in Bahrain are fundamental and run deep. The domestic political situation and its outcomes could have ramifications for the whole region. A change of government in Bahrain would probably see a reduction in US military capability and a lift in Iranian influences in the Gulf. The monarchy and the Sunni-led authorities no doubt fear not only a potential loss of control but also the retribution that could follow—which has been so apparent in other parts of the Arab world.

The motion highlights the calls for action from the UN Secretary-General and human rights NGOs, which emphasise the abuses of human rights and brutal crackdowns by the authorities in Bahrain. Yet I question the effectiveness of these actions, given the motivations and complications that are at the heart of the situation. It is somewhat ironic that countries such as Iran can make use of Western liberal concepts of democracy and human rights to further their influence in the Gulf in appeals to liberal principles, yet completely disregard such issues when they oppresses the Baha'is and other minority religious groups inside their own borders.

In any case, the challenge for the royal family, the Bahraini government and the Gulf states is to seek to increase political participation and provide greater freedoms—and it is right to do so. It is encouraging that constitutional changes have occurred that give broader power to the parliament; however, it is hard to see the end of the political instability, and I remain concerned about the balance of power in the Gulf should this situation continue.

See this speech in context