Weaponizing tear gas, or humanely maintaining order? Citizens for Bahrain’s response to Physicians for Human Rights

2nd Aug, 2012 –

Physicians for Human Rights has accused the Government of Bahrain of “weaponizing” tear gas; sensationally claiming that Bahrain’s authorities have “unleashed a torrent of these toxic chemical agents against men, women, and children, including the elderly and infirm”.

The report predictably ends by recommending the complete suspension of the use of tear gas; while failing to suggest how the police would otherwise defend themselves against rioters and armed attacks; and how order would be maintained and the lives and property of civilians protected.

The portrayal of the Bahraini authorities as trying to maximize casualties through the misuse of tear gas goes completely against the official policy over the last year of reducing casualties to a bare minimum, through retraining police; producing clear guidelines about peaceably managing civil disorder; and consulting international experts to introduce humane methods of crowd control.

While it is correct that individuals have been hit by tear gas canisters; there have been serious injuries in only a small number of cases; so it is both wrong to suggest that deliberate abuse is official policy; and ridiculous to claim that relatively small numbers of tear gas canisters could ever constitute an effective offensive weapon against substantial crowds of rioters.

It is hotly disputed as to whether tear gas itself has caused loss of life. The opposition only began to make allegations of fatalities from tear gas after the number of genuine casualties was reduced to a trickle over the last 12 months. Many of those featured on the opposition’s lists of “tear gas victims” were people already suffering from severe disorders, many of a respiratory nature. It is legitimate to ask whether the opposition are exploiting as many natural deaths as they can get away with; particularly now that families are offered compensation for loved ones lost as a result of the disturbances.

While it is highly likely that tear gas was a factor in exacerbating medical conditions of the weak and elderly in some instances, the question must be asked as to the extent to which the opposition’s own tactics have wrought suffering on their own communities.

Although licensed rallies have tended to occur in open public areas; the illegal and violent rioting has been concentrated in the villages and centres of the predominantly Shia opposition. Youths frequently attract police to an area by burning tyres or vandalizing property. When the police arrive, they are showered with firebombs and attacked with makeshift weapons. At that moment the police have three options: beat a retreat and surrender areas of the capital to armed gangs; allow themselves to be beaten to death or burnt alive (and many police have been killed or seriously injured) – or protect themselves and restore order through the humane and proportionate use of tear gas.

If tear gas is used, the gas will flood nearby homes and cause choking and discomfort – however it is difficult to see what alternative security forces have if they are to safely go about their jobs. Thankfully we are not in Syria where brave activists are facing genuinely horrific state violence, producing dozens of fatalities every day.

Citizens for Bahrain hopes that Bahrain’s authorities will seriously review the Physicians for Human Rights report – particularly the serious allegations they make about individual cases where tear gas may have been misused. If individual policemen have wrongfully used tear gas, action should be taken – either retraining, or criminal action if the circumstances are sufficiently serious – and numerous security personnel are today under investigation for related allegations. However, there is nothing here to suggest an official policy of misuse of tear gas.

An interesting debate continues about whether there are alternative methods of humane crowd control. Yet to date, tear gas is the one method which has proved effective. Therefore it is manifestly in the public interest that tear gas continue to be used, until a more acceptable alternative is found.

However, we sincerely hope that all sides will show sufficient wisdom in pursuing dialogue and reconciliation, rendering debates about tear gas and crowd control irrelevant for a Bahraini context.