SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
annelle sheline
Biden Taps 'Literal Arms Dealer' Mira Resnick for Top Israel Policy Post
"Genocide Joe's swan song is to institutionally entrench our support for Israel and make it as difficult as possible to disentangle it," lamented one observer.
Aug 23, 2024
Peace advocates on Friday voiced alarm over the Biden administration's selection of a senior official who has worked to speed the shipment of U.S. arms to Israel as the State Department's point person on Israel-Palestine policy.
HuffPost reported that Mira Resnick, the deputy assistant secretary of state for regional security in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, has been tapped to oversee Washington's handling of issues related to Israel and Palestine. In her current role, Resnick's office supervises around $40 billion in annual U.S. arms transfers.
Using a critical nickname for U.S. President Joe Biden, journalist and podcast host Emma Vigeland said on social media Friday, "Genocide Joe's swan song is to institutionally entrench our support for Israel and make it as difficult as possible to disentangle it, which the old fool views as romantic and righteous."
Over the past 10-plus months, the Biden administration has approved more than 100 arms sales to Israel worth billions of dollars. Earlier this month, the administration greenlighted a new $20 billion arms package for Israel.
The announcement of the package—which includes dozens of F-15 fighter jets, tens of thousands of 120mm mortar shells, over 32,700 tank shells, and 30 advanced missiles—came just days after Israeli forces used at least one U.S. bomb in an airstrike on a Gaza school where forcibly displaced Palestinians were sheltering, killing more than 100 people including women and children.
As criticism mounted over Israel's assault and siege on Gaza—which has left more than 144,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing and has flattened most of the coastal enclave while stoking deadly famine and the spread of preventable diseases including polio—Resnick helped expedite the flow of U.S. arms to the key Middle Eastern ally.
She also worked with the far-right government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan wants to arrest for alleged war crimes including "extermination," to allow private citizens to donate equipment to the Israel Defense Forces.
Annelle Sheline, a former State Department official who resigned earlier this year over Biden's support for Israel amid a war for which the key ally is on trial for genocide at the International Court of Justice, told HuffPost that Resnick's appointment "reflects a doubling down on the administration's determination to continue to provide unconditional material support for Israel's genocidal campaign against civilians in Gaza."
American University of Beirut history professor Zeead Yaghi decried the Biden administration's appointment of "a literal arms dealer."
Last month, the Biden administration ended a two-month pause on the shipment of 500-pound bombs to Israel despite the frequent use of U.S.-supplied weapons by Israeli forces to commit alleged war crimes and genocide in Gaza. Biden has suspended transfers of 500- and 2,000-pound bombs manufactured by aerospace giant Boeing over fears the devastating munitions would be used in airstrikes on Rafah, the southern Gaza city where more than a million Palestinians had sought refuge.
Israel has dropped at least hundreds of 2,000-pound bombs—which the U.S. military avoids using in civilian areas because they can destroy entire city blocks—on Gaza, including in an October 31 attack on the densely populated Jabalia refugee camp that killed more than 120 civilians.
The U.S. is by far Israel's biggest arms supplier, providing around 70% of Israeli arms imports,
according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Another State Department Official Resigns Over Biden Gaza Policy
"I wasn't able to really do my job anymore," said Annelle Sheline. "Trying to advocate for human rights just became impossible."
Mar 27, 2024
Saying her job at a State Department office that advocates for human rights in the Middle East has become "impossible" as the Biden administration continues to back Israel's assault on civilians in Gaza, foreign affairs officer Annelle Sheline resigned from her position on Wednesday in protest of President Joe Biden's policy in the region.
Sheline noted in an interview with The Washington Post that quitting her job in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor was not something she took lightly, with "a daughter and a mortgage"—but said her day-to-day work on human rights had become ineffectual "as long as the U.S. continues to send a steady stream of weapons to Israel."
Despite the fact that U.S. law prohibits the government from arming countries that violate human rights—as Israel has long been accused by the United Nations of doing in its policy toward the occupied Palestinian territories—the Biden administration has approved the transfer of bombs and other weapons to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) since the military began its relentless bombardment of Gaza and blockade on nearly all humanitarian aid.
Sheline told the Post that as the news out of Gaza has grown more dire since October—with at least 32,490 Palestinians killed, at least 74,889 wounded, and parts of northern Gaza now facing famine conditions due to Israel's blocking of aid—some of her bureau's partners in the Middle East have stopped engaging with the State Department.
"If they are willing to engage, they mostly want to talk about Gaza rather than the fact that they are also dealing with extreme repression or threats of imprisonment," Sheline told the Post of the activists and civil society groups her office routinely worked with to further human rights in the region before Israel's assault began. "The first point they bring up is: How is this happening?"
"I wasn't able to really do my job anymore," Sheline added. "Trying to advocate for human rights just became impossible."
Sheline is just the latest official to resign in protest of Biden's approach to Israel and Gaza.
In October Josh Paul resigned from his position as director of congressional and public affairs for the State Department's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, where he oversaw weapons transfers to U.S. allies.
Paul told the Post that Sheline's decision "speaks volumes about the Biden administration's disregard for the laws, policies and basic humanity of American foreign policy that the bureau exists to advance."
A policy adviser in the Education Department, Tariq Habash, also stepped down from his role in January, saying he could no longer be "quietly complicit" in the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians.
The State Department's internal dissent channel has also been used by numerous officials to voice outrage over the Biden administration's continued defense of Israel's actions.
Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School, called Sheline's resignation "courageous."
Feds United for Peace, a group of government workers across nearly two dozen federal agencies which organized a daylong fast in January to protest the U.S.-backed slaughter of Palestinians, expressed solidarity with Sheline.
"That decision comes at a personal and real cost to her, and is a loss of a patriotic and deeply qualified employee for the Department of State," said the group in a statement. "Every arms shipment to Israel by the Biden administration and every one of the three vetoes of U.N. cease-fire resolutions has enabled Israeli impunity in its rampage across Gaza... Thousands of innocent lives are in President Biden's hands; the time has come to translate gentle requests for the protection of civilians into concrete action to stop the killing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
5 Things Biden Should Do to 'Re-evaluate' Saudi Relations
Failure to respond to the Kingdom's slights would reinforce the perception that Washington is a mere oil dependent, susceptible to demands.
Oct 13, 2022
The White House has stated that it will "re-evaluate" Washington's relationship with Saudi Arabia following the announcement that the Saudis and the rest of the OPEC+ oil cartel will cut oil production by two million barrels per day. The production cut will drive up the cost of fuel just weeks before next month's midterm elections, and critics have characterized the move as effectively constituting election interference.
The Biden administration has realized, however belatedly, that the U.S.-Saudi relationship is broken and that appeasing Riyadh will not fix it.
While Saudi Arabia is free to pursue its own interests in hiking oil prices, this sudden and drastic cut does not reflect the behavior the United States can reasonably expect from a partner, especially one that relies so heavily on the U.S. for security assistance and protection.
Yet Riyadh believes that it has the upper hand, as demonstrated by an op-ed published by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's media adviser, Turki Aldakhil. His piece details how Saudi Arabia could hurt the U.S., including by pricing oil in Chinese yuan rather than dollars and halting the purchase of U.S.-made weapons and other military equipment. The op-ed can be reasonably understood as reflecting MBS' position.
A re-evaluation of the U.S.-Saudi relationship is clearly in order, as President Biden appears to have finally recognized. Failure to respond would reinforce MBS' perception that America's dependence on Saudi oil renders Washington powerless to resist his demands and will thus fuel more reckless Saudi conduct.
How might the U.S. go about such a re-evaluation? Biden has several options at his disposal, all of which can help create a healthier balance in the bilateral relationship. None of these steps are designed to rupture the relationship. Saudi Arabia is an important country, and the U.S. can benefit from positive ties with the kingdom. But the current relationship is anything but positive, and it is inaction on Biden's part that makes a full breakdown of U.S.-Saudi ties more, rather than less, likely.
One: Freeze all U.S. security support to Saudi Arabia.
Freezing support would make clear to the Saudis that U.S. partnership is not unconditional, while also allowing cooperation to resume if Riyadh decided to again act as a partner.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Robert Menendez has already called for such a freeze, "including any arms sales and security cooperation." Rep. Ro Khanna and Sen. Richard Blumenthal have also proposed bipartisan legislation to pause all arms sales and military supplies. Such measures could be useful. However, merely pausing and then resuming security cooperation may prove inadequate to change Saudi behavior.
Two: Pass the Yemen War Powers Resolution in Congress.
Passage of the Yemen War Powers Resolution would achieve two objectives simultaneously: it would both signal U.S. discontent with the Saudi decision on reducing oil production and cripple the Saudis' ability to bomb and blockade Yemen, finally ending U.S. complicity in that devastating conflict, one of President Biden's earliest foreign policy commitments.
Members of Congress have introduced a bill that would end all U.S. military support for Riyadh's military intervention in Yemen; however it has not yet been brought up for a vote.
Three: Withdraw U.S. troops and military assets from the Kingdom and the region.
About 3,000 U.S. troops are based in Saudi Arabia, while the UAE hosts around 2,000 more.
Reps. Tom Malinowski, Sean Casten, and Susan Wild plan to introduce a bill to require the removal of U.S. troops and missile defense systems from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, another key OPEC+ member that also relies on Washington for national defense.
The bill is similar to one introduced by Republicans in 2020, when Trump also sought to pressure the Saudis to increase oil production. However, it was Trump who sent American servicemembers back to Saudi Arabia in 2019 after a 16-year absence: in response to concerns that the presence of U.S. soldiers was aiding terrorist recruitment across the region, the Pentagon withdrew them from the kingdom.
Clearly, the removal of U.S. troops from the Kingdom did not lead to the downfall of the House of Saud. Losing the security provided by the presence of U.S. troops and missile defenses would remind Saudi Arabia, as well as the UAE, that they remain dependent on Washington's good will. The Saudis and Emiratis are likely to turn to China or Russia, but, although Beijing and Moscow may sell them weapons, they will be unable to provide the same security. Preoccupied by its faltering invasion of Ukraine, Russia cannot do so, and China does not see such a move as in its interests.
Four: Enforce the Leahy Laws regarding the transfer of weapons to Saudi Arabia.
At present, the U.S. does not consider Saudi Arabia's human rights violations to constitute a violation of the Leahy laws that prohibit the transfer of military assistance to states that engage in gross human rights violations, including torture, extrajudicial killing, enforced disappearance, and rape. However, credible allegations of such behavior by the Saudi state, including the 2018 murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, would arguably justify the application of the Leahy Laws to Saudi Arabia. Enforcing U.S. law would pressure Saudi Arabia to address its worst human rights violations while also underlining the Kingdom's reliance on U.S. security cooperation.
Five: Increase investment in alternative energy to reduce U.S. dependence on oil.
Although oil will remain important to the global economy for the foreseeable future, the impact of the price of gasoline on American politics reflects a massive vulnerability. By investing more heavily in alternatives, like electric vehicles, public transportation, and less car-dependent communities, the outcomes of American elections could no longer be swayed by oil exporters. This would also help shield American elections from interference by foreign actors.
The Biden administration has realized, however belatedly, that the U.S.-Saudi relationship is broken and that appeasing Riyadh will not fix it. If the Saudis continue to insist on behaving in a manner that not only undermines U.S. objectives in Ukraine but also threatens to undermine the American democratic process, Washington must cease pretending that Riyadh is a friend. Only by taking strong action can the U.S. re-establish a functional relationship with Riyadh, one based on shared interests and mutual respect.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Saudi Bombings Kill Scores of Civilians--Including Children--in Yemen
"America is complicit in this," said one critic of "this horrific war that Biden and his senior officials once promised to end."
Jan 21, 2022
A series of Saudi-led airstrikes were blamed Friday for killing scores of people in Yemen as civilians, including children, continue to suffer deadly consequences of the U.S.-backed conflict that has lasted for years.
"It seems to have been a horrific act of violence."
Overnight bombings included one that targeted a prison holding mostly migrants in the northern city of Sa'ada, an area described as being under the control of Houthi forces.
"It is impossible to know how many people have been killed. It seems to have been a horrific act of violence," said Ahmed Mahat, MSF's (Doctors Without Borders) head of mission in Yemen.
A hospital in the city "has received 138 wounded and 70 dead" and is "so overwhelmed that they can't take any more patients," MSF said.
Strikes also hit further south in the port city of Hodeida. According to Agence France-Presse: "Video footage showed bodies in the rubble and dazed survivors after an air attack from the Saudi Arabia-led pro-government coalition took out a telecommunications hub. Yemen suffered a nationwide internet blackout, a web monitor said."
The humanitarian group Save the Children said that at least three children, as well as more than 60 adults, were reported killed by the series of strikes, though the number of confirmed casualties would likely rise.
The children killed as a result of the Hodeidah strike had been playing on a nearby football field, the group said.
"Children are bearing the brunt of this crisis," said Gillian Moyes, the group's country director in Yemen.
"The human toll that we witness in Yemen is unacceptable."
"They are being killed and maimed, watching as their schools and hospitals are being destroyed, and denied access to basic lifesaving services," she said. "They are asking us: Does it matter if I die?"
"The initial casualties report from Sa'ada is horrifying," Moyes added. "Migrants seeking better lives for themselves and their families, Yemeni civilians injured by the dozens, is a picture we never hoped to wake up to in Yemen."
In the U.S., the Biden administration--like previous administrations--has faced calls to stop supplying Saudi Arabia with weapons and other support being used to wage the bombing campaign on Yemen that's estimated to have killed over 300,000 Yemenis since 2015 and unleashed what the United Nations called the world's worst humanitarian crisis.
In The New Republic earlier this month, the Quincy Institute's Trita Parsi and Annelle Sheline wrote:
Despite Biden's promise to end the war in Yemen and his pledge to make the Saudis "pay the price, and make them in fact the pariah that they are," he has fallen back into America's hegemonic role in the Middle East: taking sides, making America a party to conflicts, and selling more weapons--U.S. interest, peace, stability, and human rights be damned.
Responding to news of the overnight airstrikes, journalist Spencer Ackerman tweeted: "America is complicit in this, as it has been complicit in every Saudi or UAE airstrike of this horrific war that Biden and his senior officials once promised to end. I hope they see these children when they sleep at night."
The International Committee of the Red Cross sounded alarm about the recent intensification of violence in Yemen.
"It is essential that we protect the lives of people in armed conflict. The human toll that we witness in Yemen is unacceptable," Fabrizio Carboni, ICRC's regional director for the Near and Middle East, said in a statement Thursday.
"Civilians living in densely populated areas have been exposed to increased attacks," he continued, "causing death and injury and deepening the psychological trauma among the affected communities after seven years of war."
The deadly strikes came after a Tuesday statement from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights also expessing concern about the uptick in violence in Yemen.
"In recent days," said spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani, "there have been dozens of airstrikes and artillery strikes launched by the parties with seemingly little regard for civilians."
"The fighting has damaged civilian objects and critical infrastructure, including telecommunication towers and water reservoirs, as well as hospitals in Sana'a and Taizz. With frontlines shifting rapidly over large areas, civilians are also exposed to the constant threat of landmines," she said.
"As has been shown time and time again," added Shamdasani, "there is no military solution to the conflict in Yemen."
Keep ReadingShow Less
U.S. and Its Allies Are Fueling Worldwide Erosion of Democracy, Analysis Shows
"We cannot rely on the U.S. or its allies to 'champion' democracy around the world," said global grassroots movement Progressive International.
Nov 16, 2021
Recent internal attacks on democracy and human rights by the United States and many of its allies--which often portray themselves as exporters of such ideals--are driving an overall erosion of democracy worldwide, according to a new analysis.
The New York Times analyzed an annual report released earlier this year by V-Dem, a Swedish research institute that collects data on democracy and autocratic governments around the world, finding that the United States and several of the countries it's considered allies in recent decades have shifted substantially away from operating as democracies--with attacks on voting rights, judicial independence, and the rights of the media among the factors driving the erosion.
"Much of the world's backsliding is not imposed on democracies by foreign powers, but rather is a rot rising within the world's most powerful network of mostly democratic alliances."
The U.S. and its allies drove increases in "democracy scores," according to V-Dem's reporting, throughout the 1990s, accounting for 9% of democratic growth around the world. But in the past decade, the Times' analysis showed, 36% of all democratic "backsliding" has happened in the U.S. and U.S.-aligned countries, including Turkey, Hungary, and Israel.
"Much of the world's backsliding is not imposed on democracies by foreign powers, but rather is a rot rising within the world's most powerful network of mostly democratic alliances," wrote Max Fisher at the Times.
V-Dem's report, titled Autocratization Turns Viral, pointed to the arrests of Turkish journalists for their reporting on the coronavirus pandemic and the detention of "hundreds of citizens for discussing the issue on social media" as examples of democratic erosion that has intensified in the last year.
"The decay in freedom of the press, academia, civil society, and increasing spread of false information in Turkey predates 2010 but has continued since, with legal restrictions to further limit civil society activity and freedom of expression," the report notes.
The group pointed to an assault on the judiciary and the press in Hungary as evidence of the deterioration of democracy, "dating back to as early as 2010 when [the] right-wing government led by Viktor Orban and his Fidez party enacted several media laws that curtailed media freedom substantially."
The Times' analysis comes amid an intensifying assault on voting rights and elections by the Republican Party in the U.S.--and the failure of the Democratic Party, which controls the White House and both chambers of Congress, to eliminate the legislative filibuster to allow the passage of far-reaching voting rights legislation.
As Common Dreams reported earlier this month, state-level congressional maps drawn by Republican legislatures could give the party "a 13-2 advantage among representatives to the U.S. House," while the conservative takeover of the federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court has put reproductive rights in peril.
V-Dem's report also pointed to the spread of disinformation that the U.S. government has "frequently engaged in" regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, with anti-science claims from the right--including former President Donald Trump--contributing to a stark partisan divide in recent Covid-19 deaths, as Common Dreams reported last week.
However, the Times emphasized, V-Dem's data shows that the trend away from U.S. democracy "accelerated during [Trump's] presidency but predated it."
"It would be too easy to say this can all be explained by Trump," Seva Gunitsky, a political scientist at University of Toronto, told the Times.
V-Dem's findings and the outlet's analysis left critics of American exceptionalism and U.S. foreign policy--including numerous wars which both Democrats and Republicans have claimed were aimed at "spreading democracy"--asking how the U.S. will continue to claim authority on democratic ideals.
"If the U.S. actually undermines democracy, how else shall we justify U.S. primacy?" tweeted Dr. Annelle Sheline of the Quincy Institute.
As the Times noted, the erosion of democracy in the U.S. has not gone unnoticed by the global community.
"Very few in any public surveyed think American democracy is a good example for other countries to follow," a recent Pew Research Center study found. On average, only 17% of people in surveyed countries called U.S. democracy worth emulating, while 23% said it had never offered a good example. American prosperity may no longer look so appealing either, because of growing problems, like inequality, as well as the rise of China as an alternate economic model. And awareness of the United States' domestic problems--mass shootings, polarization, racial injustice--has greatly affected perceptions.
To people worldwide, tweeted David Adler, general coordinator of the global grassroots movement Progressive International, it comes as no surprise that "we cannot rely on the U.S. or its allies to 'champion' democracy around the world."
"We need a new champion," said Progressive International, "owned and operated by the popular forces of the world."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senators Introduce Legislation to Curb Endless US Wars, Lethal Arms Sales
The measure includes a sunset of all authorizations of the use of military force including the 2001 AUMF.
Jul 20, 2021
A trio of senators on Tuesday introduced legislation that would beef up congressional authority in national security with provisions to narrow presidential power to launch hostilities, make it easier to block certain weapons sales, and sunset authorizations of the use of military force including the 2001 AUMF that paved the way for the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
"The founders envisioned a balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government on national security matters. But over time, Congress has acquiesced to the growing, often unchecked power of the executive to determine the outline of America's footprint in the world," said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who introduced the National Security Powers Act (pdf) along with Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah).
"The time is long overdue for Congress to reassert its constitutional role in matters of war and peace."
--Sen. Bernie Sanders
"More than ever before," he continued, "presidents are sending men and women into battle without public debate, and making major policy decisions, like massive arms sales, without congressional input."
On the issue of war powers, the proposed legislation would cut off funding for military actions not explicitly authorized by Congress. It would also tighten the definition of "hostilities" under the War Powers Resolution to cover not just cases of military forces on the ground but troops deployed "irrespective of the domain." Hostilities not approved by Congress would be required to end after 20 days rather than the current 60 days.
The measure would also sunset 180 days after enactment all existing AUMFs, including the 2001 AUMF passed in the wake of the September 11 attacks and upon which every consecutive administration has leaned to justify military actions in regions around the world.
Instead of the current default approval of arms sales barring a passage of a resolution of disapproval by veto-proof majorities of the House and Senate, the proposal directs Congress to proactively approve certain sales topping $14 million including those of air to ground munitions.
The legislation would further restrain executive national security powers by requiring congressional approval of an emergency declaration within 30 days. Such emergencies wouldn't be allowed to exceed five years, with annual congressional renewals needed. The legislation would also limit the range of emergency powers the president could tap.
Making the case for the legislation in an op-ed published Thursday at War on the Rocks, Murphy put the proposal in the context of the current moment "when the definition of enemies and the parameters of war are harder to define than ever" and "the pace of executive warmaking has become dizzying." The National Security Powers Act, he added, would "reset the foreign policy balance between the Congress and the executive branch."
The restraints on arms sales, he noted, would not apply to U.S. allies including Israel. He explained:
On warmaking, the bill would require that any authorization for the use of force abroad be bound by specific objectives and geographic limits and be re-evaluated after two years. Congress could renew the authorization, but only by a vote of both chambers. If there's a strong case to be made for that war to continue beyond two years, the administration should have to make it to the American public, and Congress should vote on the matter. No more endless wars. This bill replaces the current War Powers Act, closing loopholes long used by the president to circumvent Congress while also forcing members of Congress to stop abdicating its duties and take the tough votes on matters of war and peace.
With respect to arms sales, current law only applies to the biggest weapons transfers and requires Congress to pass a resolution of disapproval through both houses in just 30 days. That's too limited and cumbersome. It should come as no surprise that Congress has never successfully stopped an arms sale through this process. But the National Security Powers Act would flip the script and require Congress to take a limited number of affirmative votes before the proposed sales could proceed. And we wouldn't need to vote on every sale, just those that pose the highest risks, as in cases where the administration proposes to sell the most lethal or technologically advanced weapons to countries other than our NATO allies, Israel, and key defense partners in the Asia-Pacific region.
Sanders, for his part, stressed that the legislation is sorely needed to put a check on runaway militarism.
"I believe that we have become far too comfortable with the United States engaging in military interventions all over the world, and the time is long overdue for Congress to reassert its constitutional role in matters of war and peace," Sanders said. "The Framers gave that power [to declare war] to Congress, the branch most accountable to the people, but over many years Congress has allowed its oversight authority to wane and executive power to expand."
"This legislation is an important step toward reasserting that constitutional power, and I hope it will lead to a larger discussion, both in the Congress and among the public, about the uses of military force in our foreign policy," he said.
Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) is expected to introduce a House companion measure in the coming weeks.
In a statement Tuesday, McGovern expressed hope the measure would "put an end to endless wars, reexamine broad executive powers, and build a more safe and peaceful world."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden to Lift the Wrongheaded Houthi Terrorist Designation--But What's Next?
Having reversed the worst of Trump's policies, Biden must now tackle those of the Obama administration.
Feb 06, 2021
On Friday night, the Biden administration announced that it would lift the designation of the Houthi movement as a foreign terrorist organization, reversing one of the Trump administration's final acts.
Lifting the terrorism designation may help to prevent a famine, but it will not help to end Yemen's civil war.
The decision was welcomed by aid groups, which had condemned the designation as likely to precipitate the world's worst famine in 40 years. Martin Griffiths, the U.N. special envoy for Yemen, worried that designating the Houthis as terrorists would also hamstring his efforts to negotiate an end to the long-running conflict.
The Houthis, known formally as Ansar Allah, have committed atrocities during the horrific war in Yemen, as have all the other parties involved. Yet their designation as a foreign terrorist organization was rushed and apparently ill-considered, as the Houthis do not meet the official criteria for designation. The Trump administration had made a habit out of imposing or lifting such designations for political purposes, such as removing the designation on Sudan following its normalization with Israel and returning Cuba to the terrorism sponsor list nine days before Biden's inauguration.
Friday's announcement was condemned on Twitter with suspiciously repetitive tweets and hashtags, suggesting the mobilization of bots, likely at the behest of Saudi Arabia. One of the hashtags #StopHouthiTerrorismInYemen included English text, as well as a meaningless series of five characters, possibly intended to evade Twitter algorithms intended to prevent bot armies from flooding the platform with identical tweets.
Yet Saudi bots were not the only critics of Biden's decision. Yemenis displaced by the Houthis, as well as many in the south, fear that the move will further empower the group's position in eventual negotiations. The Houthis have engaged in horrific acts of violence and torture, laid countless landmines, and forced thousands to flee their homes. The Houthis are essentially using the Yemeni population under their control--approximately 20 million people--as hostages. Biden's efforts are intended to save the population from the violence inflicted from the air by Saudi Arabia, whose six-year-old bombing campaign has destroyed much of the country's infrastructure, as well as on the ground where millions face severe malnutrition bordering on starvation and disease--problems exacerbated by Houthi indifference, yet even worse by their designation as terrorists. Lifting the terrorism designation may help to prevent a famine, but it will not help to end Yemen's civil war.
In addition to the looming threat of famine, another major concern is the FSO Safer, an oil tanker rotting off the coast of Yemen, with 48 million tons of oil about to spill into the Red Sea. An oil spill of this magnitude threatens not only further devastate Yemen's coastal communities, but also destroy coral reefs and fish habitats off the coasts of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, and Djibouti.
The United States has little leverage over the Houthis, and some fear that, by lifting the FTO designation, Biden has given the group an easy win without acquiring anything in return. This interpretation is flawed. At present, tens of thousands of Yemenis are dying of starvation and preventable disease. The most urgent priority is to provide aid. Lifting the FTO designation allows aid organizations to re-engage with the Houthis without fear of legal repercussions for engaging with terrorists. Although humanitarian exceptions were granted when the Trump administration added the Houthis to the terrorism list on January 19, such exemptions have proved inadequate in other contexts, such as Iran.
Having reversed the worst of Trump's policies, Biden must now tackle those of the Obama administration, namely providing various forms of logistical and intelligence support to Saudi-led coalition that intervened in Yemen's civil war in 2015 when the Houthis, who are based in the north, took over the country's capital, Sana'a. Stopping the flow of foreign funding from the UAE to the Southern Transitional Council (STC) and from Saudi Arabia to the Hadi government is critical to shifting the incentives of these warring factions and convincing them that a negotiated settlement is in their interest. The more difficult task is establishing a working relationship with Iran in order to pressure it to withdraw its own support for the Houthis.
The most difficult aspect is likely to be convincing the Houthis to accept a political settlement. The Houthis feel they have the upper hand in the war and have few reasons to stop fighting now. The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project identified the city of Marib as a crucial location to watch for additional conflict. Marib is east of Sana'a and the current refuge for hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people who fled the capital region to escape Houthi violence and control. The frontlines are only a few miles from the city, and, if Marib is captured, the Houthis will hold almost all major urban centers in the former North Yemen, further consolidating their power.
Ideally, the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iran, and the international community will agree to end support for their respective warring parties and commit to funding the reconstruction of Yemen, while internal Yemeni actors negotiate an inclusive political settlement. Biden's moves to ameliorate the situation in Yemen are commendable, but must be only the beginning.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pompeo to Declare Houthis Terrorists, Fears of Yemen Famine
Oxfam called the designation "a counter-productive and dangerous policy that will put innocent lives at risk."
Jan 10, 2021
Advocates for a more just U.S. foreign policy on Monday denounced Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's decision to designate Yemen's Houthis as a terrorist group, a move that progressives say will disrupt the ability of humanitarian agencies to provide life-saving aid in an effort to alleviate widespread civilian suffering generated by the U.S.-backed Saudi regime's assault on the country.
In a statement released Monday, Oxfam criticized Pompeo's decision to label the Houthis a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" (FTO), calling it a "counter-productive and dangerous policy that will put innocent lives at risk."
"This designation will not help to resolve the conflict or provide justice for the violations and abuses committed during the war," Oxfam continued. "It will only compound the crisis for millions of Yemenis fighting for their survival."
Win Without War policy director Kate Kizer on Monday condemned the Trump administration for "levying baseless terrorism designations on the Houthis in Yemen," describing the move as "nothing more than a cynical, last-ditch attempt to prevent the Biden administration from reversing Trump's disastrous Yemen and Iran policies."
"This decision is a devastating blow to the prospects of peace, and a reckless instigation of further suffering in what is already the world's largest humanitarian crisis," Kizer added.
A number of analysts warned in the final two months of 2020 that a terrorist designation for the Houthis, which Pompeo was considering at the time, would "make an already difficult situation worse," in the words of Brookings Institution president John Allen and senior fellow Bruce Riedel.
"There's no quick or easy way to end Yemen's civil war," wrote Crisis Group president Robert Malley and analyst Peter Salisbury in a late November op-ed in The Washington Post. "There are, however, ways to prolong it, one of those being the Trump administration's apparent decision to designate the Houthi movement as terrorists."
And yet, after what Post reporter John Hudson called a "major internal battle regarding [its] humanitarian impact in Yemen," Pompeo decided this past weekend to move ahead with declaring the Houthis a terrorist group, the newspaper reported Sunday night.
U.S. State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus claimed that Pompeo's move "will further isolate terrorists in Yemen while the United States takes available steps to facilitate continued humanitarian aid." But Oxfam countered that "given the far-reaching nature of terrorism designations, the humanitarian response and economy in Yemen will be drastically impacted."
Although the State Department announced that the U.S. is preparing "to work with relevant officials at the United Nations, with international and non-governmental organizations, and other international donors to address" the devastating humanitarian implications of the FTO designation, the Post reported that Pompeo is proceeding before having finalized the licenses and guidance that would permit the continued delivery of aid.
"If true, it is difficult to imagine a more irresponsible decision," said Refugees International vice president Hardin Lang, one of many critics who are sounding the alarm that the Trump administration's actions are likely to undermine the flow of aid and intensify suffering.
The mere threat of a designating the Houthis as terrorists caused food imports in the country to drop by 25% in November, according to U.N. Under-Secretary Mark Lowcock.
The State Department's decision is "terrible news for Yemen," Annelle Sheline, a Middle East research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said on Sunday night. "The Saudi-led blockade has already resulted in mass starvations," Sheline said. "Eighty percent of the population live under Houthi control. The designation will prevent aid organizations from delivering desperately needed food."
Characterizing Houthis as terrorists will exacerbate "an already shocking level of hunger in Yemen," Human Rights Watch researcher Afrah Nasser explained on Monday. As a result of the Trump administration's latest actions, Nasser added, the U.S. "risk[s] complicity in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths."
It's brutal what's happening against civilians in Yemen. I don't know how much more suffering civilians can tolerate. Life is already hell in Yemen. The designation would have disastrous ramification on the already dire economic & humanitarian crisis in Yemen. https://t.co/Tj5QhItSEA
-- Afrah Nasser (@Afrahnasser) January 11, 2021
According to Lang, "the litmus test for U.S. policy on Yemen is simple: does it help end the conflict, or keep alive the millions of suffering Yemenis? The designation fails on both counts."
Oxfam pointed out that there are "many options available for identifying and punishing terrorists," but the route pursued by the Trump administration "is by far the most severe--and the most deadly for Yemeni families. It will block U.S. humanitarian aid, goods, and personnel from entering northern Yemen, where 70% of the population lives, and substantially reduce them throughout the rest of the country."
"The consequences will be felt acutely across a country also hit hard by extreme hunger, cholera and Covid-19, as banks, businesses, and humanitarian donors become unwilling or unable to take on the risk of operating in Yemen," Oxfam noted. "Every day these designations remain in place will compound the suffering of Yemen's most vulnerable families."
Foreign policy analysts and humanitarian groups urged President-elect Joe Biden to immediately reverse the Trump administration's designation of the Houthis as terrorists. "In this instance," said Oxfam, "acting 'on day one' cannot be only a figure of speech, as lives hang in the balance."
Sheline noted that "people are going to die as a result of this, even if Biden lifts the designation as soon as he comes to office."
Drawing attention to the timing of Pompeo's move, Suzanne Maloney, vice president and director of foreign policy at Brookings, said Monday that "Trump's foreign policy will end as it began: with wanton cruelty and disastrous fallout for the Middle East and U.S. interests there."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hiroshima Mayor Warns Self-Centered Nationalism Risks War, Nuclear Disaster
"We must never allow this painful past to repeat itself."
Aug 06, 2020
The mayor of Hiroshima on Thursday warned of the ongoing dangers of nationalism and militarism on the 75th anniversary of the nuclear bombing of the Japanese city by the United States on August 6, 1945.
"We must never allow this painful past to repeat itself," said Kazumi Matsui. "Civil society must reject self-centered nationalism and unite against all threats."
Matsui tied the current moment and ongoing Covid-19 outbreak to the struggles of the world during the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, which killed 50 million people worldwide.
"When the 1918 flu pandemic attacked a century ago, it took tens of millions of lives and terrorized the world because nations fighting World War I were unable to meet the threat together," said Matsui. "A subsequent upsurge in nationalism led to World War II and the atomic bombings."
As the Washington Post reported, the anniversary events were more modest than in recent years due to the coronavirus:
Crowds usually reaching in the tens of thousands were kept away. Just 880 seats, spaced six feet apart, were placed on the lawn of the park, reserved for dignitaries, children, survivors of the bomb attack, and families of those killed.
Flowers were laid at a cenotaph dedicated to the victims, a bell tolled as the audience bowed their heads in prayer, and children sang a song for peace.
"As the only country to have experienced nuclear devastation in the world, this is our unchanging mission to step by step and steadily advance the efforts by the international community for a world free from nuclear weapons," Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said in a statement at the ceremony.
As Common Dreams reported, U.S. President Donald Trump has withdrawn the country from a number of nuclear arms treaties in his first term, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019. The president also pulled out of the Open Skies Treaty, which is credited with helping the U.S. and Russia avoid war for three decades.
The bilateral Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the U.S. and Russia, also known as New START, expires in February, but experts warn it is unlikely to be renewed should Trump be reelected.
"The web of arms control, transparency, and confidence-building instruments established during the Cold War and its aftermath is fraying," said U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres in a video message for the anniversary. "Division, distrust, and a lack of dialogue threaten to return the world to unrestrained strategic nuclear competition."
A petition called the "Hibakusha Appeal"--named for survivors of the attacks--is calling for an end to the development of new nuclear weapons as well as the destruction of existing stockpiles.
In an email to supporters Thursday, the Union of Concerned Scientists urged Americans to sign the petition and make sure the country works to "step back from the brink of nuclear annihilation, using diplomacy and science to end nuclear arms racing."
"Nuclear weapons have already done unspeakable harm," said the group. "As we mark these anniversaries, let's also look forward and work to ensure they never harm anybody else again."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The U.S. Military Should Take the Iraqi Parliament's Advice and Leave
The on-going presence of American troops in the region does not enhance U.S. or regional security; it makes Americans more vulnerable to attack and further mired in endless wars in the region.
Jan 07, 2020
Following the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, war with Iran appears more likely than ever. Whether the conflict remains contained to proxies or escalates into full-on confrontation between U.S. and Iranian forces, Americans are likely to die as a result of Trump's decision to kill Soleimani.
The best way to reduce the risk of war is to get U.S. troops out of Iraq. Those currently stationed in Iraq are most vulnerable to attack from Iran and Iran-allied groups. Soleimani's assassination significantly elevated the risk to Americans in Iraq, (as acknowledged by the Trump administration when it instructed Americans to leave).
The crisis Trump created could also provide an opportunity. Trump and American policymakers can now act in the direct interests of the United States while also improving relations with Iraq, a key regional partner.
The Iraqi parliament passed a non-binding resolution on Sunday to cancel its military aid request to coalition forces, effectively reversing its 2014 invitation for U.S. troops to deploy to Iraq to fight and contain ISIS. Arguably, once ISIS had been deprived of all strategic territory as of December 2017, the U.S. should have pulled out, their mission accomplished.
The Iraqi parliament vote provides cover for the U.S. military to gracefully exit Iraq now. Removing U.S. troops affirms the authority of Iraq's parliament, while simultaneously reducing the threat to American lives. Moreover, withdrawing from Iraq reduces the likelihood of further escalation with Iran, while improving the U.S.-Iraq relationship, which had frayed the longer the U.S. stayed beyond its stated mission.
If U.S. troops in Iraq are attacked by Iran, the Trump administration will feel compelled to respond, and the U.S. will soon be fighting yet another war in the Middle East. Current circumstances are even more inclined towards war than the conditions that preceded the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was not precipitated by an attack on U.S. forces.
The current U.S.-Iran relationship exhibits alarming parallels to U.S. relations with Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. The U.S. had imposed heavy sanctions on Iraq, and was concerned about Iraq acquiring or possessing weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's leadership was seen as cruel, dictatorial, and illegitimate, which allowed Bush administration officials to claim the U.S. would be welcomed as "liberators."
Also similar to Iraq, the U.S. could probably defeat Iran in a conventional war. Yet the U.S. would face massive opposition and likely armed insurgency if it invades Iran, just like it did in Iraq.
Like with Iran now, the U.S. had no official diplomatic relations with Iraq between 1990 and 2003. U.S. officials had very little information about Iraqi society and in lieu of diplomatic expertise, the Bush team relied on a group of Iraqi exiles who were eager for the U.S. to overthrow Saddam Hussein's government. Yet these individuals had themselves been out of Iraq since the 1980s, had no support base within the country, and had no more accurate information about circumstances in Iraq than U.S. officials.
The exact same dynamics--the lack of understanding of state and society, of regime dynamics, of potential post-conflict evolution, and reliance on exiles with no public support inside the country--are present in Iran.
Moreover, war with and possible invasion of Iran would present greater difficulties than Iraq. Iran has a larger population and bigger GDP, despite sanctions. The Iranian government has greater legitimacy than Saddam Hussein's regime. Anti-government protestors have vanished in the wake of Soleimani's assassination, replaced by massive expressions of national unity and calls for retaliation against the U.S.
As in Iraq, the neoconservative agenda calls for regime change in Iran. Yet the decision to dismantle the Baathist regime and disband the Iraqi military led to the rise of ISIS. Although these choices are widely seen as some of the worst foreign policy blunders in recent American history, the U.S. is on the brink of implementing the same approach. To "make Iran safe for democracy," the entirety of the Iranian government and military would have to be demolished, similar to the policies implemented in Iraq. These actions, while not only requiring a huge coercive force and vast resources, would likely provoke even stronger resistance from Iranian society. Any military action would automatically bolster nationalism, already a potent force in Iran.
Conventional wisdom has it that Trump would rather avoid an all-out war with Iran and prefer instead to focus on re-election. He knows that his base likes when he puts "America First" by beating up on Iran on Twitter, but that is different from getting into what would be a messy, volatile, long-term conflict--and he knows it. However, Trump also knows that if U.S. soldiers were attacked by Iran--and a media narrative absolves Trump of responsibility for starting this whole mess--his base would rally around him. No war-time president has ever lost re-election. Although Trump has thus far managed to avoid provoking all-out war, the impeachment may have spurred him to adopt more extreme means of distraction.
The presence of U.S. troops in Iraq makes war with Iran significantly more likely. It was the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq that helped lead to the circumstances in which a U.S. military contractor was killed, provoking retaliatory airstrikes, and setting off a cascade of events resulting in the storming of the U.S. Embassy complex in Baghdad, which then apparently prompted the decision to target Soleimani.
There is a brief window within which American service members can be made more secure by withdrawing them from Iraq. This must occur before Iran or its allies attack them, and the U.S. is drawn into another war in the Middle East, one that is even more costly and destructive than the war in Iraq.
The on-going presence of American troops in the region does not enhance U.S. or regional security; it makes Americans more vulnerable to attack and further mired in endless wars in the region. That was true before the assassination of Soleimani, it is even more true today. It's time to bring the troops home to safety.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy