Zehra Zaidi: Bahrain is in a state of emergency, and its Grand Prix should not have gone ahead

Zehra Zaidi was a Conservative candidate for the European Parliament in South West England at the 2009 elections and has been a development consultant on governance and democratisation for UNICEF and the British Council. She has also acted as an adviser to Andrew Mitchell, the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development.

David Cameron is absolutely right. Bahrain is not Syria. However, Britain’s old allies in the small island Gulf principality have badly handled the wave of protests that dominoed their way to Bahrain since the Arab Spring began. Britain needs to step up and use its influence to encourage the Al Khalifa family to make reforms acceptable to its people, where around 70-75% of its population is from the Shia sect (although this figure may have reduced since the ruling family’s policy of granting naturalisation to Sunni migrants).

It is important Britain continues - even ratchets up - its diplomatic overtures, because when we criticise Assad’s ever brutal regime in Syria, the West risks being accused of turning a blind eye to human rights abuses in Bahrain. Moreover, because of the perceived discrimination faced by Bahraini Shias, as noted in an Economist article last year, “Amid such sharpening polarisation, accusations that Iran is encouraging its fellow Shias in Bahrain to rise up as a fifth column risk self-fulfilment”.

Zehra Zaidi: Bahrain's fall may drag Saudi Arabia and Iran into an explosive mix

Zehra Zaidi was a Conservative candidate for the European Parliament in South West England at the 2009 elections and has been a development consultant on governance and democratisation for UNICEF and the British Council. She has also acted as an adviser to Andrew Mitchell, the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development.

As news channels rightly focus on the devastating impact of the Japanese tsunami and Gaddafi's continued crackdown on opposition forces in Libya, violence has once again escalated in Bahrain. The severity of the situation cannot be stressed enough.  This cluster of islands off the Eastern coast of Saudi Arabia, barely four times the size of Washington DC, is the base of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet and a key Western ally but also a country where rival regimes of Saudi Arabia and Iran have long held competing interests.

What started earlier last week as reported threats received by human rights activists escalated to demonstrations ahead of last Friday's surprise visit by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates.  More than 800 people were injured in Sunday's demonstrations.  A day after Gates' visit, it seems the Bahrain regime has  turned to its neighbour to help quell the protests.  Late last night, we heard news that the Saudi National Guard under the auspices of the Gulf Cooperation Council (“GCC”) is due to enter Bahrain to help bring matters under control.  The advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is ominous, advising against all travel to Bahrain and for British nationals currently in Bahrain to remain at home until further notice”.  Scanning what are largely uncorroborated twitter reports coming out of Bahrain, 'alarmed' is only half of what I am feeling as I scan my blackberry for updates.

Most will see the recent trouble in Bahrain as an extension of the political unrest that has spread across the Middle East.  In fact, the protests that began in mid February are not new at all.  Bahrain with its highly developed civil society has a record of political activism.

The country won independence forty years ago after the British Government withdrew from all territories east of Suez. In 1973, the then ruling emir, Isa bin Salman al-Khalifa, established an elected parliament in order to secure internal legitimacy in a country in which 70% of the population - unlike the ruling royal family – were Shiite Muslim. However, this assembly was dissolved two years later when over zealous parliamentarians pushed for land reforms, curbs on the spending of the royal family and an end to the US military presence.  The 1990s saw a landmark uprising or intifada which only ended after Hamad ibn Isa Al Khalifa ascended to the throne in 1999 promising constitutional change. Women were given the vote and political prisoners were released. On 14 February 2001, a referendum was held on the National Action Charter, which pledged to restore parliament and install an elected Prime Minister. The regime proposed an amendment to the Constitution allowing for the introduction of an upper house of appointed parliamentarians whose power would be advisory over an elected lower house.

The National Charter received overwhelming public backing.  However, Sheikh Hamad reneged on delivering the full package of reforms.  In the Parliament that was established, the forty parliamentarians who were appointed by the King had far more power than those forty who were elected.   Opposition groups pushed for a return to the 1973 constitution and eventually two main camps emerged: one that focussed on seeking parliamentary reform and one which called for mass protests. It is the latter camp that has increasingly gained the upper hand in Bahrain.  It is no coincidence that this year's protests which followed upheaval across the Middle East started on 14 February – a date which marked the 10 year anniversary of The National Charter.

The ruling elite have been simply too slow to recognise the need to accelerate constitutional reforms.  Of course, democracy in Bahrain may come at a price: the election of Islamist politicians (in the 2006 elections both Sunni and Shiite Islamists made gains).  But we have reached a stage where those protesting have moved from demanding constitutional reform to overthrow of the ruling family and young activists are becoming more and more radicalised.  The situation is dangerous and highly unpredictable.

Zehra Zaidi: If Gaddafi does not go imminently, the international community must act

Zehra Zaidi was a Conservative candidate for the European Parliament in South West England at the 2009 elections and has been a development consultant on governance and democratisation for UNICEF and the British Council. She has also acted as an adviser to Andrew Mitchell, the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development.

I was too young to remember much of my early childhood in Libya.  But behind my parents’ colourful accounts of Libyan life was the one underlying “truth” about life for ordinary Libyans: Muammar Gaddafi’s rule was absolute.  Growing up, you feel nostalgia for places your family has lived and loved. However even as a child, whenever you would tilt your head forward after hearing the word Libya uttered, the second word you often heard was sadly terrorism.  That terrorism has now engulfed the country as the regime turns on its people in the most brutal manner.  Ironic really, that the full name of this country is the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (or ‘state of the masses’). 

Regimes around the Middle East are crumbling like ruined towers.  This is not a political earthquake.  It is a veritable tsunami.  After forty years in power, Gaddafi will eventually go.  But time is not a luxury ordinary Libyans have as they are flattened by the brutal response of its regime.  More than 400 people have died in five days.  Reports have come through of military aircraft or paid mercenaries targeting protestors with a shoot to kill policy.  This slaughter must end.

The signs are that the regime will eventually be flung out; whether it be defections of military personal or resignations of Libyan diplomats around the globe.  At some point tribal leaders and increasing elements of the military will feel compelled to side with the people.  Libya’s regime will fall.  But unlike Tunisia or Egypt, Libya has very little infrastructure that would support an easy transition – there are no political parties, little civil society.  Gaddafi’s Jamahiriya has only had one point of influence for the last forty years.  The vacuum that will be created may prove tumultuous.  Whilst I do not think any of Gaddafi’s sons would have a viable claim to succeed him (not now anyway), the tribal and ethnic tensions may spark yet more civil unrest. 

Zehra Zaidi: The winds of change blow an unsteady course in Iran

Zehra Zaidi was a Conservative candidate for the European Parliament in South West England at last year's elections and has been a development consultant on governance and democratisation for UNICEF and the British Council. She has also acted as an adviser to Andrew Mitchell, the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development.

As I write this, it is unclear what the future holds for Iran.  Internal politics in Iran are on a knife edge and internationally, the regime in Tehran is locked in a game of cat and mouse with the West over the extent of its nuclear enrichment programme.  Both issues are interlinked.  Western powers have been careful not to be seen as interfering in domestic Iranian politics to avoid jeopardising negotiations over the nuclear programme, as well as the groundswell of support in Iran for the reform movement. 

President Ahmadinejad and his allies, however, regard prolonged negotiations as a useful tool to silence critics of the increasingly repressive regime.  At the same time, the regime promotes the nuclear programme domestically in the hope that by restoring a sense of national pride and achievement, it will gloss over the increasingly acute economic problems of rising inflation and unemployment. 

So far, dialogue between Western allies and Tehran has focused on the nuclear issue but with dialogue not bearing fruit (except for giving the Tehran regime more time potentially to surreptitiously develop its nuclear programme), the time may have come to get tough and impose strong, smart sanctions and to even widen the debate to issues of domestic and regional security.  Here I shall explore these issues in turn.

Iran’s descent into civil chaos

The Tehran regime has brutally clamped down on the opposition Green Movement protests which engulfed the entire country after the death of leading reformist cleric, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri on 20th December 2009. His death happened to occur at the start of the religious month of Muharram when Shiite Muslims mourn the death of Hussain, the Prophet Mohammad's grandson at the Battle of Karbala in 680AD and which symbolises the struggle against oppression and tyrannical government. It re-energised the supporters of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi since the summer uprising against the disputed re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.   But now the struggle is no longer simply about votes.  People are fighting for human dignity and freedom, justice and respect for the rule of law. 

Zehra Zaidi was a Conservative candidate for the European Parliament in South West England at last year's elections and has been a development consultant on governance and democratisation for UNICEF and the British Council. She has also acted as an adviser to Andrew Mitchell, the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development.

As I write this, it is unclear what the future holds for Iran.  Internal politics in Iran are on a knife edge and internationally, the regime in Tehran is locked in a game of cat and mouse with the West over the extent of its nuclear enrichment programme.  Both issues are interlinked.  Western powers have been careful not to be seen as interfering in domestic Iranian politics to avoid jeopardising negotiations over the nuclear programme, as well as the groundswell of support in Iran for the reform movement. 

President Ahmadinejad and his allies, however, regard prolonged negotiations as a useful tool to silence critics of the increasingly repressive regime.  At the same time, the regime promotes the nuclear programme domestically in the hope that by restoring a sense of national pride and achievement, it will gloss over the increasingly acute economic problems of rising inflation and unemployment. 

So far, dialogue between Western allies and Tehran has focused on the nuclear issue but with dialogue not bearing fruit (except for giving the Tehran regime more time potentially to surreptitiously develop its nuclear programme), the time may have come to get tough and impose strong, smart sanctions and to even widen the debate to issues of domestic and regional security.  Here I shall explore these issues in turn.

Iran’s descent into civil chaos

The Tehran regime has brutally clamped down on the opposition Green Movement protests which engulfed the entire country after the death of leading reformist cleric, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri on 20th December 2009. His death happened to occur at the start of the religious month of Muharram when Shiite Muslims mourn the death of Hussain, the Prophet Mohammad's grandson at the Battle of Karbala in 680AD and which symbolises the struggle against oppression and tyrannical government. It re-energised the supporters of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi since the summer uprising against the disputed re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.   But now the struggle is no longer simply about votes.  People are fighting for human dignity and freedom, justice and respect for the rule of law. 

Zehra Zaidi was a Conservative candidate for the European Parliament in South West England at last year's elections and has been a development consultant on governance and democratisation for UNICEF and the British Council. She has also acted as an adviser to Andrew Mitchell, the Shadow Secretary of State for International Development.

As I write this, it is unclear what the future holds for Iran.  Internal politics in Iran are on a knife edge and internationally, the regime in Tehran is locked in a game of cat and mouse with the West over the extent of its nuclear enrichment programme.  Both issues are interlinked.  Western powers have been careful not to be seen as interfering in domestic Iranian politics to avoid jeopardising negotiations over the nuclear programme, as well as the groundswell of support in Iran for the reform movement. 

President Ahmadinejad and his allies, however, regard prolonged negotiations as a useful tool to silence critics of the increasingly repressive regime.  At the same time, the regime promotes the nuclear programme domestically in the hope that by restoring a sense of national pride and achievement, it will gloss over the increasingly acute economic problems of rising inflation and unemployment. 

So far, dialogue between Western allies and Tehran has focused on the nuclear issue but with dialogue not bearing fruit (except for giving the Tehran regime more time potentially to surreptitiously develop its nuclear programme), the time may have come to get tough and impose strong, smart sanctions and to even widen the debate to issues of domestic and regional security.  Here I shall explore these issues in turn.

Iran’s descent into civil chaos

The Tehran regime has brutally clamped down on the opposition Green Movement protests which engulfed the entire country after the death of leading reformist cleric, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri on 20th December 2009. His death happened to occur at the start of the religious month of Muharram when Shiite Muslims mourn the death of Hussain, the Prophet Mohammad's grandson at the Battle of Karbala in 680AD and which symbolises the struggle against oppression and tyrannical government. It re-energised the supporters of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi since the summer uprising against the disputed re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.   But now the struggle is no longer simply about votes.  People are fighting for human dignity and freedom, justice and respect for the rule of law. 

Zehra Zaidi: Gordon Brown has questions to answer about the Iraq War and Sir John Chilcot should put them before the general election

Zehra Zaidi was a Conservative candidate for the European Parliament in South West England at last year's elections.

179 British service personnel and close to one hundred thousand Iraqi civilians were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2009.  Millions of Iraqis were made homeless.  Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime came to an end but the war was met with severe criticism for having been badly planned and executed.  With British soldiers still engaged in Afghanistan and continued public scepticism over the handling of the Iraq war, William Hague repeatedly pushed for an urgent inquiry into the Gulf campaign so that lessons may be implemented now and in the future.

The path for an inquiry was finally cleared when, in the summer of 2009, the last of the active British troops withdrew from Southern Iraq and handed over military command to US forces.  The Iraq Inquiry - under the chairmanship of Sir John Chilcot - was officially launched on 30th July 2009.  Its remit was to consider the UK's involvement in Iraq from the summer of 2001 to the end of July 2009 (including the run-up to the conflict, the military offensive and its aftermath) and how decisions were made and actions taken so as to “establish, as accurately as possible, what happened and to identify the lessons that can be learned ”. 

The Inquiry has not had the smoothest of starts.  Parliament was to have no say in its remit.  Gordon Brown had to perform an almost immediate U-turn on whether evidence may be heard in public.  In the end, we were presented with a political fudge with Brown stating that it was up to Sir John to decide how the Inquiry should proceed (the settled position became that hearings would take place in public unless there were compelling reasons of national security not to do so). 

The membership of the committee has been criticised for lacking sufficient input from those with military, aid and reconstruction experience.  Another bone of contention has been the manner of information gathering.  Evidence sessions are to be conducted by the Privy Counsellors who made up the Inquiry Committee (supported by the Inquiry Secretariat and where necessary, specialist advisers) but the lack of senior lawyers has been widely condemned.

Zehra Zaidi was a Conservative candidate for the European Parliament in South West England at last year's elections.

Zehra Zaidi: An apple a day? Nay, the Working Time Directive may keep the doctor away

Zehra Zaidi is a Conservative candidate for the European Parliament in South West England and examines here the potential impact of the EU's Working Time Directive.

As a European Parliamentary candidate, you get asked one thing from grassroots time and time again: how can we get people to relate to Europe and show how much of an impact it has and therefore, how important the European Parliament elections will be.  One way is to continue to hold this Government to account and positively demonstrate how it has failed to defend British interests.  There are plenty of examples – Labour’s position on the Lisbon Treaty and its failure to hold a referendum stands out.

Another is to show practical examples of how the EU impacts on our daily lives and the necessity of having a sizeable Conservative delegation in the EU to push our point of view across.  Nowhere is this truer than in the case of the recent Strasbourg vote to scrap Britain’s opt-out to the Working Time Directive.

On 17 December 2008, the European Parliament voted to end Britain and 14 other countries’ opt-out three years after the reformed directive enters into force.  If the Council of Ministers caves in, we may lose our partial exemption to the EU’s 48 hour maximum week and with it, the flexibility to set the hours of the British workforce - so important in an economic downturn.

Zehra Zaidi: The EU pesticides ban will result in lower yields and higher prices

Zehra Zaidi is a a solicitor and a Conservative candidate at the forthcoming European election for the South West of England and Gibraltar who blogs here. In this article she asserts that the recent EU ban on pesticides will result in lower yields and higher prices and asks in these tough economic times when food security is such a critical issue, whether it is any wonder that the farming community has been left bewildered.

Last week, the European Parliament overwhelmingly approved legislation to limit the use of pesticides across the EU. The aim is to ban substances that may cause cancer, pose a risk to human reproduction or hormones or threaten wildlife such as the industrious honeybee.

Reducing the use of harmful pesticides is understandable.  But the legislation is too simplistic and fails to balance the competing concerns of consumer and environmental protection and ensuring food production in the EU.  One of the most contested measures is the introduction of a hazard based system devised by the European Commission.  Certain potentially hazardous active ingredients are to be identified within a chemical and under so-called “cut-off criteria”, if any of these ingredients is contained in a pesticide it will be banned irrespective of the risk attached to its use. 

One cannot however, simply legislate on a “what if” basis.  Conservative MEPs have long pushed for an EU wide impact assessment.  The agricultural industry (as well as horticulture and forestry) relies on pesticides to protect crops from insects and pests and diseases associated with our wet climate.  Many of the longstanding pesticides available on the market today are safe when used properly.  Indeed, the UK has some of the highest standards of pesticide control in the EU.