Bahrain and Yemen get PR help from Qorvis and Bell Pottinger Consulting Firms

I wanted to share what some journalists have already picked up on: the influence two consulting firms in the US and UK are having on the media coverage of the unrest in Bahrain and Yemen.

The first, Qorvis Communications, is based in Washington, DC and has been hired by the Bahraini Government for $40,000/month to spruce up its international image. Evidently Bahrain is concerned that violent crackdowns on protestors makes it look bad (yes Bahraini monarchy, we already know you desperately want to stay in power.) With the contract overseen by Matt J. Lauer (nice slogan there Matt: “I do not want the world. I just want to influence it.”) Qorvis has begun its campaign to make the current Sunni monarchy look good, and the minority Shia protestors look like roving bands of irresponsible, dangerous outlaws. A press release by the Bahrain News Agency (official government agency) on September 24^th addressed the recent elections for 18 vacant parliamentary seats:

“Manama, Sept. 24. (BNA) – The by-elections held here yesterday proved that the pioneering democratic march, anchored by His Majesty King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa’s Reform Project, will continue un-wavered.
 Efforts made by some clerics and political functions to urge people not to take part in them, by trying to convince them that “boycotting them is a must” and hinting that participation is religiously forbidden, have proved meaningless as voters headed massively to the polling stations and exercised their constitutional rights.
 In addition to the above incitement, groups of saboteurs and outlaws tried to spread chaos and disturbance so as to create unfavorable conditions for the elections to take part and make citizens boycott them through violence and incitement.”

On the same day, a press release through the BNA was issued to the US-based PRNewswire, with similar sentiments:

“HRH the Prime Minister praised the embrace of freedom and democracy, which characterized the electoral process as well as citizen's focused efforts to cast their ballots, as part of the next step to help usher in a new chapter of democracy in Bahrain.
He said the parliamentary by-elections, which took place today, is an unprecedented historical event, showcasing democratic form in Bahrain.”

As pointed out by Brian Whitaker in his excellent blog Al-Bab, the usual boring BNA press releases centre on the comings and goings of the royalty, issuing statements and congratulations. These recent releases mark a shift toward much more propagandised public information.

The actual events of the elections were, of course, more complex than these press releases would make you believe. The 18 parliamentary seats were empty after members of the Shia al-Wefaq party resigned in protest of violent crackdowns on protestors in recent months. Al-Wefaq also called for a boycott of these September elections. This Financial Times article reports that battles between protestors and the security forces disrupted the elections, and opposition groups say that the security forces shut down some Shia areas in order to quell unrest during the voting. It is hard to know exactly what occurred, but the 17% voter turnout is certainly not the grand victory for democracy that the Bahrain Government (and Qorvis) is claiming.

In Yemen, another consulting firm (this time UK-based), Bell Pottinger, is working under dubious government auspices. As reported in the Guardian here, this was confirmed by the company chairman Lord Bell. Bell Pottinger, which previously worked for the Bahraini Government (and subcontracted Qorvis), is evidently now working for an “unnamed entity” in Yemen (later revealed through TBIJ research to be the National Awareness Authority). The NAA certainly has ties to President Saleh’s government – particularly since “President Saleh’s nephew, Colonel Tareq Mohammed Abdullah Saleh, who is also the commander of the Presidential Guard, is the Authority’s chairman and founder, and its board of trustees includes members of President Saleh’s current cabinet.” (see full article).

President Saleh recently returned to Yemen after recuperating from wounds in Saudi Arabia. Though it is unclear what will happen in Yemen in the coming months, it is disturbing that Bell Pottinger is actively working to assist another autocratic government to ‘look good.’ There have been many reports of harassment and arrests of journalists in Yemen for charges such as ‘insulting the Republican Guard’ – documented by organizations such as Reporters Without Borders – and Saleh’s government continues to portray protestors as violent, irresponsible groups and itself as the keeper of stability.

It seems that unlike in the United States, UK lobby groups do not have to register their contracts with foreign governments. In either case, it doesn’t keep firms in the U.S. from having dubious ties to authoritarian regimes.

I find it interesting as a reminder to those of us who focus on government policy – particularly those of the U.S. and Europe in regards to the Middle East/North Africa – we might overlook the relationships that private sector companies have with groups in the region. While I often think of oil companies and defense firms as the primary culprits, it seems that our information and the media are also under threat from our very own firms. Corporate social responsibility? Encourage democracy in the Arab world? Give credence to the idea of a real Arab Spring?

Why, when there’s $40,000 per month to be made. Why? I want to influence the world.

Bell Pottinger and Qorvis, shame on you.

Palestine at the UN, the Showdown Approaches

Lately everyone is talking about the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations. Though I have not written on my blog for some time, I find myself urged (by someone wise J ) to write some thoughts down and try to unpack a few of the dynamics happening in this move by Mahmoud Abbas’s government. I hope it may be useful to a few people who may be trying to understand the flurry of opinions surrounding the UN bid. In the process I also want to share a few articles that I have found interesting.

First of all, it is important to state what goals the Palestinians’ likely have in mind as they pursue this bid – one of which is not the reality of full UN state membership (they know this is an impossibility with the U.S. on the Security Council). What they gain from all this drama is leverage. Clout, moxie, confidence, a stage. That is what they may achieve if they ‘win’ at the UN in the coming weeks. See Professor Juan Cole’s article: “Palestinians’ Seek UN Moxie.” It is the dramatic stage of the United Nations, the international public eye and the media. If the Palestinians succeed in getting a majority of 9 votes on the 15 member Security Council; there is a real possibility that the United States will be forced to single-handedly veto their chance for full membership. It is telling that this vote is splitting British politics, and France has actively considered supporting it, effectively splitting the previously solid Western support for Israel. In the General Assembly votes, it seems the European Union is scrambling to present a united opinion on the matter. Public opinion may have some governments in Europe worried - a recent BBC poll claims over 50% of citizens in France, the UK and Germany support the Palestinian bid for statehood. There are also strong voices pushing Europe to vote "yes" and keep the two-state solution "alive" (see this excellent opinion piece "10 Reasons for a European 'Yes'" by Javier Solana and Martti Ahtisaari).

At the moment, talk is (see David Bosco’s update at Foreign Policy) that the Palestinians have already secured 7 votes (China, Russia, Brazil, India, South Africa, Lebanon), with 2-5 more possible (Portugal, Gabon, Nigeria, France, UK). A couple of these are probable supporters (Nigeria, Portugal) and France’s move will likely influence Gabon’s. The United States is the only member on the Security Council that is a definite no. If the Palestinians get 9 yes votes, they force the U.S. to stand alone as a sole destroyer of Palestinian statehood. This makes the United States look very, very bad, and certainly damages its claim as a neutral negotiator. It also puts the U.S. in an awkward position vis a vis its wish to befriend newfound Arab democracies in the Middle East; and its claim as a supporter of self-determination in a newfound atmosphere of optimism in the region.

Beyond the Security Council, the Palestinians do have the votes to gain non-member status at the UN through the General Assembly. This, done after the U.S. prevents Palestine’s full membership through the Security Council, will demonstrate the extent of worldwide support for the Palestinian cause. Gaining non-membership status will also give ‘Palestine’ access to the International Court of Justice, the World Health Organization, and many other international bodies from which it has previously been barred. Access to the ICJ and the ICC means Palestine can bring war crimes and other breaches of international law by Israel to the court ; bringing a world stage and loads of legal hassle for the Israelis to deal with. I’ve even heard it suggested (in this article in Egypt's Daily News) that Palestine could invoke the Uniting for Peace resolution; used previously in 1981 by the GeneralAssembly 8th Emergency Session to invoke sanctions against South Africa (over the heads of the Security Council who vetoed the measure). The sheer possibility of this threat is a huge leap forward in Palestinian leverage over the peace process.

I, for one, think this move is perfectly rational of the Palestinians. Why NOT go to the UN? Negotiations have failed once again, most recently because of Netanyahu’s refusal to freeze settlement construction as a pretext for talks. Obama himself has little/no power over Israeli internal politics. Avigdor Leiberman, Netanyahu’s foreign minister, has pushed Israel’s government away from negotiations and (I believe) away from rational foreign policy. Though some deride Abbas’s UN bid as a legacy-seeking ploy and an empty gesture, I think it is far more than that. It is a gesture to be sure, but not at all empty.

This bid is Palestine showing its hand. It is a new world where people around the globe are connected to online news, friendships and opinions. A new atmosphere has rocked the Middle East out of stagnation, and regional economic powers like China, Brazil, India and South Africa are increasingly willing to tout their strength in the face of Western powers. Palestine knows this, and their strength in this ‘new world’ is what they are attempting to prove right now. 

I also wonder if secretly, some in the Obama Administration may be welcoming this move from the Palestinians. Though sticking to the public show of support for Israel and promising to veto the SC bid, this takes the pressure off of the U.S. to force Israel back to the negotiating table. It may be that Abbas will provide enough pressure on his own to get Israel to start up again. On the other hand, I am also sure there are some in the Obama Administration who believe this Palestinian move will scuttle negotiations for some time; this may also be true. It depends on the Israelis and what they offer as a starting line for negotiations in secret. It also depends on how strong the Palestinian hand at the UN turns out to be, and how they choose to use their newfound leverage in the international arena. It makes the United States look weak, but then again, that already happened when Obama's efforts to force Netanyahu to freeze settlements utterly failed. Perhaps the U.S. should contemplate a new era of its own incompetence at managing this process. It goes in hand with the Arab Spring, which largely (barring Libya) moved of its own accord without American interference. It might be an entirely new era, and one where the U.S. is much less important and less able to dictate policies to Middle Eastern leaders. So I say, in the spirit of the Arab Spring, let's see what momentum the Palestinians can muster on their own.