Tim Black writes:
Responding to events in
Yemen, the British foreign secretary did not mince his words. ‘I am appalled by
another attempted missile strike’, he said.
‘This is the second such shocking
incident in six weeks, which yet again deliberately targeted a populated area’,
he continued, adding:
‘I strongly support UN investigations into the origins of
these weapons and welcome the UN’s suggestion of a joint discussion of the
relevant UN bodies to look into these threats and consider action against those
responsible.’
Strong stuff.
Yet this was not a condemnation of the Saudi-led
coalition’s missile attack on a
bus in Dahyan in the Houthi-rebel stronghold of Saadaa, in which at least 29
children were killed and many more seriously injured.
And it was not a call for
a UN investigation into the ongoing Saudi-led assault on Hodeida, a port city
on the west coast that is the main entry point for food and aid supplies to
Houthi-controlled areas.
Indeed, it was not a response to any of the atrocities
carried out over the past three years as part of the Saudi coalition’s war on
Yemen’s Houthi rebels.
No, this was Boris Johnson, who was then the foreign
secretary, speaking in December,
about the Houthi rebels’ attempted missile attack on the Saudi capital of
Riyadh.
A missile attack, one should remember, that failed because Saudi
military tech, no doubt made in the West, intercepted it.
It seems the Saudi-led coalition can lay waste to Yemen, blockading ports,
destroying vital infrastructure, and killing civilians in their thousands, with
barely a murmur of dissent in London or Washington, DC.
But when the other side
retaliates, or at least attempts to, out comes the heavy moral rhetoric.
Compare Johnson’s response to that issued by the UK Foreign
Office, now overseen by Jeremy Hunt, in response to last week’s missile attack:
‘Transparent investigation required. UK calls on all parties to prevent
civilian casualties and to cooperate with the UN to reach a lasting political
solution in Yemen.’
Where’s the ‘appalled’? Where’s the ‘shocking’? And where’s
the call for action against ‘those responsible’? Nowhere.
There are no hands
being wrung here, only hands being washed. Of moral responsibility.
It is not a
surprise, of course. The Saudi monarchs are our men in the Middle East. They are British state’s allies, its friends.
As Johnson
put it in December, ‘the United Kingdom remains committed to supporting Saudi
Arabia as it faces regional crises and security threats’.
There is little
doubting the UK’s or America’s commitment, given they design and manufacture
billions of dollars worth of weaponry for the de facto ruler, Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Salman.
They send military advisers and logistical assistance,
too. And above all they persistently turn a blind eye to the devastation of
Yemen.
And when that proves impossible, as a bus of children burns or the
remains of a hospital smoulder, they downplay it, by expressing token concern
accompanied by a perfunctory call for all parties to come to a peaceful
solution.
As if it somehow has nothing to do with them.
And that is the problem with the devastation of Yemen: it
is a conflict that has too much to do with forces external to Yemen, forces
that entrench the conflict, and take it out of the hands of those now bearing
its brunt.
Yes, the internal conflicts within Yemen are real. The Houthi
rebels, a disenfranchised, frustrated Shia minority from Yemen’s north, really
have long resented the Yemeni state’s favouring of Sunnis, virtually since the
unification of Yemen in 1990.
But this core conflict, inflamed further by the
presence of al-Qaeda and ISIS in the secessionist south, acquired its
internationalised dynamic from the moment the UN, with the Saudi-led,
Sunni-majority gulf states to the fore, intervened in Yemen’s own Arab Spring, and
anointed Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi as the new president of Yemen in early 2012.
This despite Hadi’s involvement, as deputy prime minister, in the very
government to which Yemeni protesters were so opposed.
Because
from that moment, Hadi’s fate, and the fate of the Yemeni state, was tied to
its international and regional backers, chief among which was Saudi Arabia.
Not
that it was a simple power play on the part of the Saudis. Rather, like their
military intervention in Bahrain in 2012, it was the House of Saud’s attempt to
shore up its internal authority, and therefore external security, in a region
unravelling in the aftermath of calamitous Western intervention, especially
since the Iraq War in 2003, and then the Arab Spring in 2011.
Still,
Saudi Arabia’s decision to ramp up military actions in Yemen, in March 2015,
has been ruinous for a nation that was already the poorest in the Arab world.
It has escalated the conflict, pitching Houthi rebels into battle not just
against the remnants of the old regime, but also against Saudi Arabia and its
gulf allies.
So much so, in fact, that Hadi, the Houthis’ original opponent,
now himself lives, albeit under house arrest,
in Riyadh.
And on the Houthi side, it did not take long for the Sauds’ regional
adversary, Iran, itself determined to improve its security against external
threats, to start backing the Houthis, with help from Hezbollah, Iran’s client
militia in Lebanon.
And
so a civil war soon became a regional proxy war and then soon an international
proxy war, as the US and the UK sided unilaterally with the Sauds, complete
with Trump sword-dancing with Prince Salman, while Russia leant towards the
Iran-backed Houthis.
And with each moment in the internationalisation of the
Yemeni conflict, the prospect of its various internal actors being able to
reach some sort of solution has diminished. Because too many without Yemen have
too much invested within Yemen.
It
is difficult to overstate the resulting destruction of Yemen, a destruction in
which the US and the UK, through their backing for the Saudi-military
coalition, are thoroughly implicated.
According to the UN, since Saudi Arabia
started its military campaign in 2015, two million people have been displaced;
2.9 million children and women are acutely malnourished; over half the
population has no regular access to safe water; and less than half of health
facilities are still functioning.
This last has had a knock-on effect on the
conflict’s known death toll, since health facilities are the chief sources for
reliable figures.
As a result, it has stood at 10,000 for the past two years,
when, as the Washington Post reports, it is likely to
be nearer 50,000.
This
is what the UK says it is merely ‘concerned’ about. ‘The world’s worst
humanitarian crisis’, as the UN calls it, is
what Western powers downplay.
And they do so at the same time as they
ostentatiously moralise about Russian actions in Syria. The hypocrisy is
shameful.
Yemen is being destroyed and its people brutalised. And it is
happening not in spite of Western intervention, but largely because of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment