Lordre: United

Showing posts with label United_Nations. Show all posts

Wars will cool, as blonde-haired people complain

In a previous post, I stated that a hot war in the Global North is good news for the Global South, which will get a break from US-imposed and Western-encouraged violence.

The pause in the Western-backed regime change effort in Ethiopia, diluting and hijacking the cause of people of Tigray as a proxy force, has held. A truce, between the government in Addis Ababa and the Tigrayan rebels, has been successfully sustained, to the relief of millions of people.

Yemeni peace on the horizon

Another bombed and impoverished land, Yemen, also experienced relief as of the start of this month. Coinciding with the Ramadan ceasefire, the aged former president Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi stepped down on 7 April, entirely removing the purpose of the US-backed Saudi military intervention into the country and further robbing the UN-recognised regime of credibility. This was inevitable from the day the bombs first exploded above the ears of that oppressed nation.

But Saudi Arabia need not be berated, nor should it necessarily feel any further wrath for its part in a grave crime. From the start, they were only doing the bidding of the United States. Also coinciding with the cessation of hostilities in long-suffering Yemen was the mockery of the United States President, for the first time, on Saudi television.

Preceding the developments in Yemen, was the refusal of both the Saudi and Emirati leaders to talk to the US President about oil. Therefore, much as predicted in an earlier post here, it may be Mohammed bin Salman himself who shall lead his country's revolution in the wake of a conclusion so unfavourable to the United States in Yemen.

The timing of the cooling off of the conflicts is aligned, spectacularly well, with the diversion of US attention to Europe. For a change, the Global South seems to be getting safer.

Is the "purveyor of violence" distracted?

Is a trend towards peaceful settlements and cooperation now growing internationally, prompted by the increased distraction of the United States and its allies by the conflict in Europe? Now that people with blue eyes and blonde hair are being killed, quite regrettably, might people with dark tones of skin now finally be given a break?

With a sufficient pause to rebuild themselves after a foreign-imposed war of intrigue, could nations regain their splendour, pride and dignity, such that they are the envy of others, and such that they are truly able to calculate what they were robbed of?

Could the partial withdrawal of evil from Africa and the Middle East be evidence of where it emanates? Could the successful ceasefires, when US interest is diverted away, be evidence that, as asserted once by Dr Martin Luther King Jr., the United States is “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world”? Could it be that rather than being confronted spontaneously by random villains such as Saddam Hussein or Vladimir Putin, the United States is itself the single concentration of world evil?

The common denominator in world conflicts is the United States. The United States is engaged in every conflict or has taken a side in some way, suggesting its own regime is the vile source from which violence, coercion and killing emanate.

Upon realising the above, will nations take steps to fortify themselves against the supreme international evil and prevent it from returning to desecrate their innocent land?

Keeping in mind the events in Libya and Syria, is there ever a time when it is okay to back an uprising by armed rebels, including by giving them weapons?

The best answer is simply, no. If one were to disagree and take the view that, as a matter of principle, rebels should be supported against repressive regimes, it will require untenable and foolish strategies all over the world. Moreover, it will often fail, like it did in Syria even after so many years.

Legitimacy

Where it may be wise to support non-government armed groups is where the case can be sufficiently made that they are the legitimate authority, as in, the state or some other legal authority, and where some formal ties can be established. In such a case, one is not really supporting rebels at all but supporting governments, and simply disagreeing about those governments. The international community and the UN are often obstinately wrong in this respect, often continuing to recognise dead regimes just because they did not like how it happened.

A decent principle to follow is that of popular sovereignty, whereby the will of the people decides whether there stands one state or another state. Referendums are excellent means to establish the validity of such sovereignty.

Different regions of the world have somewhat differing models of authority and, as such, the groups one supports in the course of supporting legitimate authorities may look "rebel"-like to outside observers. However, a group that advertises itself as a rebellion but has no clear idea about governing and can give no guarantees is usually not worth establishing relations with.

Honourable rebellion

The best rule would be that one's country may support non-state elements in a country where these elements conduct themselves in an honourable and state-like way, and where a referendum or other democratic exercise has actually established popular sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to simply producing "error"-ridden media reports asserting that the people want some kind of uprising, as is so typical of the Western press when reporting on countries like Cuba, Venezuela and Syria, only to later be corrected or redacted after the damage is done.

Another good rule is to be a sincere contributor to local and regional security in a conflict zone based on clear treaties from day one, rather than suddenly barging in on moral pretexts, as was the case with many interventions. It should always be a local power that takes the lead on how to intervene in a conflict, not a foreign superpower. Any foreign power that interferes against the wishes of the region is insincere, and little better than an invader.

Although intervention and support of rebels has often been done in a reckless and self-serving way, the practice should not be ruled out in its entirety. Where it is aligned with popular sovereignty and the will of nations to independence, it is justifiable. Support for the changing of national borders should not be ruled out, either, but only at the initiative of the local people and as a means of remedying past colonial errors.

Much of the Western press and leadership are portraying the East-West conflict over Ukraine as a temporary issue that will be quickly remedied by regime change against what they see as problematic leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin. In some ways, they are correct.

Since the end of the original Cold War, the main tension in the world was emerging in the North-South relationship, not the East-West conflict, making the current geopolitical situation something of an anomaly. Except for direct contests over hegemony, the main struggle in the world has always been between the exploiter and exploited, or the ruler and the ruled.

War against the Global South

With wars mainly being "interventions" targeting Global South nations like Iraq and Libya, and the Global North having a distinct advantage, able to project the image of itself as a global policeman under the authority of the United Nations Security Council, for a time it seemed as if a simmering North-South conflict was becoming the accepted reality.

The alterations to the language of war in the 1990s and early 2000s to speak of humanitarian intervention, rogue states, terrorism and global policing showed a shift, conscious or otherwise, to waging wars on the economically undeveloped nations. Military technology and wargames changed to target lightly armed resistance groups, rather than peer opponents.

What is happening now, with the renewal of conflict between the West and Russia, is an unexpected hiccup in the dominance of the Global North and especially the Western powers. Russia had essentially been considered a solved problem and a defeated enemy for over thirty years, and the West had moved on to other targets. Russia refusing to be dead, and being capable of challenging the West again, is a potentially fatal impediment Western goals.

The wrong battle

For the West to now be bogged down in a contest with Russia essentially means that the Global North is unable to fight the battle it wanted to fight, namely a battle to maintain dominance over the Global South. The West is mainly responsible, failing to create Global North alliance structures that would include Russia and potentially even China in a world order that would see the North dominate the South.

The selfishness of, very probably, individual politicians and thought leaders in the United States and United Kingdom is most likely to blame for the failure of the Global North to form a united front against the Global South (a godsend for the peoples of the latter). It seems like the idea of having Russians and Chinese as part of the club was just unacceptable to English-speaking elites, who would prefer that the "civilised" world and its economically vital activity are only led by people who look and sound like them.

Russia and China are essentially too "developed" now to be considered an economic periphery that can be conquered or exploited by the West. Countries like India, Pakistan and Iran can also increasingly be considered "developed" and don't really fall into the "Third World" stereotype either, as they may have done in the past.

What next?

While there may be attempts by the East and West to use the Global South as a proxy battlefield again, like they did in the original Cold War, the degree of resistance there against all such interference will likely increase. The Global South was on the rise in its own right, with an increasing willingness of local regimes to defy any expression of global authority or global good, and instead take possession of their own resources. Leaders such as Chavez, Morales, Gaddafi and others were not anomalies but part of a trend that was sure to continue, and will continue.

Even if Western regimes are not impeded much, or Russia and China are quickly disposed of and the Global North falls under Anglo-Saxon authority, their attempts to police and control the Global South will still go severely awry. We will still see terrorism, devastating wars and refugee flows that, in addition to climate change, will complicate Western dominance. They will be unable to pacify the populations of the Global South, who will continue to elect leaders who defy foreign exploitation and dominance. As such, even the most optimistic forecast for the West is one of war, waste, misery and the defeat of global hegemony in the long term.

The thousand cuts to the globally dominant Western powers were already going to be a death sentence for it, even without the West encountering a resurgent Russia and having to fight an intra-North battle.

While the war in Ukraine may be sad for people with blonde hair and blue eyes, it offers much-deserved relief for some people of the Global South. Perhaps they may be spared, for a time, from being the focus of murderous rampages by the supposedly civilised West. The situation in Ethiopia seems to have calmed around the time the conflict grew in Ukraine. We should be mindful, however, that the Western-inflamed humanitarian disaster in Yemen is unabated. As the wars in Bosnia showed us, violence may briefly return to the Global North, but is almost continuously exported to the Global South.

Behind the false moral outrage of British killers at Russian killers, there may be a fear that Russia is still the Second World War victor we merely pretend to be.

After the Second World War, the victors became the United Nations Security Council, the top dogs effectively set up to rule the post-war world order by approving international peacekeeping missions and interventions and providing the military power to enforce them. This was a convenient compromise between brute military realities and the easily corrupted rule of international law.

Powers of the Second World War

Some fools compared the US and UK's pointless lynching and destruction of small Iraq with the Allied victory over Nazi Germany in World War Two. Similar such fools here now belittle the Russian war in Ukraine as somehow inferior to the West's displays of power, despite it being something undertaken against a powerful enemy with heavy foreign support and modern weaponry. It is no exaggeration to say that Ukraine is the most heavily-equipped and powerful opponent to have been confronted by one of the Security Council powers since World War Two. The UK simply doesn't dare wage war on large or heavily-equipped nations, no matter how much it hates them.

Western militaries remain too skittish to attempt anything similar to Russia's war in Ukraine when it comes to countries they complain about, and the reason may have nothing to do with either morality or military astuteness. It could be cravenness on the part of our country, which only attacks the most dilapidated, isolated, small nations where an easy victory can be claimed to much fanfare, and backs away from threats that could actually imperil Western troops.

The Russians evidently do not suffer the above problem, being willing to dive into perilous battles against their enemies as they did in the Second World War, and the resulting perceived difference in the character of our countries may be what actually scares us in the West. What Russia is doing in Ukraine could be an almost precise re-enactment of operations against Nazi Germany. It is fought on some of the same battlefields as that original "Great Patriotic War", as the Russians call it.

Propaganda and reality

The Second World War is certainly on many minds in Great Britain when we think of the conflict in Ukraine. Propaganda coverage and government statements in the UK somewhat resemble those of the Second World War, and the UK kept making World War Two references in the days leading to the outbreak of hostilities. Amid these continuous comparisons, there is likely to be a subconscious comparison between the craven modern Britain and the power that helped win the Second World War.

The unflattering reality is that the UK is not the same power it was in the Second World War. At that time, the UK was independent and played a leading role, devising its own strategies and pursuing its own interests. The US intervened to support the UK, which had entered into the war without any real need for a coalition. Now, the UK is merely led by lackeys of the United States.

Pretend power

Britain's attempts to look tough are now based on the cosplay of our leaders, who model themselves on iconic politicians of the past because they have no identity of their own. At the same time, many in the UK are likely to possess a kind of football hooligan envy of Russia, because that country is acting like the same beast it used to be in the past, whereas the UK is now nothing much more than a weak accomplice. Rather than acknowledge our country's inferior position and microscopic influence, they will claim the Russians are cheats or dishonourable in some way. This way, our subconscious awareness of our own weakness and inferiority is exploited to encourage hatred of the other country.

Where the UK and Russia are similar lies in the dismantlement of their broader empires, both voluntarily. However, where one began to live in its own empire's shadow and compensate with bombast, the character of the other may have remained the same, able to demonstrate its status with the resolve and steel that made it a victor in the Second World War.

The UN Security Council represented a compromise between the reality of military power and the desire for the rule of international law. By painting a member of it as our enemy, when they still have the military power, we risk seeing a military reality that is misaligned with our pronouncements about international law. This will make us like a police officer who can't arrest anyone or even get up from his chair.

Russia's offensive all across Ukraine, in response to eight years of localised conflict in the Donbass region bordering Russia, is portrayed by the US and its Western allies as suddenly imperilling a previously reliable "international system".

If the thesis that Russia broke the international system is correct, it would mean other countries may engage in some sort of invasion next time, feeling there are no consequences.

Eight years of Western omissions and callousness on Donbass

Russia explained its actions as an attempt to force an end to eight years of conflict in the Donbass region of Ukraine, bordering Russia. They don't see their actions as the start of a war, but the closing stage of a war between large Ukraine and tiny Donbass. In the latest round of escalation in the region, they say, Ukrainian shells prompted mass evacuations onto Russian territory, and explosions reached Russian territory as the conflict inevitably spilled over their border. The Russians profess a desire to defeat and capture Ukrainian commanders and politicians, with an aim to prosecute them for war crimes over the course of eight years.

The Western perspective is, predictably, more simplistic. They say Russian President Vladimir Putin is personally driven by a desire to restore the Soviet Union, based on selective quotations, and is simply invading Ukraine to accomplish this. They omit all kinds of details. There is no word from them on the suffering of the Donbass region, or they dismiss the entire eight-year conflict there and huge death toll among ethnic Russian residents as Russia's own fault for sympathising with rebels at its border.

Russia's view of the intervention as legal

From the Russian perspective, they are not violating international law but are defending small countries they hastily recognised and signed defence pacts with in the Donbass region - the Lugansk People's Republic and Donetsk People's Republic. The Russians cite the UN Charter, which states that countries are entitled to self-defence and collective defence when attacked from outside. This is dubious, because the LPR and DPR are not member states of the UN, so they are not protected under the Charter. The Charter does seem to allow countries the right to collective defence of allies, though, so Russia likely is referring to this wording to justify its actions.

Could Russia be acting like America?

What we are witnessing is the Russian Federation's own version of NATO's Yugoslav intervention in 1999 and its ultimate revenge for those NATO actions against its Serbian allies. While I don't know enough to comment on military minutiae, it is similar to Yugoslavia: unilateral independence for breakaway territories, a huge campaign targeting the military of the alleged offending regime with the aim to disarm its forces, and an effort to apprehend and prosecute suspected war criminals.

The biggest violator of international law?

Back to the specific issue at hand: the US accusing Russia of being the ones who destroyed the international system and undermined international law.

US and Western bombings of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and other countries were major violations of international law, and the US got away without the level of censure Russia is receiving from US allies. Russia cannot be accused of stepping out line, if there is no line. Others were already badly out of line, so staying in line would be suicide for the Russians, especially as these violators venture ever closer to the Russian border. Turkey has a worse record than Russia for breaking international law, entering into the Syrian Civil War and also establishing military positions in Iraq. Its violations are basically identical to Russia's under international law, as are America's.

Russia's rejection of US censure over its intervention by pointing to US violations of international law may be dismissed as "whataboutism", but it is not. Whataboutism is invalid if is merely a sort of insult, and not part of a logical syllogism. In this case, there is a logical syllogism that justifies Russia's temporary dismissal of international law:

Premise 1: The international system depends on people following it (this fits with the US's own statements about Russia threatening the system by not following it), Premise 2: the US and its allies didn't follow international law, Conclusion: the US destroyed the international system

Russia's use of force is the direct result of the US dismissing international law during its own campaigns of conquest and encroachment, forcing others to dismiss it too if their interests are at risk.

Countries are being compelled to use force because since the end of the 1990s, the sole superpower, the US, imposed the law of the jungle (or the state of nature, according to Hobbes) on them with its own capriciousness. "Might makes right" is the idea they propagated, not democracy or the rule of law. If American forces could blow things up and kill people, they were allowed to.

International law has been destroyed by repeat violators, before. When the Axis powers refused to follow international law prior to the Second World War, the Allies were forced to disregard it as well, and invaded a number of countries without sanction under international law as they sought to defend themselves. Russian actions, if examined in isolation, violate international law, but they are a response to continuous violations by the US, who were increasingly interested in training and arming Ukraine on Russia's border.

Note that the sudden appeals to international law by Western countries mark a departure from previous rhetoric on the "rules-based order" - a term specifically devised to avoid following international law. The US has suddenly found itself on the right side of international law in this one case, but their original contributions to this crisis and many other crises consisted of their own violations of international law. The US and its allies have an arsenal of excuses that allow them to invade anyone or do anything they want (human rights, democracy, humanitarianism, doing the right thing etc.). As such, the Americans and their allies weakened the international system and they are at fault for it breaking down and the primacy of force returning as the way to solve major international disputes, which is likely to be seen a lot more in future.

Ukraine crisis was started by US illegal actions in 2014

What is an even better point is that the "democratic" Ukrainian government post-2014 is itself the result of a US violation of international law. In 2014, the United States interfered and directly assisted a coup in Ukraine's capital, Kiev, to steer the country away from Russia regardless of how the population felt. A large following of demonstrators effectively occupied and seized power in the capital, strong-arming the entire nation into following their narrow vision, which aligned just exactly with the US State Department.

Russia could argue that it is unilaterally enforcing international law by removing an illegitimate US-installed government, although this is a bad way to conduct oneself. The reality is that, sometimes, new regimes come to power by force (e.g. Iran's government in 1979 or Yemen's Houthi-dominated government in 2014) and nothing can or should be done.

As far as Russia is concerned, the US has already destroyed the international system as a result of its own interventions in other countries, which violated international law. Russia is still prepared to follow international law in most cases, frequently appealing to it as a series of absolutes from which one can't deviate and aligning with China on this. However, it now seems Russia is prepared to make exceptions to international law when US violations result in escalating violence on an area bordering with Russia.

On 4 February 2022, China and Russia declared what they are all about. Multipolarity, multilateralism, and order are what they hope to offer other countries.

Defying the Western "rules-based order", the Russian and Chinese declaration expresses a commitment to the "international law-based world order". It calls for multilateralism over unilateralism, and the defence of the internal affairs of states against outside interference. In short, for them, the law takes precedence over moral proclamations in international relations.

Defenders of sovereignty

The Russian-Chinese declaration is a statement of opposition to Western meddling in other countries. The US's blatant attempts at regime-change when governments are not complying with Western liberal norms, as occurred in Syria, Venezuela and countless other countries, are recognised in the statement as something Russia and China are going to try to prevent.

It has to be pointed out that incitement of conflict and regime-change, like the West carried out in Ukraine in 2014, is the severest and most blatant kind of violation of national sovereignty. It is the precise kind of meddling that the very concept of sovereignty ever meant to abolish, violating the self-determination of peoples and forcing them to adhere to another country's model and ideology under its direct supervision even from thousands of miles away.

With their declaration, the Russians and Chinese express their willingness to thwart US-allied attempts at regime-change in other countries. It is an assurance to all the member states of the United Nations wishing to preserve their internal order against interference and ensure that they continue to develop naturally rather than being plunged into chaos by outsiders. This is a vision with cross-civilisational support all across the world, being appealing to a set of states so diverse it includes Serbia, Turkey, Ethiopia, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Peru and even Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. Unlike the Western unipolar disorder, currently bogged down in conflicts in Ukraine and completely defeated in Afghanistan, the multipolar order China and Russia suggest is an uncontroversial configuration that could actually be viable across the entire world.

A helping hand to all countries

It should not be underestimated how appealing the Russian-Chinese declaration will be to other nations. While everything the United States proclaims to member states of the United Nations is a vague threat or a demand for compliance with the US's will, the Russians and Chinese are pledging to mitigate this destructive behaviour by being supportive of countries under US pressure.

In other words, while the US tries to bulk up its aggressive military alliances, denigrate the rule of law everywhere, and overthrow the governments of the world, the Chinese and the Russians are driven by no objective other than preventing such capricious intimidation and violence. Instead, international law will steadily begin to gain teeth under Chinese and Russian protection, and Western attempts at regime-change will increasingly stall as the West's economic and military power gradually recedes.

Abolition of the US-led disorder

With its ideological proclamations and military alliances, the US can't avoid being bogged down in multiple conflicts with a whole host of different countries. It is driven by a craving for confetti-filled skies affirming its supreme importance, and for continuous tickertape parades of glory and victory for itself. What the US wants to accomplish, again and again, is the familiar world where its capricious authority, not the law, is paramount and countries must listen to America's every word. It wants to handwave away the sovereignty of other states and civilisations, declaring itself as the sole judge of whether a regime is legitimate, and judging them by comparison with its vain self. That is what is meant by the rules-based, or liberal international, order.

As of 2022, the US regime still views all other countries as inferior, devoid of agency, subject to US policy, or even completely under US jurisdiction. Such an attitude is in conflict with anyone who has a genuine interest in the shared wellbeing of humanity and would prefer the course of human history to take a path for the good of all rather than the glorification of a few.

In short, the hegemonic goals of the United States are fundamentally opposed to the goals of the United Nations and the authority of its Security Council. Unless the US is able to discard unilateralism, the UN could eventually reform against it and the US could eventually find itself or its NATO proxy states in opposition to UN peacekeeping forces backed by a majority of nations.

Rather than a communist bloc, it is now the multitude of diverse but law-abiding individuals and nations desiring some form of stability that are the "other side". Far from seeking a chaotic world devoid of US leadership and fraught with abuse, they recognise the liberal powers as the main sources of chaos.

Environmentalism is set to replace the discredited ideas of missionary democracy and militant Christianity as the basis of the next crusades, massacres and wars conducted by the West.

In fact, Russia's UN delegation recently saw through this Grim Reaper's first disguise attempt and sniped it at the UN.

Although it has built up a gentle liberal reputation in recent decades, Europe's history is filled with colonialist patronisation, conquest and bloodlust against its own economic periphery and less developed countries. This is likely to return, under new ideological guises, as it did before.

Utopias and messianic violence

It is not unheard of for pacifistic and revolutionary ideas, like those of Green parties, to be hijacked by militarists and employed to develop messianic reasoning for organised violence. Although this will come to the disgust of many Greens, who are resolutely against war and waste, it is already happening in Germany.

In Germany, the Greens are ascending as some of the biggest zealots of confrontation with Russia. They have even compromised their own core values for this, favouring the environmentally harmful liquefied natural gas (LNG) derived from fracking in the US and transported in polluting ships as an alternative to cheap natural gas from Russia.

In time, Green ideology's youth and optimism will fade. As environmentalist activists' faces wither with time, their beliefs will similarly degrade into a familiar foolish crusade against some countries, increasing war and waste across the world.

America to be discredited as Europe takes over

Next in line to the throne of the liberal order, which has conducted the deadliest crusades of this century, is the European Union. It has often championed the protection of the environment, making this the perfect ideology for it to cite when employing force and seeking mastery over others.

The United States, in comparison with Europe, is losing credibility and many are turning away from its ideals, including itself. Its focus on China, in addition to its own internal divides, are likely to take it out of the game in Europe at some point in the future.

France can already sense the decay of the American military mandate in Europe, and is seeking a more powerful unified EU military instead. President Macron has referred to the US-led NATO alliance as "braindead", and has been hesitant to support it in the confrontations with Moscow.

From the Cross to the Climate

Crusades need justifications. They need images to inspire zealots to take up arms and make sacrifices. Sometimes, these images are even fact-based, such as the oppression of the proletariat or the pollution of the atmosphere, but they are wrongly used to justify atrocities.

There is valid reason to fear that the fact-based plea to stop manmade climate change will eventually morph into a new urgent justification to bomb poorer countries and change regimes. Certainly, many of the likely candidates to be bombed again, from the familiar Iraq to Iran, rely on selling fossil fuels.

Despite their current desire to be friendly, Europeans conducted the worst massacres in history. It is when given a sense of irrefutable righteousness that these crusaders and Teutonic Knights take up the sword. There is ample reason to suspect Europe will take this dark path again, under a new pretext.

Sometimes, revolutions and coups occur. These unconstitutional seizures of power violate the rule of law and should always be discouraged. However, when such a coup does occur, the international community eventually accepts it as a fait accompli.

In the Cold War, many such violent transfers of power occurred but typically the resulting government would be backed by the US or USSR. In some other cases, such as that of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, it was China that provided most of the legitimacy to the new regime.

However, on very rare occasions, an uprising would not be backed by any of the superpowers. Examples are the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 and the rise of the original Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan to power in 1996. The rise of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan back to power in 2021 is another such event, although Moscow and Beijing were not bothered by the previous pro-Western regime's fall.

Refusing to accept illegal takeovers

Sometimes, the rise to power of a faction will be met with rejection by the supreme body of authority in the world - the United Nations Security Council. The Security Council, representing the victorious countries of the Second World War, provides a kind of "might makes right" verdict on a dispute where the right cannot otherwise be established. It includes the rival Russians, Chinese and Americans and can often be split and indecisive.

Based on the strictest adherence to the rule of law, you would never recognise any unconstitutional seizure of power as valid. It is the duty of the Security Council to condemn any and all violent takeovers and attempt to reinstall the previous regime. Unfortunately, this is not always practical.

In Ukraine in 2014, crowds used violence to overpower security forces in Kiev and bring opposition politicians to power, ostracizing and kicking out the elected government. The former president fled to Russia, but rather than continue backing this president, Russia accepted the new regime's rise to power as a fait accompli. Despite the hostility between Kiev and Moscow, Moscow does not say the Ukrainian government is illegitimate. Its beef with the country is about the treatment of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, not the validity of a government that rose to power illegally.

This brings us to the topic for today.

Who rules Yemen?

In Yemen, from 2014-2015, almost the exact same thing was happening as was taking place in Ukraine. In this case, the offending group that took control was Ansar Allah, also known as the Houthis. The president of the country, in this case Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, fled not to Russia but to Saudi Arabia.

Rather than accept the defeat of their disgraced former favourite as Russia did in Ukraine, Saudi Arabia instead formed a military coalition to lay siege to Yemen in an attempt to reinstall the kicked-out president. This is the reason for the ongoing conflict in Yemen.

Imagine if, rather than accept what happened in Ukraine in 2014, Russia instead assembled the alliance of post-Soviet states, the CSTO, to invade Ukraine and restore the former president Viktor Yanukovych to power in Kiev. Imagine further, that this resulted in nearly a hundred thousand deaths, total destruction of infrastructure and outbreaks of cholera, and that Russia was still attempting to reach Kiev, being continuously defeated in the process. That is what Saudi Arabia is doing in Yemen.

The UN Security Council, including Russia, despite it contradicting the way it accepted the unconstitutional seizure of power in Ukraine, still recognises the discredited former regime of Yemen as the legitimate government of the country.

Peace through accepting reality

The Houthis should not have seized power in Yemen, but they did. This reality would be accepted by pragmatists and if the Houthis continue to prevail, it will eventually be accepted. The UN has a duty in this case to stop propping up a defeated regime, and to withdraw recognition of Hadi. The Houthis, like the Taliban, are the rulers of the country they rose to power in whether you like them or not. They have been in power for multiple years despite an international coalition against them. They stood the strongest tests any regime could be subjected to, and are the right ones to hold accountable for the wellbeing of that country.

Attempting to restore an old regime, possibly at the cost of killing everyone in the country, is insanity. We recognise all kinds of governments that we don't personally support, and that is what is needed here.

Pages