The United States doesn’t exactly have a great track record when it comes to foreign policy. Whether it was the annexation of Hawaii, the decision to control the Philippines and Cuba after gaining control from Spain or even the slaughter and subjugation of Native peoples on the West coast after President James K. Polk became set on taking control of territories owned by Mexico up to the Pacific coast, our idealistic words have not matched brutal actions. More recently, I’m sure you can conjure up instances in the Middle East where the United States has backed up invasions of sovereign states with the idea that they are preserving peace or preventing the spread of terrorism. The reality in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan did not match up with these sentiments. I’m going to talk about the United States’ hypocritical involvement in the funding of Saudi Arabia’s war against countless civilians in Yemen, and why it must come to an end.
First, some brief context is necessary. The war in Yemen began when former President Ali Abdullah Saleh was coerced into giving up power to his deputy in 2011, around the time of the Arab Spring. As the new president took over, continued corruption and general economic issues caused disillusionment in many segments of the population, including those who were ready to fight for a separatist cause. The Houthis, who had been rebelling against the Yemen government since 2004, took advantage of these weaknesses to begin fighting against the government on a larger scale, and indeed took control of large swaths of territory. The Houthis are a Shiite group and took control of the Sunni-majority government in the Yemen capital at the height of their power. This caused Saudi Arabia and mostly Sunni nations to begin an air campaign which has continued to this day and has led to the loss of lives for countless civilians, including children. The violence committed against civilians makes the whole conflict unjustified. And importantly, the United States is funding it.
Back in December, the U.S. Senate backed the Biden administration’s decision to sell $650 million of arms to Saudi Arabia, with bipartisan approval. According to Al Jazeera news, in the past seven years of fighting, there have been “an estimated 233,000 deaths and five million people on the brink of famine.” The World Food Programme estimates that 2.2 million kids under five years old in Yemen need treatment for acute malnutrition. So, while U.S. troops have not been sent to Yemen, and U.S. naval ships have not literally blocked trade routes where Yemeni civilians are supposed to have free access to food and other necessities, our indirect support for the Saudi campaign despite obvious atrocities committed leaves us with blood on our hands. By using food scarcity as a military tactic to weaken the population of Yemen, the obvious goal of the Saudis is to launch an all-out assault and reestablish a Sunni government when the Houthis can no longer fight and the population gives up rebellion. This is draconian for the 21st century, and, unfortunately, it falls right into the pattern of U.S. foreign policy ideals of peace covering the funding of imperialist or autocratic military campaigns. So what if we have an established alliance with Saudi Arabia? And so what if we still need to rely on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil? None of this justifies supporting civilian slaughter.
To switch conflicts briefly, the U.N. reports that as of March 20, “902 civilians have been killed and another 1,459 have been wounded so far in the war in Ukraine,” according to NPR. However, the U.N. believes that the death toll is much higher. And with ongoing Russian offensive attacks in Mariupol and Kyiv, these numbers will likely only increase in the coming days and weeks. According to the U.N., “many residents who have been unable to evacuate from the southeastern port city of Mariupol lack food, water, electricity and medical care.” Rosemary DiCarlo, the under-secretary general for political and peace-building affairs, also claims that “uncollected corpses lie on city streets.” While the two conflicts are different in origin, comparisons can be drawn between the tactics used by Russian forces and Saudi-led forces. Specifically, I am talking about the killing, starving and use of civilians as a way to force surrender. Like the people of Yemen, the people of Ukraine have remained resilient despite these fear tactics. Yet, hypocritically, the entire West is united in opposition to the Russian offensive. The United States and its allies in NATO have sent billions of dollars in arms to Ukraine but continue to remain silent in the Middle East. This cannot continue.
When it comes to conflict, we tend to think of war as a fight between our allies and our enemies. Naturally, we support our allies and support the enemies of our enemies. If a state commits atrocities against a neighbor simply because it seeks to overthrow a government with an imperialist mindset, and claims of necessary defensive action are used to justify slaughtering and starving civilians, we should come to the defense of the oppressed state. When it comes to the defense of human rights, we shouldn’t pick and choose when we support the oppressor or the oppressed. But that is what the United States is hypocritically doing right now. It’s a permanent stain on our legacy.
Sean Reichbach is a freshman double-majoring in economics and philosophy, politics and law.