https://truthout.org/articles/lets-abandon-false-dichotomy-of-offensive-vs-defensive-support-for-yemen-war/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=87b3b013-ed0b-45fe-9fce-afdbd38d64caOP-ED
Let’s Abandon False
Dichotomy of “Offensive vs. Defensive” Support for Yemen War
A Yemeni man inspects a house
that was destroyed in an air strike carried out by the Saudi-led coalition, on
February 5, 2021, in Sana'a, Yemen. MOHAMMED HAMOUD / GETTY IMAGES
December 14, 2021
On the evening of
December 7, 2021, the Senate shot down a resolution to block the sale of
a package of air-to-air missiles and missile rail launchers
to Saudi Arabia. In the weeks leading up to the vote, bombs
rained down on the city of Sana’a, Yemen’s capital. This November, civilian
casualties in Yemen were at a 16-month high. Bombing rates from the Saudi
coalition were 41 percent higher than the monthly
average during this year. Ten months have passed since President Biden ended
“offensive” support to the Saudi coalition that has been waging war on Yemen
since 2015. Biden pledged to find a political solution to the conflict, but the
situation on the ground has only gotten worse.
The sale of the package of
weapons was announced by the White House in November for $650 million in
air-to-air missiles — primarily produced by Raytheon Technologies. The
administration insisted that these weapons were not to be used inside Yemen but
to protect the Saudi people from retaliatory attacks in Saudi territory by its
adversaries in Yemen, i.e., the Houthis. Congress then had 30 days to contest
the sale. The biggest debate in the Senate centered on whether the weapons were
“offensive” or “defensive” in nature.
The Biden administration, in
a statement released hours before the
Senate vote on the resolution to stop the sale, argued that the sale was for
“defensive” support to Saudi Arabia and the weapons being sold could not be
used offensively. Senators who voted in support of the sale echoed the same
rhetoric. However, that characterization is ridiculous when discussing the
Saudi-led war on Yemen because Saudi Arabia is aggressively violating another
nation’s sovereignty by waging war on Yemen in the first place.
The nature of Saudi Arabia’s
involvement in Yemen is entirely offensive. Support of any kind for the war by
the United States sends a signal of impunity to the Saudi government. It says
that even if Saudi Arabia is bombing, blockading and starving another
independent country, the U.S. will be there to lend a hand.
The Senate largely failed to
examine this particular sale in the broader context of Saudi Arabia imposing a
land, air and sea blockade on the entire country of Yemen. Since 2015, Yemenis
have not had full and proper access to their land crossings, their sea ports or
their airports. The blockade has been a consistent strategy of the Saudi
coalition since the beginning. This act of collective punishment has starved
thousands of Yemenis and will have impacts on the population for generations to
come. The blockade has also exacerbated the pandemic. Hospitals treating
COVID19 patients risk losing power due to fuel shortages caused by the blockade
and patients who need to leave the country for treatment are not able to. It is
an act of war. Why would the United States be lending any support to a country
starving millions of people, no matter how the support is labeled?
Saudi Arabia has tried to beat
the Houthis for six years and has failed, despite being backed and armed by the
United States, the most militarized nation on Earth. Now the Saudi government
is using its blockade of Yemen as a bargaining chip in peace talks. The weapons
that are a part of this new sale give Saudi Arabia the ability to prolong and
enforce their air blockade — a crucial part of Saudi Arabia’s war strategy. The
White House can say Saudi Arabia will only be able to use the weapons in
defense of its population, but the United States is handing over weapons capable of shooting down other
aircraft when Saudi Arabia maintains that it will control the
airspace in Yemen.
It has been almost a year since
President Biden ended “offensive” support for the war in Yemen and promised to
find a lasting political solution. After the announcement, Yemen advocates in
the United States and around the world were wondering what ending “offensive
support” really means. Ten months after the announcement, the situation on the
ground has only gotten worse. Worst-case estimates say that a Yemeni child is starving to death every 75 seconds. The
Saudi government and the Houthis are nowhere close to a peace agreement because
the blockade continues to be used as a political tool by Saudi leaders and
because the U.S. continues to support Saudi Arabia, simply now calling the
support “defensive.” It is clear that President Biden’s strategy of ending
“offensive” support for the war is disingenuous. Creating this false dichotomy
between offensive and defensive has only left wiggle room for the Saudi
military to continue its brutal assault on the people of Yemen. It’s time that
members of Congress and activists who are serious about ending U.S. support for
the Saudi-led war on Yemen abandon that rhetoric completely.
Across political parties, 64 percent of likely voters oppose the newest sale,
even though it has been defined as “defensive.” Members of Congress across
party lines opposed the deal. The dichotomy is breaking down, and peace
activists should welcome it. If the “defensive vs. offensive” rhetoric
continues to be embraced, the Biden administration and Congress will only
continue to postpone the day when Saudi Arabia realizes the futility of its
intervention and leaves the Yemeni people to determine their own future.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be
reprinted without permission.
Donations can be sent
to Max Obuszewski, Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 431 Notre Dame Lane, Apt. 206,
Baltimore, MD 21212. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski2001 [at]
comcast.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their
lives." Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment