By Brian Dooley
It was more than a little disappointing to see veteran journalist David Ignatius, associate editor of the Washington Post, interview Bahraini Prince Nasser at this month’s Aspen Security Forum.
Nasser was also granted at least one meeting with senior officials at the Pentagon.
All this despite the credible allegations of torture against Nasser personally. In January of this year, we at Human Rights First went public that we had urged the United States government to ban him from entry to the U.S. under Section 7031(c) of its sanctions authority.
The section says “officials of foreign governments and their immediate family members about whom the Secretary of State has credible information have been involved, directly or indirectly, in…a gross violation of human rights…shall be ineligible for entry into the United States.”
There are multiple credible allegations from survivors that Nasser personally tortured them in 2011 during the Bahraini government’s brutal crackdown on peaceful pro-democracy protests. Nasser has denied committing torture, but Bahrain’s institutions are controlled by Nasser’s ruling family, and don’t have the independence to credibly investigate these allegations.
Human Rights First reported from Bahrain during the unrest in 2011, and further documented human rights abuses there in 2012. We, like other international human rights organizations, are no longer allowed into the country any more to report on ongoing violations.
In 2014, Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) and I were denied access to Bahrain together, and in 2018, when I flew to Bahrain’s airport with Danish Member of Parliament Lars Aslan Rasmussen, we were both deported.
While U.S. and other international human right groups are routinely barred from visiting Bahrain, Nasser is allowed into the U.S. and feted with interviews and government meetings.
It would be good to get an explanation from the State Department about why this is allowed to happen.
Human Rights First has previously reported on the counterproductive secrecy surrounding the State Department’s decision making on imposing, or not imposing, sanctions. The 7031c provision is supposed to be mandatory when credible evidence is received.
It would seem in Nasser’s case the likeliest explanations about what is happening are that either the State Department doesn’t consider the information it has about Nasser, which includes direct witness testimony and mutually corroborating torture allegations, as credible; or it somehow thinks it is in the U.S. national interest for Nasser to keep coming to the country.
The 7031c sanction can be waived to “serve a compelling national interest,” but there is no evidence to suggest that Nasser’s visits serve a compelling national interest that would justify allowing his entry in the U.S.
Either way, Members of Congress should seek explanations from State Department officials for this decision.
Those responsible for deciding that Nasser’s case doesn’t count under 7031c should be summoned to Congress to face questioning from members on why, more than six months after receiving evidence against him, he is still allowed into the country. They should also invite the organizers of events that give him a platform in the U.S. to explain why they feel he is an appropriate speaker.
