Bahrain: U.S. diplomat 'unwelcome and should immediately leave' (CNN) -- Bahrain has ordered the expulsion of a U.S. diplomat for meddling in the country's internal matters, the kingdom's foreign affairs ministry said. Tom Malinowski, U.S. assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, is "unwelcome and should immediately leave the country" due to his "interference in its internal affairs," the ministry said. "These activities have included holding meetings with one party, leaving out others who represent different parts of society, which is indicative of an approach which discriminates amongst the people of this one nation," the ministry said. The U.S. State Department said it is deeply concerned with Bahrain's demand, saying Malinowski's visit was coordinated far in advance and warmly welcomed by Bahrain, "which is well-aware that U.S. government officials routinely meet with all officially-recognized political societies." "Contrary to our longstanding bilateral relationship and in violation of international diplomatic protocol, the government insisted ... to have a Foreign Ministry representative present at all of Assistant Secretary Malinowski's private meetings with individuals and groups representing a broad spectrum of Bahraini society, including those held at the U.S. embassy," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. For its part, Bahrain said it reaffirms its "strong and solid relations with the United States of America, and underlines that the progress and development of these ties should not be affected by such unfortunate acts." Bahrain has made headlines over the past three years after pro-democracy protests sparked a government crackdown. In 2011, at the height of the Arab Spring, Bahraini citizens demanded democratic reforms and other changes in the way the country was run. Anger from the majority Shiite population was directed at the ruling Sunni minority In February, the king has ratified a new law that imposes a prison sentence of up to seven years and fine of up to $26,500 for anyone who publicly insults him, state-run media said. The measures stipulate a minimum sentence of one year in jail and $2,600 fine for "any person who offends in public the Monarch of the Kingdom of Bahrain, the flag or the national emblem," according to Bahrain News Agency. "Aggravating circumstances will be applied if the offense occurred in the presence of the King," it said. http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/08/world/meast/bahrain-us-diplomat-unwelcome/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Can this administration get anything right? Now our diplomats are being expelled from places like Bahrain, this is just pathetic. How bad is it that even little Bahrain doesn't trust this administration enough they send their own minder to watch over our guy. Even with that precaution they still expelled him. Amazing...
There's that none answer we all rely on. "In February, the king has ratified a new law that imposes a prison sentence of up to seven years and fine of up to $26,500 for anyone who publicly insults him, state-run media said." Sounds like a rationale guy.
Stupid questions get the appropriate response... What does that have to do with anything? He wasn't expelled for that, he was expelled for meddling and discrimination. I suppose stuff like that is just fine with you?
In a country were you are jailed for criticizing the leaders which has state run media and a king, that is perfectly fine with me. It most likely means you were doing the right thing.
All we need to do is (*)(*)(*)(*) that government off. We have a big naval base there that we use extensively to keep tabs on Iran, protect merchant ships traveling up and down the coast and etc.
You realize there are many countries that have laws that we probably don't agree with, do you think we'll gain more or less influence to potentially get those laws changed if our people are expelled or perhaps have them act like diplomats? I see no gain on our part from this, just another thing we'll have to repair with a country we really weren't having problems with in the first place.
Again cons show their love of dictators, that king will probably give the next GOP president a nice juicy contract for his lobby of choice, and then he'll get a seat on the board after his term is over. Thats how cons work.
I realize that, and in those countries I would take with a grain of salt any reason they gave as to why they wanted to kick a diplomat out of their country. The gain was mostly likely going to come from what he was doing. The leader doesn't allow public criticize. . .how do you think he is going to react when US diplomats meet with an opposing party to his. He will kick them out of course.
Only a fool would meddle in internal politics.. Every diplomat in the GCC countries has known that since 1940..
What the Left doesn't understand. You don't go into another country that has allowed you to set up a big vital navel base and (*)(*)(*)(*) them off by meddling into their affairs.
Maybe ambassadors should be appointed based on their knowledge of the country where they will be an ambassadors in, instead of based on how much money they have donated towards elections.......which seems to be Obama's criteria for appointments. For instance: George Tsunis was Obama's selection for Norway. However, Tsunis had no clue about the politics within Norway. When asked about his thought of Norway's Progress Party, Tsunis stated “You get some fringe elements that have a microphone and spew their hatred. … And I will tell you Norway has been very quick to denounce them.” The Progress Party is a member of Norway's ruling coalition Government. Noah Mamet was Obama's selection to Argentina.....a country he has never visited. Colleen Bell was Obama's selection to Hungary. During confirmation hearings, this classic exchange took place when Bell was asked by McCain "What are our stratigic interests in Hungary?": ’Well, we have,’ Bell said, ‘our strategic interests, in terms of what are our key priorities in Hungary, I think our key priorities are to improve upon, as I mentioned, the security relationship and also the law enforcement and to promote business opportunities, increase trade…’ McCain interrupted: ‘I’d like to ask again what our strategic interests in Hungary are.’ “’Our strategic interests are to work collaboratively as NATO allies,” she said, ‘to work to promote and protect the security, both—for both countries and for—and for the world, to continue working together on the cause of human rights around the world, to build that side of our relationship while also maintaining and pursuing some difficult conversations that might be necessary in the coming years.’ “’Great answer,’ McCain said, dripping scorn.” Kind of reminds me of a response from a Miss America pageant contestant a few years ago. Together, these three 'candidates' raised over $4.2 million for Obama's reelection campaign. I understand that we, as a country, have a long history of ambassadors appointments that hinged around campaign donations. However, that was normally just an 'entrance fee' and past candidates at least had an understanding of the country they would be ambassadors in. Under Obama's Presidency, it appears that campaign donations are now the requirement and knowledge of the region ambassadors will serve, is only a formality.
Since when have campaign donations not been a requirement to serve as an ambassador? Name me one President in the post WW II world who hasn't been appointed ambassador based on campaign donations or other political favor?
Oh please, be real. I hope you really don't believe that. - - - Updated - - - I did read it; just chose to address the last paragraph. Just a minor difference in opinion is all.
I do not recall , correct me if I am wrong... Bush, Clinton, Obama, Reagan, etc... ever being ambassadors...
Actually, I included that last paragraph in anticipation of your response of accepting the 'status quo' instead of condemning the practice. However, I was incorrect on more significant points in my post. Malinowski is not an ambassador. He is a U.S. Diplomat. He is also a neo-progressive that has fought for human rights for decades. He is also know to be very rabid in his pursuits of Human Rights and Labor Laws in foreign countries. While his plight may be honorable, his methods are often controversial. One has to wonder if he was the right person to pursue this matter in this part of the world. We have a huge interest in Bahrain remaining an ally to the US. Someone more "tactful" might have been a better choice to address concerns in this region.
