Jan 14, 2010
Barack Obama is
not the first US president to find Yemen a challenge. And the current
$70 million package of military and security assistance is not the
first $70 million US aid program to Yemen.
Two decades ago, in 1990, then-President George H.W. Bush was
preparing for his looming invasion of Iraq - what would become
Operation Desert Storm. Like his son in 2002, Bush was eager to force a
unanimous vote in the United Nations Security Council endorsing his
war. But unlike George Junior who abandoned the UN when the Council
stood defiant against his illegal war, the first President Bush was
willing to pay - in expensive bribes and political concessions - to win
what the great Pakistani scholar Eqbal Ahmad called "a multilateral
fig-leaf for a unilateral war."
For poor and weak countries on the Council, the United States
offered new economic assistance, access to cheap Saudi oil, and
crucially, military aid packages to governments long denied such
support because of civil wars and/or widespread corruption and
repression in their countries. So the governments of Colombia,
Ethiopia, and Zaire all took their kickbacks and voted yes. For China,
which had threatened to veto the war-backing resolution, the Bush
administration offered diplomatic rehabilitation and the resumption of
long-term development aid, both of which had been cut in the aftermath
of the Tiananmen Square massacre the year before. China abstained.
Two countries were left. One was Cuba, which refused on principle to
endorse the US-led invasion, although Cuba had joined in the Council's
unanimous condemnation of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait as illegal. The
other "no" vote came from Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world.
Yemen was serving as a Security Council member largely in recognition
of its reunification after 10 years of a brutal civil war. With the
Arab world divided down the middle by the threat of a U.S. attack and
only one Arab country on the Council, there was no way Yemen could
endorse an invasion of its region.
Yemen voted no. And no sooner had the Yemeni ambassador, Abdullah
al-Ashtal, put down his hand, then a U.S. diplomat moved to his side,
telling him "that will be the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast."
The remark was picked up on an open UN microphone and immediately
broadcast throughout UN headquarters and soon throughout the
world. Journalists and analysts excoriated the U.S. diplomat for not
knowing the mike was on and being caught in such an embarrassing
situation. But I always thought he knew exactly what he was doing -
because the message was not really aimed at Yemen. No one in
Washington knew or cared at that time about what Yemen or Yemenis did
or thought. The message aimed much broader, at every country in the UN
that might consider defying U.S. power. The message was clear: if you
cross us on an issue important to us, you will pay a price.
The people of Yemen paid a huge price. Three days later Washington
made good on its threat and cut its entire aid budget to Yemen, an
already measly $70 million. And today, 20 years later, diplomats and
staff around UN headquarters still refer uneasily to the "Yemen
Precedent."
This week the Obama administration announced plans to send $70
million in aid to Yemen. But it won't be for medicine, building homes,
or job training. And the accompanying U.S. experts won't be
hydrologists or doctors or midwife instructors. The $70 million will
be for "counter-terrorism" and "security" purposes - and the U.S.
experts will be military trainers and various kinds of Special Forces.
But a strengthened Yemeni military will not reverse Yemen's legacy
of anti-Americanism and the support for anti-U.S. violence that
sometimes accompanies it.
What if - just imagine - the United States had not used Yemen to broadcast the price of defiance to other wavering governments? What if the United States had not reprimanded
the Yemeni government by punishing the entire Yemeni population and
then largely ignoring the impoverished people for most of two decades?
What if, instead of cutting its entire aid budget, the United States
had flooded Yemen and its people with agricultural assistance, training
for midwives and doctors, access to the latest hydrology technology to
recover scarce water, and lots and lots of money for Yemenis themselves
to use to build up their own country's social and physical
infrastructure as they chose, not as US "experts" imposed?
Today, twenty years later, things might just be a whole lot different..
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
© 2023 Foreign Policy In Focus
Phyllis Bennis
Phyllis Bennis is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and serves on the national board of Jewish Voice for Peace. Her most recent book is the 7th updated edition of "Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer" (2018). Her other books include: "Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer" (2008) and "Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power" (2005).
Barack Obama is
not the first US president to find Yemen a challenge. And the current
$70 million package of military and security assistance is not the
first $70 million US aid program to Yemen.
Two decades ago, in 1990, then-President George H.W. Bush was
preparing for his looming invasion of Iraq - what would become
Operation Desert Storm. Like his son in 2002, Bush was eager to force a
unanimous vote in the United Nations Security Council endorsing his
war. But unlike George Junior who abandoned the UN when the Council
stood defiant against his illegal war, the first President Bush was
willing to pay - in expensive bribes and political concessions - to win
what the great Pakistani scholar Eqbal Ahmad called "a multilateral
fig-leaf for a unilateral war."
For poor and weak countries on the Council, the United States
offered new economic assistance, access to cheap Saudi oil, and
crucially, military aid packages to governments long denied such
support because of civil wars and/or widespread corruption and
repression in their countries. So the governments of Colombia,
Ethiopia, and Zaire all took their kickbacks and voted yes. For China,
which had threatened to veto the war-backing resolution, the Bush
administration offered diplomatic rehabilitation and the resumption of
long-term development aid, both of which had been cut in the aftermath
of the Tiananmen Square massacre the year before. China abstained.
Two countries were left. One was Cuba, which refused on principle to
endorse the US-led invasion, although Cuba had joined in the Council's
unanimous condemnation of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait as illegal. The
other "no" vote came from Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world.
Yemen was serving as a Security Council member largely in recognition
of its reunification after 10 years of a brutal civil war. With the
Arab world divided down the middle by the threat of a U.S. attack and
only one Arab country on the Council, there was no way Yemen could
endorse an invasion of its region.
Yemen voted no. And no sooner had the Yemeni ambassador, Abdullah
al-Ashtal, put down his hand, then a U.S. diplomat moved to his side,
telling him "that will be the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast."
The remark was picked up on an open UN microphone and immediately
broadcast throughout UN headquarters and soon throughout the
world. Journalists and analysts excoriated the U.S. diplomat for not
knowing the mike was on and being caught in such an embarrassing
situation. But I always thought he knew exactly what he was doing -
because the message was not really aimed at Yemen. No one in
Washington knew or cared at that time about what Yemen or Yemenis did
or thought. The message aimed much broader, at every country in the UN
that might consider defying U.S. power. The message was clear: if you
cross us on an issue important to us, you will pay a price.
The people of Yemen paid a huge price. Three days later Washington
made good on its threat and cut its entire aid budget to Yemen, an
already measly $70 million. And today, 20 years later, diplomats and
staff around UN headquarters still refer uneasily to the "Yemen
Precedent."
This week the Obama administration announced plans to send $70
million in aid to Yemen. But it won't be for medicine, building homes,
or job training. And the accompanying U.S. experts won't be
hydrologists or doctors or midwife instructors. The $70 million will
be for "counter-terrorism" and "security" purposes - and the U.S.
experts will be military trainers and various kinds of Special Forces.
But a strengthened Yemeni military will not reverse Yemen's legacy
of anti-Americanism and the support for anti-U.S. violence that
sometimes accompanies it.
What if - just imagine - the United States had not used Yemen to broadcast the price of defiance to other wavering governments? What if the United States had not reprimanded
the Yemeni government by punishing the entire Yemeni population and
then largely ignoring the impoverished people for most of two decades?
What if, instead of cutting its entire aid budget, the United States
had flooded Yemen and its people with agricultural assistance, training
for midwives and doctors, access to the latest hydrology technology to
recover scarce water, and lots and lots of money for Yemenis themselves
to use to build up their own country's social and physical
infrastructure as they chose, not as US "experts" imposed?
Today, twenty years later, things might just be a whole lot different..
Phyllis Bennis
Phyllis Bennis is a fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and serves on the national board of Jewish Voice for Peace. Her most recent book is the 7th updated edition of "Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer" (2018). Her other books include: "Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer" (2008) and "Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power" (2005).
Barack Obama is
not the first US president to find Yemen a challenge. And the current
$70 million package of military and security assistance is not the
first $70 million US aid program to Yemen.
Two decades ago, in 1990, then-President George H.W. Bush was
preparing for his looming invasion of Iraq - what would become
Operation Desert Storm. Like his son in 2002, Bush was eager to force a
unanimous vote in the United Nations Security Council endorsing his
war. But unlike George Junior who abandoned the UN when the Council
stood defiant against his illegal war, the first President Bush was
willing to pay - in expensive bribes and political concessions - to win
what the great Pakistani scholar Eqbal Ahmad called "a multilateral
fig-leaf for a unilateral war."
For poor and weak countries on the Council, the United States
offered new economic assistance, access to cheap Saudi oil, and
crucially, military aid packages to governments long denied such
support because of civil wars and/or widespread corruption and
repression in their countries. So the governments of Colombia,
Ethiopia, and Zaire all took their kickbacks and voted yes. For China,
which had threatened to veto the war-backing resolution, the Bush
administration offered diplomatic rehabilitation and the resumption of
long-term development aid, both of which had been cut in the aftermath
of the Tiananmen Square massacre the year before. China abstained.
Two countries were left. One was Cuba, which refused on principle to
endorse the US-led invasion, although Cuba had joined in the Council's
unanimous condemnation of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait as illegal. The
other "no" vote came from Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world.
Yemen was serving as a Security Council member largely in recognition
of its reunification after 10 years of a brutal civil war. With the
Arab world divided down the middle by the threat of a U.S. attack and
only one Arab country on the Council, there was no way Yemen could
endorse an invasion of its region.
Yemen voted no. And no sooner had the Yemeni ambassador, Abdullah
al-Ashtal, put down his hand, then a U.S. diplomat moved to his side,
telling him "that will be the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast."
The remark was picked up on an open UN microphone and immediately
broadcast throughout UN headquarters and soon throughout the
world. Journalists and analysts excoriated the U.S. diplomat for not
knowing the mike was on and being caught in such an embarrassing
situation. But I always thought he knew exactly what he was doing -
because the message was not really aimed at Yemen. No one in
Washington knew or cared at that time about what Yemen or Yemenis did
or thought. The message aimed much broader, at every country in the UN
that might consider defying U.S. power. The message was clear: if you
cross us on an issue important to us, you will pay a price.
The people of Yemen paid a huge price. Three days later Washington
made good on its threat and cut its entire aid budget to Yemen, an
already measly $70 million. And today, 20 years later, diplomats and
staff around UN headquarters still refer uneasily to the "Yemen
Precedent."
This week the Obama administration announced plans to send $70
million in aid to Yemen. But it won't be for medicine, building homes,
or job training. And the accompanying U.S. experts won't be
hydrologists or doctors or midwife instructors. The $70 million will
be for "counter-terrorism" and "security" purposes - and the U.S.
experts will be military trainers and various kinds of Special Forces.
But a strengthened Yemeni military will not reverse Yemen's legacy
of anti-Americanism and the support for anti-U.S. violence that
sometimes accompanies it.
What if - just imagine - the United States had not used Yemen to broadcast the price of defiance to other wavering governments? What if the United States had not reprimanded
the Yemeni government by punishing the entire Yemeni population and
then largely ignoring the impoverished people for most of two decades?
What if, instead of cutting its entire aid budget, the United States
had flooded Yemen and its people with agricultural assistance, training
for midwives and doctors, access to the latest hydrology technology to
recover scarce water, and lots and lots of money for Yemenis themselves
to use to build up their own country's social and physical
infrastructure as they chose, not as US "experts" imposed?
Today, twenty years later, things might just be a whole lot different..
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.