Can someone explain to me how this is “A Breach of Yemeni Sovereignty”? It seems like these actions are supported by the internationally recognized government in Yemen. (I’m not asking about the validity of these actions, or the horrendous effects of them. Just the sovereignty question)
Also, is this the interviewee? It appears she is a language and literacy assistant professor who happens to be Yemeni American, not an expert on the Yemen war, international law, or anything else relevant to these events.
This is the same “international recognition” that doesn’t consider Taiwan to be a legitimate government?
International recognition isn’t worth shit. Ansarallah has de facto control over the vast majority of Yemen’s territory. Just as the ROC is the government of Taiwan, Ansarallah is the government of Yemen.
Thank you for providing a good example! I’m really not sure what the status of Taiwan’s Sovereignty would be, but it’s definitely something to think about.
The internationally recognized government does not have control over the populated regions of the country. It’s a farce to pretend they represent the Yemeni people.
That’s not really an answer to my question. “Control” does not get you sovereignty, and neither does “representing the people”. It comes down to governance and international recognition. Mexican cartels control large areas of the country, but no one is arguing they have sovereignty. Similarly, there are many repressive regimes in the world that do not represent their people, but they maintain their sovereignty.
Your analogy falls flat because, while powerful, cartels are rarely looking to supplant state control. Instead they seek state complicity which is a different thing altogether.
Ansar Allah on the other hand has set up its own governance structures. As I said, most of the populated regions of Yemen are governed under these structures. That’s despite a US backed campaign to bomb and starve them out over most of the last decade.
If the US doesn’t want to recognize the sovereignty of the Ansar Allah led Yemeni government then the US concept of sovereignty is effectively meaningless.
Your analogy falls flat because while powerful cartels are rarely looking to supplant state control. Instead they seek state complicity which is a different thing altogether.
Okay, what about IS? Did they have Sovereignty?
If the US doesn’t want to recognize the sovereignty of the Ansar Allah led Yemeni government then the US concept of sovereignty is effectively meaningless.
If you/anyone else thinks sovereignty is meaningless, that’s fine but it’s not what I asked about. My original question was how is this “A breach of sovereignty”? You don’t seem to be arguing why it is a breach of sovereignty.
Again that’s a terrible analogy. ISIS was an international insurgency that went so far as to explicitly reject the very concept of modern day nation states. Of course they didn’t deserve to be treated as a sovereign power.
Conversely Ansar Allah is a domestic organization. It’s commonly referred to as the Houthi movement because it has many leaders who are Houthis, a Yemeni tribe. They rose to power after the previous Yemeni government faced a crisis of legitimacy during the Arab spring.
No matter how hard you stamp your feet, you don’t get to redefine terms already in use.
I’m not? The US is using an incoherent notion of sovereignty that just so happens to align with their geopolitical interests. Sorry if that’s a hard truth for you to accept.
And they reaped what they sowed. Sorry if that’s a hard truth for you to accept.
You’re acting as if the US just has to bomb people like it’s a law of nature. So absurd lol
The issue is that the sovereignty of nation states is a somewhat nonsensical idea that has little to no solid philosophical backing. Nations aren’t living things and shouldn’t have rights in the same way people have. They are imaginary constructs, and the consequences of this are inevitable debates over what is or is not a nation. But there is no clear dividing line or definition—and in this ambiguity, powerful nations are free to recognize or ignore nations as they choose.
If you support the US action, you can claim that the Houthis are not a sovereign nation, the action was at the invitation of the legitimate government of this region against an terrorist organization, and was entirely legal and justified.
If you oppose the action, you claim that Houthis are a group of freedom fighters who have established a new separate nation that should be recognized, and this action was an illegal violation of that newfound sovereignty.
Neither can be said to be completely correct or incorrect because there is no solid basis for this idea of sovereignty.
That doesn’t answer my question either. I wasn’t the one who brought up sovereignty, it was the article. It seems to ridiculous to say, this is “A Breach of Yemeni Sovereignty” but no one seems to able to assert the Houthis have sovereignty to start with.
None of which matters as the Houthis committed Acts of War and were idiots not to accept this would be the response when flat out told it would be.
I look at it more like this.
If you treat the Houthis as a non-sovereign entity, they can be attacked freely under international law by the international community as pirates.
If you treat the Houthis as a sovereign entity, they can be attacked under international law by affected nations as the attacks can be interpreted as an act of war.
So it doesn’t really matter if they are sovereign or not.
It matters because if the Houthis are a non-sovereign entity, then POTUS can order an attack under prior congressional approvals. However, if they are a Sovereign State, then attacking them would be an act of war, requiring congressional approval.
If the issue is with American law instead of international law, then you need to use the American list of recognized sovereign nations. Does the USA recognize the Houthis as leading a sovereign nation?
these actions are supported by the internationally recognized government in Yemen.
Do you mean the US attacks are supported by tye Yemen government? Do you have a source for that handy?
And great investigation into the interviewee, that kind of critical thinking is extremely important.
Israel: bombs and invades Palestine
Palestine fighting back is wrong.Yemen: bombs ships serving Israel
America fighting back is... right?I feel bad for American voters. The last time military action was taken without congressional approval it led to a 20 year war resulting in a million dead Iraqis and the Taliban government back in power in Afghanistan (among other completely preventable atrocities, like this).
The hypnotism of American exceptionalism is requiring an almost lethal dose of ignorance to continue to work.
Edit: Wrong. Congress approved military action against Afghanistan and Iraq. They were lied to by the Bush administration but they did in fact approve both.
Removed by mod
Hahaha omfg Palestine invades Israel read history bro
Who is arguing that Israel fighting back is wrong? Almost everyone recognizes that Israel has the right to self defense, but most people who think that also believes their response is at least disproportionate.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Who is arguing that Israel fighting back is wrong?
Most of the world thinks that. They would also take issue with you characterizing what Israel is doing as “fighting back” and “self defense”. Self-defense is when you steal land, ethnically cleanse the inhabitants, force them into a small area, then besiege them there for decades, and then blow the whole place up. Because some of them dared take up arms and broke out. You know, self defense!
would also take issue with you characterizing what Israel is doing as “fighting back” and “self defense”.
Literally in the next sentence I make it obvious I don’t believe this is the case. And this is upvoted. Amazing how irrational people can be.
Removed by mod
I’ve had people seriously argue that Israel does not have a right to self-defense at all. It’s baffling.
deleted by creator
Two USN sailors reportedly went “missing” off the coast of Somalia (which, coincidentally, is also off the coast of Yemen).
Yemen hasn’t gotten a single Israeli ship so far…
What the Russian fucking troll farm is this shit? It was not the US that did airstrikes against the houthis, it was everyone (colloquially speaking). There were a bunch of countries involved with that.
“Yemen has been targeted by U.S. military action and bombings over the last four American presidencies — of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, now Joe Biden.”
Red and blue are the same party, stop voting for them.
What a stupid take.
Red wants my friends dead, I have little choice but to ensure blue wins the presidency while I work for local change. Not voting is not an option.
Both red and blue wants people in the middle east dead. Instead of picking a group of dead people over another what about voting for someone that isn’t a fucking murderer?
I’m not going to morally grandstand, I’m going to look out for the people I care about. You wanna throw your vote away to make a point, be my guest.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
It should be a no-brainer to not fund and ship weapons to a state committing a genocide, and yet here we are.
How many of the attacked cargo ships were transporting weapons? And what, cargo ships transporting Russian oil are just fair game for NATO to blow up now because they’re funding genocide?
deleted by creator
Hundreds to thousands of nukes, mostly yes. one to tens of, not so much. People don’t want nukes to be used, but having a supply of 20 nukes or so would not get the world to let you do whatever you wanted.
And at a certain point, even the hundreds to thousands may still lead to war, if pressing too hard.
Removed by mod
All natives resist colonialism, the only genocidal maniacs are the Zionist invaders. You are suggesting removing Palestinians to Jordan instead of removing the illegal settlements in the West Bank.
Removed by mod
Some Mesoamerican groups saw population growth under early Spanish occupation, too.
“No brainer” is exactly how I would describe a person who think this is a good idea.
maybe if yemen actually did something about the houthis…
Oh people tried to do something about the Houthis. In fact, they starved Yemeni children to death to hurt the Houthis. Turns out that only made them more popular.
Ansarallah is, for all intents and purposes, as legitimate a government of Yemen as the ROC is of Taiwan.
which is my point
What kind of solution are we talking?
Let me guess what the other 3 were: W Bush, Obama, Trump. This is hardly surprising.
Almost like the US has a hard on for the Middle East. Coinciding with the end of the Cold War.
I wonder why…
War is always wrong. It is not, however, always avoidable.
This one was though. The US is bombing Yemen for daring to oppose US hegemony in the region. The US could have just not bombed them.
false. The were bombed for being stupid and attacking commercial interests of better equipped militaries.
I think you misunderstand. People are responsible for their own actions, broadly speaking. The only people at fault for the US dropping bombs on Yemen are the people who chose to do so, and every military member “just following orders” beneath them who actually executed it.
The responsible parties acted responsibly by blowing the hell out of the irrational idiots. So, yup 100% responsible for keeping the shipping lanes safe. Glad you understand. Now go explain it to the idiots and such totally expectable results may be avoided.
This is a fucking lie.
