Yesterday’s announcement that UNESCO’s board had approved a $3 million award in life sciences research funded by Equatorial Guinea raised eyebrows in the human rights community. The decision to approve the prize puts Equatorial Guinean President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo’s interests “above UNESCO’s basic principles of human rights and good governance,” said a statement issued by seven civil society groups, including: Human Rights Watch, Global Witness and the Committee to Protect Journalists.

“Whether it’s ever awarded or not, the vote in favor of a US$3 million international prize for life science sponsored by a government that fails to invest sufficiently in basic health care at home is a cruel joke,” said Tutu Alicante, an Equatorial Guinean lawyer who runs the human rights group EG Justice from exile. “The UNESCO board members who backed this prize have sold out the organization’s principles and have tarnished UNESCO’s reputation.”

But the process of defending Obiang’s public image rests solidly on the shoulders of Qorvis Communications, a Washington based PR, communications and lobbying firm which, for a hefty $60,000 per month retainer (plus expenses), has been working overtime since May 2010 to portray the Equatorial Guinean president as a human rights-minded political reformer.

A December 2011 Qorvis Federal Agent Registration Act (FARA) filing [PDF] details the extensive PR blitz conducted on behalf of Obiang. Among other activities, Qorvis made an active outreach effort to major media outlets over the past year:

But Qorvis didn’t just try to influence the news coverage of the NYT, AP, CNBC, and Washington Post. They also produced their own press releases to put a positive spin on Equatorial Guinea’s notoriously corrupt government. Qorvis, in their FARA filing, takes credit for nearly 40 press releases [PDF] touting Obiang’s supposed democratic reforms and humanitarian projects in Equtorial Guinea. Press releases issued by Qorvis included: “President Obiang Improves Equatorial Guinea’s Political System;” “President Obiang Urges Unity And Solidarity In Africa;” “Obiang Reveals Plans For Nationwide Electrification;” “President Obiang Stumps for Constitutional Reforms;” Obiang Calls For Economic Development As Key To Democracy In Africa;” and “Equatorial Guinea Launches National Campaign for Constitutional Reforms.”

Reading Qorvis’ press releases, it’s hard to believe that Equatorial Guinea holds the distinction of ranking among the “worst of the worst” in Freedom House’s survey of political and civil rights [PDF], or that Reporters Without Borders labeled Obiang a “predator” of press freedom. But Qorvis, which also represents human rights offenders like Fiji’s military government, and the kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, appears to be in the business of whitewashing the records of human rights abusers, for the right price.

In response to our post, Qorvis Partner Greg Lagana issued the following written statement:

The government of Equatorial Guinea is very aware of criticism over conditions in the country. While it recognizes that many criticisms made against it are legitimate, it believes that its efforts to improve the situation in the country have gone unrecognized. Those efforts include an ambitious infrastructure-development program, the establishment of an ICRC presence in the country to help improve law enforcement and corrections, and efforts to develop human capital through improvements in the education system and use of international exchanges. They have asked Qorvis to help them tell a more complete story.

As for the UNESCO prize, the government of Equatorial Guinea made an offer to fund a prize to promote study of life sciences in Africa. This is consistent with its policy of using some of its income to support international humanitarian causes. When objections arose over the name of the prize, President Obiang agreed to withdraw his name. His position is that he conceived of the prize to encourage scientific research, not to memorialize himself, and that his commitment to promote scientific research in Africa through UNESCO has not wavered through this process.

All communications products that Qorvis Communications develops for the government of Equatorial Guinea are clearly identified as produced by Qorvis.

Massive protests rocked the tiny Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain today. In possibly the largest showing in the country’s Arab Spring uprising, tens of thousands poured into the streets chanting “down, down Hamad,” a reference to King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa of Bahrain. The Shia majority in Bahrain called for an end to discrimination with its uprising last February, which was met with sometimes brutal force.

Activists said the protest was the biggest yet in Bahrain, with 100,000 in the streets. A Reuters photographer confirmed that the number was high: “It is the biggest demonstration in the past year. I would say it could be over 100,000,” the photographer said — a staggering number in a country of only 1.2 million.

Here’s a photo from Manama, Bahrain’s capital, distributed on twitter:

Some protested today with signs in English denouncing “dictatorship.” Here’s a photo of two old men on bicycles, reportedly from today:

Protest leaders and activists said the opposition was united in its demand for democracy. A member of the Shia opposition group al Wefaq told the Financial Times:

The people, full of anger about the rights violations, are united in their demands for an elected government – there is no way back.

And president of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights Nabeel Rajab told Al Jazeera:

The message is that people are not happy with the government. We have clear demands: an end to discrimination, a redistribution of wealth and power and [adherence] to the international convention on human rights.

Marching in solidarity, Iraqi followers of the Shia cleric Muqtada al Sadr in the city of Basra called for Bahrian’s king to be banned from Arab League meetings.

Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, erupted in protests last February when Shias — facing “systematic discrimination” under the Sunni monarchy — protested for equal rights. Dozens were killed and hundreds arrested in the demonstrations, and a Saudi Arabian-led force came in to quell the uprising. An independent commission found that the sheikhdom’s security forces tortured protesters and used “excessive” measures. The government accepted the report, but reforms have been slow in coming.

Discussion of a U.S. and/or Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities is emerging as one of the foremost foreign policy issues in 2012. President Obama warned against “loose talk of war” with Iran. And former Israeli Mossad Chief Meir Dagan tells CBS’s “60 Minutes” program, in an interview to be aired on Sunday, that “An attack on Iran before you are exploring all other approaches is not the right way.”

Republican presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have both struck a more hawkish tone, asserting without corroboration from the IAEA and U.S. intelligence services that Iran is definitely building a nuclear weapon. But, despite the eagerness of GOP hawks to discuss military action, the Israeli public is far from convinced that a military strike will serve Israel’s long-term interests or come without a sizable cost in Israeli lives.

A new poll conducted by Tel Aviv University’s Guttman Center [PDF] finds that 62.9 percent of Israelis strongly or moderately oppose an Israeli unilateral attack on Iran. See the breakdown below:

Approximately 70 percent of Israelis believe such an attack would be ineffective in “stopping Iran’s nuclearization for a substantial time” and approximately 60 percent think that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is underestimating in his assessment that an Iranian retaliatory strike will cause about 500 Israeli casualties.

The Guttman Center’s findings fall in line with a series of recent polls on Israeli public opinion. A Haaretz poll released yesterday found that 58 percent of Israelis oppose an strike on Iran without U.S. backing. And a University of Maryland poll last month showed that only 19 percent of Israelis support an attack without U.S. backing.

The IAEA has expressed concerns about “possible military dimensions” to Iran’s nuclear program and is reportedly concerned that the Iranians may be attempting to cleanse a military site of nuclear weapons related work. Obama publicly stated that an Iranian bomb would pose a threat to the U.S. and its allies and do damage to the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Neither Israeli nor U.S. intelligence officials have asserted that Iran has yet restarted its nuclear weapons program.

The Guttman Center poll found that 64 percent of Israelis would support an attack on Iran if launched in cooperation with the U.S. while 43 percent still opposed a preemptive strike.

The former head of Israel’s vaunted Mossad spy agency, who retired just last year, warned American television audiences against attacking Iran before all other options have been exhausted. Meir Dagan, the legendary spymaster and former paratrooper, made the comments in an interview with CBS News’ Leslie Stahl. A portion of the discussion aired last night, with more to come Sunday on the news magazine 60 Minutes.

Asked by Stahl about his comments last year that attacking Iran is “the stupidest thing I have ever heard,” Dagan responded that the West had “more time” before such a decision needed to be made:

DAGAN: An attack on Iran before you’re exploring all other approaches is not the right way how to do it.

STAHL: The dispute seems to come down, though, to whether you are at the end of everything that you can try or whether you have a lot of time left to try other things, which seems to be your position.

DAGAN: I never said that it’s a lot of time, but I think that…

STAHL: Well, more time.

DAGAN: More time.

Stahl commented that while head of the Mossad, which he ran from 2002 to 2011, Dagan poured over detailed intelligence about Iran, “gaining insight and a surprising appreciation.” The camera cut to the interview, and Dagan declared: “The regime in Iran is a very rational regime.” Stahl then questioned him about whether Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was “rational”:

DAGAN: The answer is yes. Not exactly our rational, but think that he is rational.

STAHL: So, you think they’re rational enough that they are capable of backing down from this?

DAGAN: No doubt that the Iranian regime is — maybe not exactly rational based on what I call western thinking, but no doubt that they are considering all the implications of their action.

Watch the interview clip that aired last night:

Dagan’s assertion that Iran is “rational” tracks with what the top U.S. military officer Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey, top U.S. intelligence officer Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and President Obama have said about the Iranian regime: that it operates on a cost-benefit analysis based on its interests, and can therefore be dissuaded from pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

According to reported but still secret U.S. and Israeli intelligence estimates, Iran has not yet made a decision to build a nuclear bomb. That notion was openly discussed by Clapper and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta last month on Capitol Hill. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), did not conclude that Iran was building a bomb in its latest report on the program last month, despite warning about “serious concerns” of “possibly military dimensions” to the program. The IAEA is also reportedly concerned that the Iranians are making attempts to cleanse a military site of nuclear weapons related work.

Iranian stonewalling and behavior have raised these concerns in the U.S. as well. Last month, delivering a speech to the Israeli American Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Obama ruled out containment of a nuclear-armed Iran, warning that an Iranian bomb posed a threat to the U.S. and its allies, as well as the international non-proliferation regime. Yesterday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice concisely laid out the Obama administration’s policy, and said a negotiated, diplomatic end to the crisis was the “best and most permanent way” to end the standoff.