by Mary W Maxwell
In my “Melania’s Blue Dress” article, I made a throw-away remark about the proposed Mexican wall. Happily, Julius Skoolafish has challenged me. I won’t now go into the question of Mexican immigration, but instead will re-publish an article about Yemen that Julius called to our attention.
Thus, the entire text below, except the Commentary at the end, is a reprint from theAntiMedia, an organization that welcomes “lifting” so long as we credit the author Darius Shahtahmasebi, and theAntiMedia.org. As a caution I must say that I don’t like to present a topic on which I cannot offer any corroborating research. The subject matter, Yemen, is unknown to me. But the reader will at least hear a side of the story that no doubt wants telling.
FROM ANTIMEDIA, by Darius Shahtamasebi:
On Saturday, Reuters obtained a report conducted by U.N. experts advising the U.N. Security Council that the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led coalition’s attacks in Yemen “may amount to war crimes.” The report investigated ten coalition air strikes between March and October that killed over 292 civilians, including some 100 women and children.
“In eight of the 10 investigations, the panel found no evidence that the air strikes had targeted legitimate military objectives [the experts wrote]. For all 10 investigations, the panel considers it almost certain that the coalition did not meet international humanitarian law requirements of proportionality and precautions in attack…The panel considers that some of the attacks may amount to war crimes.”
Saudi Arabia is leading a military coalition made up of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Sudan. Out of all of these countries wreaking havoc on Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East, only Sudan makes Trump’s ban list of refugees. Yemen, the victim of the onslaught, also makes the list.
Even before the start of the Saudi-led war in March 2015, Yemen was already suffering a humanitarian crisis, including widespread hunger and poverty. Over 14 million people are starving, and seven million of them do not know where they will get their next meal.
To date, the Saudi-led coalition has struck over 100 hospitals, including MSF (Doctors without Borders)-run hospitals. The coalition has struck wedding parties; factories; food trucks; funerals; schools; refugee camps; and residential communities.
According to Martha Mundy, professor emeritus at the London School of Economics, the Saudi coalition has also been hitting agricultural land. Noting just 2.8 percent of Yemen’s land is cultivated, she argued that “[t]o hit that small amount of agricultural land, you have to target it.”
Further, she pointed out that the Saudi coalition “was and is targeting intentionally food production, not simply agriculture in the fields.” This direct attack on civilian infrastructure comes in tandem with a blockade imposed by Saudi Arabia that has created a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions.
The coalition has also been caught using banned munitions, including British-made cluster bombs, meaning that unnecessary losses and excessive suffering have been exacted (another apparent war crime).
As a result, more than three million Yemeni civilians have been displaced, according to the U.N. This is exactly how and why refugee crises happen in the first place — unnecessary war and suffering at the hands of the rich and powerful players on the world stage.
But what does this have to do with the United States? This is Saudi Arabia’s problem, not America’s. Right?
The support the U.S. has given to Saudi Arabia to enable these war crimes is quite extensive.
According to the Saudi Arabian foreign minister, U.S. and U.K. officials sit in the command and control center to coordinate air strikes on Yemen. They have access to lists of targets. The Obama administration provided airborne fuel tankers and thousands of advanced munitions.
In addition to regularly drone-striking Yemen, killing countless civilians in the process, the U.S. has also provided intelligence to the Saudi-led coalition that has been gathered from reconnaissance drones flying over Yemen.
In arms sales, the U.S. has made an absolute killing – quite literally. So much so that in December 2016 the Obama administration was forced to halt a planned arms sale to Saudi Arabia because of the mounting civilian death toll. It is hard to get an exact figure on the amount of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, but as it stands, it was well over $115 billion during just Obama’s eight years as president….
America has played its part in this war. But what about Iran? They are allegedly arming the rebels in Yemen to provoke Saudi Arabia, so they should face some of the blame — right?
According to the U.N. experts, this highly perpetuated propaganda is not even remotely true. The experts said:
“The panel has not seen sufficient evidence to confirm any direct large-scale supply of arms from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, although there are indicators that anti-tank guided weapons being supplied to the Houthi or Saleh forces are of Iranian manufacture.”
Okay, fine. But that was Obama. Donald J. Trump clearly has new and improved plans for foreign policy and immigration and for dealing with refugees across the board. Correct?
Well, not really. Barely hours after his inauguration, the military conducted drone strikes in Yemen. This is in light of the fact that former drone operators wrote an open letter to Barack Obama claiming the drone program is the single most effective recruitment tool for groups like ISIS. Then, on top of these drone strikes, Trump ordered a raid involving Navy SEALs that reportedly killed at least one eight-year-old girl, as well.
Refugees don’t appear out of thin air. While Trump uses refugees from seven Muslim-majority nations as a scapegoat for the inner turmoil facing the United States and other Western nations, his policies will only help exacerbate the refugee crisis, leaving parts of Europe and the wider Middle East to deal with the fallout.
By all means, close your doors to Yemen — but only after you withdraw all your personnel, equipment, aircraft, and material and financial support for war crimes committed in one of the world’s poorest countries.
Until then, the least one can do is welcome with open arms those who are fleeing a horrific war conducted by an inexperienced, cowardly, violent coalition to avoid further radicalization of those civilians innocently caught up in geopolitically motivated wars.
Note: Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to email@example.com.
Commentary by Mary W Maxwell
War crimes can be punished. There is no shortage of so-called international law, and there are domestic laws, for example in the United States. It is up to people to take the initiative.
In my opinion, the wrongdoing of nations should not be mixed in with the issue of immigration. They just don’t have a mix, as the policy that nations make about taking in refugees is separate from the policy they employ about creating wars.
I opposed Trump’s hasty ban on Muslims because I don’t want him to act ultra vires (“beyond power”). The US presidents have been doing the ultra-vires thing since FDR.
Maybe Trump was told by his Public Relations Guide to act assertively and make a strong impression? All right. And anyway, a federal district court has stepped in and put a stay on part of the ban.
I also stated in my Blue Dress article that it is un-American to categorize people by their religion. Trump has now said his ban is not aimed at Muslims but at citizens of seven countries. Well, OK, let’s not make an issue of his “I hate the heathens” theme, or whatever it was – maybe an election slogan.
By the way, if Trump doesn’t know that the Boston Marathon was bombed by the “authorities” and not by the “radicalized brothers,” he has a long way to go.
But back to the complaint, much heard, that we should accept the refugee problem, since we caused it with our wars. That is too stupid to deserve a reply. Recall Orwell’s theory of why we do wars at all. I think his belief — that it’s a game played by the top dogs — is correct.
The persons at the top are so antisocial that they may in fact make a war here or there for the purpose OF CREATING REFUGEES.
Note: My paternal grandmother was born in 1868 in Ireland. She and millions of other Irish emigrated to the US. I think the pattern was set when the cabal planted a bacterial disease in the potato crop in 1849. Purpose of the disease? Partly to get the UK to borrow money from the Rothschild du jour, but also to populate North America.
I’ve heard that the cabal also did pogroms on Russian Jews for the same reason – to move them westward. And we know Stalin intermixed ethnic groups, to weaken them.
When a few people enter a culture at a time they’re likely to assimilate. But mixing people en masse is not good. Consider the recent “invasion of Germany” by Syrians. Looks like it’s intended to destroy the social unity of the German people.
I take a conservative view that, for the most part, borders should be firm. Humans do live in groups. The group is a source of: 1. Values and rules for behavior; 2. Security against outsiders who would steal from them or kill them; 3. Venue for watching each other, to put moral pressure on fellow members of the tribe; 4. National pride and ideals. Why downplay all that?
Granted, there are good reasons, including charity, for a nation to welcome refugees. But even in this area note how the overlords set us against each other, even by setting kind-hearted people who want to welcome refugees against kind-hearted people who want to stop wars.
Ordinary people need to force their “leaders” to stop the outrageous killing and oppression of Middle Easterners.
I say, be kind to the refugees. But not out of guilt.
In sum, do NOT mix the subjects of war and refugees. To do so has the effect of bogging either issue down. Indeed the message seems to be: take the refugees in and that’ll make up for what you did to them.
No, it won’t.
Photo credit: Telegraph.co.uk