RNA - With more than 17,000 people killed in the often-overlooked conflict, according to the World Health Organization, and millions more are on the brink of famine, the pressing question is why the United States and Britain are still involved in this failed war?
Despite bogus reports by “fakestream” media in the West, this near-three-year conflict is not a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, nor is it a real war between former President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi and the Houthi Ansarullah resistance movement. It’s a war of choice by Saudi Arabia, the United States, and Israel against the people of Yemen based on regional designs.
Indeed, it is the illegal military invasion of Hadi's backers - a Saudi-led coalition of Arab states supported by the US, Britain, Israel and others that has drawn the most vehement international criticism and condemnation. UN aid agencies and rights groups allege war crimes have been committed by the Saudis and their junior partners in crime, which also embroils the United States, Britain, and Israel.
To that end, the US and Britain have been intimately involved in prosecuting the war, supplying weapons, logistical help and diplomatic support to their longtime regional vassal Saudi Arabia and its coalition, which also includes the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan and Sudan. Besides selling weapons to the Saudis, American and British military advisers have provided training and intelligence and the US has helped refuel coalition jets – with diplomatic support at the UN, of course.
Saudi airstrikes have repeatedly hit civilian targets as well - indiscriminate attacks that the UN Human Rights Council says are war crimes - despite sophisticated weaponry and Western intelligence. Of course, Saudi Arabia and its partners deny the charges, with its UN ambassador claiming that his country exercises "the maximum degree of care and precaution to avoid civilian harm." It even holds a seat at the Human Rights Council because the US government says so.
Nevertheless, the civilized world can and should push for Washington and London to face action for aiding and abetting the Saudi war crimes in this unjustified campaign. After all, a UN-backed ruling in 2013 found that practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support is enough to establish liability for London and Washington.
UN officials and legal officers at the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs have also maintained that Western governments are not neutral actors in Yemen and are therefore bound by international human rights laws. In their words: “Examples of violations of a state’s neutrality include supplying war materials, engaging its own military forces, supplying military advisors to a party to the armed conflict, or providing or transmitting military intelligence on behalf of a belligerent."
Under International law and the UN Charter, this also should be more than enough for the sound minds in Washington and London to agree to end the illegal war and lift the inhumane blockade to prevent civilian suffering and starvation. Lest they forget, the charity Save the Children estimates hunger and disease could kill at least 50,000 Yemeni children this year. Worse, nearly a million children are suffering starvation.
It just doesn’t help for American and British officials to distance themselves from civilian casualties, claiming that they have no involvement in the choice of airstrike targets and are not engaged in direct combat. They are both heading toward dangerous waters and it’s beyond dispute. Their support consists of everything that is needed to gut Yemen and turn it into a safe haven for terrorists. They play a direct role in coalition targeting, and hence are accountable for civilian casualties. Even some US lawmakers agree. They criticize the blockade, saying the Trump administration never encourages Saudi Arabia "to separate the humanitarian piece from the military piece."
In any case, it’s not that difficult to prosecute the US or the UK at the International Criminal Court in The Hague despite their massive pressure against any ICC investigation. From a legal point of view, their direct support makes a solid legal case. Saudi Arabia should also be taken to the ICC for what they are doing; and they are the ones directly perpetrating these war crimes.
The ICC can and should overcome strong opposition from Saudi Arabia, the United States and Britain to launch an investigation which is long overdue, knowing fully well that although the US is not signatory to the ICC, and although Britain is, a successful legal action is still the surest and the quickest way possible to end the terrible humanitarian situation in Yemen.
Source: Fars News Agency
847/940