Riyadh turned child killer this August when it sanctioned an airstrike on Sa’ada under the pretense of combating those infamous “Houthi rebels” many news agencies insist on labeling as political infidels to promote a binary whose foundations only exist in the mind of its maker – namely Saudi Arabia.
Yemen’s rebels, those men, and women who banded together against the aggression of a foreign invader have a right to their resistance. We may not like their ideas, their slogans, or even the manner of their speech, but it does not take away from the fact that a nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, in this particular case Yemen, is sanctified under international law.
It would be ludicrous for any of us to argue against self-defense when we have proclaimed our right to combat terrorism on that very premise. It would be intellectually hypocritical to deny Yemen its freedom on account its invader can afford better media coverage, and stronger political friendships to disguise its crimes under a veneer of respectability.
Yemen is into the third year of a brutal conflict with Saudi Arabia, and millions of innocents stand not only in the line of fire but before death’s doors for their murder was architected in Riyadh’s palaces.
Yemen has been made to starve so its people’s will to resist could be tamed.
Yemen’s civilian infrastructures: its hospitals, water system, electricity grid, food warehouses, schools, market places, libraries, mosques, and museums were blown to the four winds so a people would be taught whose will is greater in the Arabian Peninsula and whose name [Al-Saud] deserves to be imprinted further onto the region.
Yemen’s fields have been bombed, gassed and otherwise made barren. Its seaports turned to ashes and fishermen targeted so not even the sea could offer relief from hunger. Aid has been profiled according to communities’ faith so that Saudi Arabia could have its victory against those it calls “rejectors”: Shia Muslims.
As experts continue to argue legitimacy, political necessity, and geopolitical pragmatism so that, we, the public, would not question the how and why of Yemen’s war, lives are being lost. A nation’s future is being crushed, and most despicable of all, children are being held hostage to Riyadh’s game of thrones.
Seyed Hassan Ali al-Emad, the founder and head of Yemen’s new rising political party, the Future of Justice spoke to me in an exclusive interview of the horrors civilians have been made to endure to appease al-Saud’s hunger for domination.
“Cholera has become Saudi Arabia’s latest weapon of war against Yemen’s children. Communities have no recourse against the disease, no access to food, medicine or clean water.
Of course, cholera is ravaging my country. It was architected so it would. Yemen’s humanitarian crisis needs not be if only food and medicine were allowed back in.”
On all the above we seldom dwell. Maybe the magnitude of our impairment prevents us from looking upon the crimes we allowed to go unspoken, and unchallenged. When I say unchallenged, I’m not calling for more grandiose statements from our heads of state. I would much rather our world institutions put Saudi Arabia in the booth of the accused and justice be served – anything else would be a farce and an insult to those families who lost so much more than we could ever imagine to Riyadh’s military rage.
Maybe we all could do with a reality check here and consider that behind every casualty lies a life, a family, and a future interrupted. Our propensity to express outrage according to socio-political factors and geography has become dangerous liabilities since they have empowered mass-murderers. What else should we call Saudi Arabia?
On the kingdom’s recent killing spree, the Independent wrote: “Three women and six children from the same family were killed as they slept in the dawn airstrike by the Saudi-led coalition opposing the Houthi rebels in the Yemeni civil war.”
This is what Saudi Arabia’s war rationale looks like from up close: the random slaughter of the innocent.
UK’s humanitarian coordinator in Yemen, Jamie McGoldrick said in a statement: “While these new incidents are still being investigated by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, they are an example of the brutality in which the conflict is being conducted. All parties to the conflict continue to show a disregard for the protection of civilians and the principle of distinction between civilians and combatants in the conduct of hostilities. As I have said before, even wars have rules, and such rules must be respected.”
It is unlikely Mr. McGoldrick’s words, however sincerely he meant them, will translate into any real actions on the ground, because Yemen does not have a powerful lobby to speak on its behalf. Yemen’s Resistance Movement is stuck its back against the wall, caught in the web of a false binary that labeled and criminalized its people out of mainstream politics.
Yemen’s Resistance has been branded under its invaders’ narrative.
This is how the Independent puts it: “Yemen has been torn apart by the civil war in which the exiled government of President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, supported by the Saudi-led coalition, is fighting the Iran-allied Houthi group. The Houthi group hails from the Zaidi branch of Shia Islam and controls much of the north of the country.”
How grand the arrogant pen of our media, turning truths on their heads so that people’s faith and their calls for political self-determination would be made invalid by the manners of their prayers, and the origins of their kin. Why bother with facts when fairy tales can be weaved and war crimes excused.
Has anyone bothered to look under Yemen’s burning rubles to notice how many civilians were claimed to al-Saud’s crusade before throwing sectarian adjectives around? Is freedom a right or a privilege reserved to a certain elite? Because from where I’m sitting it sounded almost as if mainstream media was trying to rationalize murder by waving religious bias and ethnocentrism.
One last thing: if religious labels matter that much why have we failed to give Saudi Arabia its own? Or maybe that would be rude..
Last week’s announcement that Saudi Arabia — easily one of the world’s most brutally repressive regimes — was chosen to head a U.N. Human Rights Council panel provoked indignation around the world. That reaction was triggered for obvious reasons. Not only has Saudi Arabia executed more than 100 people already this year, mostly by beheading (a rate of 1 execution every two days), and not only is it serially flogging dissidents, but it is reaching new levels of tyrannical depravity as it is about to behead and then crucify the 21-year-old son of a prominent regime critic, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, who was convicted at the age of 17 of engaging in demonstrations against the government.
Most of the world may be horrified at the selection of Saudi Arabia to head a key U.N. human rights panel, but the U.S. State Department most certainly is not. Quite the contrary: its officials seem quite pleased about the news. At a State Department briefing yesterday afternoon, Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner was questioned by the invaluable Matt Lee of AP, and this is the exchange that resulted:
QUESTION: Change topic? Saudi Arabia.
MR. TONER: Saudi Arabia.
QUESTION: Yesterday, Saudi Arabia was named to head the Human Rights Council, and today I think they announced they are about to behead a 21-year-old Shia activist named Muhammed al-Nimr. Are you aware of that?
MR. TONER: I’m not aware of the trial that you — or the verdict — death sentence.
QUESTION: Well, apparently, he was arrested when was 17 years old and kept in juvenile detention, then moved on. And now, he’s been scheduled to be executed.
MR. TONER: Right. I mean, we’ve talked about our concerns about some of the capital punishment cases in Saudi Arabia in our Human Rights Report, but I don’t have any more to add to it.
QUESTION: So you —
QUESTION: Well, how about a reaction to them heading the council?
MR. TONER: Again, I don’t have any comment, don’t have any reaction to it. I mean, frankly, it’s — we would welcome it. We’re close allies. If we —
QUESTION: Do you think that they’re an appropriate choice given — I mean, how many pages is — does Saudi Arabia get in the Human Rights Report annually?
MR. TONER: I can’t give that off the top of my head, Matt.
QUESTION: I can’t either, but let’s just say that there’s a lot to write about Saudi Arabia and human rights in that report. I’m just wondering if you — that it’s appropriate for them to have a leadership position.
MR. TONER: We have a strong dialogue, obviously a partnership with Saudi Arabia that spans, obviously, many issues. We talk about human rights concerns with them. As to this leadership role, we hope that it’s an occasion for them to look at human rights around the world but also within their own borders.
QUESTION: But you said that you welcome them in this position. Is it based on [an] improved record? I mean, can you show or point to anything where there is a sort of stark improvement in their human rights record?
MR. TONER: I mean, we have an ongoing discussion with them about all these human rights issues, like we do with every country. We make our concerns clear when we do have concerns, but that dialogue continues. But I don’t have anything to point to in terms of progress.
QUESTION: Would you welcome as a — would you welcome a decision to commute the sentence of this young man?
MR. TONER: Again, I’m not aware of the case, so it’s hard for me to comment on it other than that we believe that any kind of verdict like that should come at the end of a legal process that is just and in accordance with international legal standards.
QUESTION: Change of subject?
MR. TONER: Sure.
That’s about as clear as it gets. The U.S. government “welcomes” the appointment of Saudi Arabia to a leadership position on this Human Rights panel because it’s a “close ally.” As I documented two weeks ago courtesy of an equally candid admission from an anonymous “senior U.S. official”: “The U.S. loves human-rights-abusing regimes and always has, provided they ‘cooperate.’ … The only time the U.S. government pretends to care in the slightest about human rights abuses is when they’re carried out by ‘countries that don’t cooperate.’”
It’s difficult to know whether Mark Toner is lying when he claims ignorance about the case of al-Nimr, the regime critic about to be beheaded and crucified for dissident activism, which he engaged in as a teen. Indeed, it’s hard to know which would be worse: active lying or actual ignorance, given that much of the world has been talking about this case. The government of France formally requested that the Saudis rescind the death penalty. Is it really possible that the deputy spokesperson of the U.S. State Department is ignorant of this controversy? Either way, the reluctance of the U.S. government to utter a peep about the grotesque abuses of its “close ally” is in itself grotesque.
But it’s also profoundly revealing. The close U.S./Saudi alliance and the massive amount of weapons and intelligence lavished on the regime in Riyadh by the West is one of the great unmentionables in Western discourse. (The Guardian last week published an editorial oh-so-earnestly lamenting the war in Yemen being waged by what it called the “Saudi-led coalition,” yet never once mentioned the rather important fact that the Saudis are being armed in this heinous war by the U.S. and U.K.; it took a letter to the editor from an Oxfam official to tell The Guardian that the West is not being “complacent” about the war crimes being committed in Yemen, as The Guardian misleadingly claimed, but rather actively complicit.)
It’s not hard to understand why so many of the elite sectors of the West want everyone to avert their eyes from this deep and close relationship with the Saudis. It’s because that alliance single-handedly destroys almost every propagandistic narrative told to the Western public about that region.
As the always-expanding “War on Terror” enters its 14th year, the ostensible target — radical, violent versions of Islam — is fueled far more by the U.S.’s closest allies than any of the countries the U.S. has been fighting under the “War on Terror” banner. Beyond that, the alliance proves the complete absurdity of believing that the U.S. and U.K.’s foreign policies, let alone their various wars, have anything to do with protecting human rights or subverting tyranny and fanaticism. And it renders a complete laughingstock any attempts to depict the U.S. government as some sort of crusader for freedom and democracy or whatever other pretty goals are regularly attributed to it by its helpful press.
Caption: President Barack Obama, right, meets with King Salman of Saudi Arabia in the Oval Office of the White House, on Friday, Sept. 4, 2015, in Washington.