As US Fuels War Crimes in Yemen, House Says US Involvement is Unauthorized

Jerri-Lynn here: This Real News Network interview with Mike Weisbrot discusses the non-binding resolution the House of Representatives passed last week concerning the unauthorized role of the United States in the war in Yemen. This Saudi war has triggered an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe, including a cholera epidemic and widespread hunger and starvation. No end to the crisis is in sight.

Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. and  author of the book Failed: What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2015), co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press, 2000). He writes a column on economic and policy issues that is distributed to over 550 newspapers by the Tribune Content Agency and his opinion pieces have appeared in The Guardian, New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and Brazil’s largest newspaper, Folha de Sao Paulo. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy.

SHARMINI PERIES: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore. The humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen is getting increasingly dire every day. On Thursday, the directors of the World Health Organization, WHO, the United Nations Children’s Fund, the UNICEF, and the World Food Program issued a joint statement urging Saudi Arabia to lift its blockade on Yemen. Last Monday, the House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution with a vote of 366 to 30 calling attention to the U.S.’s unauthorized role in the war in Yemen. The ongoing Saudi war in Yemen has already killed over 10,000 Yemenis. Another 50,000 children could die before the end of the year from starvation according to the organization Save the Children.

Also, about 20 million Yemenis are in the need of humanitarian assistance and over 900,000 have been infected by cholera, the largest such outbreak the world has seen in decades. Joining me now to discuss the U.S. involvement in the war in Yemen is Mark Weisbrot. Mark is the co-director of the Center for Economic Policy and Research and is the author of Failed What the Experts Got Wrong About the Global Economy. He’s also president of Just Foreign Policy. He joins us today from Washington, D.C. Mark, good to have you back.

MARK WEISBROT: Thanks, Sharmini.

SHARMINI PERIES: Mark, you’ve been closely following the House resolution on U.S. involvement in Yemen. What exactly does this resolution do to stop the U.S. involvement in Yemen?

MARK WEISBROT: Well, it was intended to do that. However, the sponsors of the resolution were unable to do that because the Republicans were able to use the Rules Committee to block them from doing that, so they ended up as a compromise, a non-binding resolution. It doesn’t actually cut off the U.S. role, involvement in the war, which is refueling the Saudi planes and helping them target bombing targets with intelligence and so on. What it did do though was two very important things. One, is that they had a little bit of a debate for the first time in the House, and they had also, they were able to force the U.S. military to admit their role there. Then, the resolution declares that that role is unauthorized.

Those were two really big things, and it was as big step towards cutting off this aid. I think the reason that the Republicans agreed to this … As you mentioned, there was an overwhelming vote, was because they really don’t want a full and open debate. They don’t want this to become a real political and possibly electoral issue, I mean a big issue. That’s what they’re afraid of because it’s completely indefensible. That’s very important I think. The details are kind of important for people to know because there’s a real chance of stopping this terrible war, the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.

SHARMINI PERIES: By adopting this resolution so quickly, which is non-binding from what I understand, this essentially stopped debate and discussion in Congress about this.

MARK WEISBROT: Well, no, because the next step is going to go to the Senate. In the Senate, somebody’s going to introduce a companion resolution, and then they’ll have another fight over this. This has set the stage for that, and that’s very important. The Senate is closer. For example, there was a vote in June on cutting off some of the arms sales through Saudi Arabia and it only failed by a margin of 53 to 47, and there were five Democrats who voted the wrong way. If you could get four of them to switch and you could even pick up, there are Republicans you could pick up like Flake and Corker for example who have been very critical of the Trump administration, extremely vocal. It is possible to have the binding resolution in the Senate.

This is all based on the War Powers Act or the War Powers Resolution as it’s called, which says that a member of Congress when the U.S. is militarily involved somewhere, a member without authorization from Congress, a member of Congress can demand a for vote and get it on this military involvement; a debate and a for vote. That’s the next step in this Senate.

SHARMINI PERIES: Now, Mark, so we sell arms to Saudi Arabia. We are providing logistical support, which is things like on-air fueling of the airplanes that are bombing Yemen. We also assisting them in terms of targeted bombings and creating this enormous humanitarian crisis in Yemen. Why is this resolution non-binding?

MARK WEISBROT: Well, that’s because they didn’t have enough power in this last week to force the binding resolution. I mean, theoretically, they could have come back over and over again. I think that’s what the Republicans were afraid of, so they reached this compromise in order to get something fast so then they could move on to the Senate. Also, to get it on the record that what the U.S. was really doing there, and that is was unauthorized. You do see some media responses. For example, this week the New York Times had an editorial from its Editorial Board saying that the Saudis were trying to starve Yemen into submission, calling it a war crime and specifying that the U.S. was involved in this war crime. This is something I’ve never seen in the New York Times where the New York Times Editorial Board to say, and I’m pretty sure it’s never happened before. That the U.S. was actually involved, militarily involved in the perpetration of wars crimes while it’s actually happening.

There’s a lot of opposition building. There’s opposition in Congress, and I think this is the way this war is going to end. I emphasize it’s not just because I care about this a lot, but also because historically this is pretty much the main way that foreign policy has been changed. In 2013, you remember when the Congress wouldn’t vote for President Obama’s attempt to bomb Syria. You can go back to the 1980s when the Congress cut off aid to the Contras in Nicaragua. These are the times when you can actually change something. This shows, really it’s amazing, because this is a House of Representatives that’s controlled by the Republicans and still they were able to force this vote and force the military through the hearings to admit what they were doing, and then to push it. Now they’re going to push it further in the Senate.

If people contact their members of Congress and especially their senators now, the members of Congress can also and are going to be trying to persuade the senators, so both of them. I think that could really be the beginning of the end of this war. It’s really urgent, you know, because as you mentioned the humanitarian groups, the UN are saying that really millions of people are at risk and people are dying there every day.

SHARMINI PERIES: Now, if the United Nations and so many agencies within the United Nations has come out berating Saudi Arabia for this blockade and not allowing humanitarian aid, stopping the landing of aid, cargo from arriving in Yemen, and if members of Congress are so opposed to the U.S. support for Saudi war in Yemen as the vote we discussed reflects, 366 to 30, why not stop it by invoking the War Powers Act, and how could that unfold in Congress?

MARK WEISBROT: Well, I think the next place it could unfold is in the Senate, it will be the same strategy, using the War Powers Resolution to force a debate and vote. That’s a debate where in the Senate it’s closer as I mentioned. It could be cut off. I think it’s become much more urgent in the last couple weeks, even more. It was always terribly urgent because as you mentioned, 900,000 people have gotten cholera and now you’re … they’re cutting off, in the last two weeks, they’re cutting off supplies again. Hodeida, which is the port that gets something like 80% of the imports is now blockaded by the Saudi-led coalition again with U.S. help. Food is running short, medicine, supplies. Food prices have skyrocketed because of the cut off in supplies. More people are being malnourished and pushed to the brink of starvation. There’s 7 million people according to the UN that are on the brink of famine right now.

SHARMINI PERIES: Right. Mark, this issue just begs the question: Why isn’t Senate acting more quickly on this? And if they did invoke their powers and act on this, that just means that they will stop providing logistical support, not necessarily stop selling arms to the Saudis. I imagine the military industrial lobby in Congress is pretty heavy, has a lot to do with why this resolution isn’t binding, has a lot to do with why Congress isn’t invoking the War Powers Act.

MARK WEISBROT: Well, a lot of it is even more than the arms industry. It’s the Trump administration and their geostrategic holds in the region. They’re saying that the people that they’re bombing are the insurgents they’re trying to defeats. The Houthis are aligned with Iran, and they are … so of course they’re getting aid from Iran, so they’re portraying and they’re going to do that when it comes to the Senate as a fight against Iran and Irani interference even thought it’s an indigenous group. For them, it’s a power struggle, and for the Saudis too. The Saudis want the U.S. to intervene, to reassert the dominance of Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East against Iran. That’s the real power struggle going on, and that’s why there really has to be a negotiated solution. I think if the U.S. does cut off its refueling and targeting aid, the Saudis could be forced to the negotiating table.

SHARMINI PERIES: If it is what you say, which is partly to prop up Saudi Arabia in the region as the region of power as opposed to Iran, does the administration have the right to go about doing that at the cost of this kind of humanitarian disaster?

MARK WEISBROT: Of course, there’s no right to do any of this stuff. These are, as the New York Times said, these are actual war crimes. They are literally starving the whole population to force the people that they’re opposing to give in. Of course, it’s illegal under international law, but it’s horrific. As I said, it’s the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, and this is one of the ways we can stop it. Unfortunately, it hasn’t gotten the attention that it deserves in the U.S., in the media overall internationally, but it’s getting a lot more. Again, if people, all these groups, you know there’s a lot of groups been working on this. The peace groups, the anti-war groups, the humanitarian groups. Groups like Code Pink, Win Without War, the Friends Committee on National Legislation. People can contact any of these groups and in terms of how they influence their members of Congress. This is I think the best hope of putting an end to this war before thousands and potentially hundreds of thousands and millions of people die as a result.

SHARMINI PERIES: Mark, thank you so much for joining us and bringing us this resolution to light for discussion.

MARK WEISBROT: Thank you.

SHARMINI PERIES: Thank you for joining us here The Real News Network.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Reddit0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Facebook0Share on LinkedIn1Share on Google+0Buffer this pageEmail this to someone

19 comments

  1. hman

    What a plan, let the Iranians and their pals control both sides of the Straits of Hormuz..
    Let them lob missiles into KSA, choke off the flow of oil.. Brilliant..
    The U.N. hasn’t done a thing since the Korean conflict except posture, waste billions and be totally ineffective..
    Pravda N.Y. is always a balanced source..

    Reply
    1. lyman alpha blob

      A large reason for the ineffectiveness of the UN is the fact that the US is only part of it and yet thinks it ought to control it and will brook no disagreement when it comes to certain countries, namely Israel. If the US would play by the rules and show some regard for the opinion of the rest of humanity the organization would be much more effective. But Uncle Sugar is not going to let anyone else tell it what to do, even if it would make the entire world a much better place.

      Reply
    2. Josh Stern

      The war in Yemen is not about Iran. Iran is an excuse the US and Saudis use to justify a war of conquest against a small mineral rich nation and destruction of its civilian population.. The US Deep State routinely uses any country not under it’s military control as a bogeyman & excuse for more unprovoked, aggressive, military action – all around the globe. We started that in Iran in 1953. The CIA/MI6 overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 and installed a brutal, totalitarian, pro-torture, spy government that ruled for 40 years. In the 1980s the US shot down an Iranian civilian commercial aircraft, Flt. 655. inside Iranian waters. If any country had done the same to the US we would surely have gone to war. Our response? Reagan gave commendations and medals to the entire crew of the missile destroyer.

      As Americans, we live in a constant stew of false, misleading, absurd US run propaganda about our government’s true actions and policies, as well as constant propaganda attacks on any nation that doesn’t fall under US military hegemony. Deep State relishes all such examples as justification for its spiraling, never audited budget, that consumes an ever-increasing share of US discretionary spending.

      Reply
      1. nilavar

        The Policies and the agenda of US hegemony over the rest of the world goes unabated, unchallenged and unaccountable!

        Trillions spent and Millions of refugees created in the ME, with no honest and open public discussion hostile policies of US, since 2003!

        What else is new?

        Reply
    3. ChrisPacific

      A quick glance at a map suggests that that is (at best) a wild exaggeration. But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that (a) it’s a legitimate concern, (b) preventing it is a reasonable strategic goal, and ( c) the current action in Yemen has a chance of achieving that goal. Assuming all that, do you consider the slow death by starvation of millions of Yemeni civilians an acceptable price to pay?

      Reply
  2. timbers

    Am currently doing contract work at Johnson & Johnson. They have various HR sponsored politically correct events often with social identity with themes, and cupcakes and various things are handed out. For example LGBT awareness day flyers where passed out suggesting people wear a purple article of clothing and folks passed out purple cupcakes at the cafeteria entrance.

    Why can’t HR departments do something like that to raise awareness of the millions of people our government and governments we have influence with, are murdering millions of people? Why is that taboo but LGBT isn’t? J&J and many other corporations have plaques proudly hung on display describing their Corporate Good Citizenship morality and a common part is to be a “good citizen in the community in which we live.”

    How is remaining silent as our government kills millions being a “good citizen in the community in which we live?”

    (Or for that matter how is bringing Indians to America to replace American workers and exporting U.S. jobs to India and laying off American workers part of being a good citizen in the community in which you live…but that’s another topic).

    Reply
    1. Whiskey Bob

      The simple answer is that it’s politically correct… for businesses.

      It’s plausible to see all this warmongering as business for the US military-industrial complex. Keep war going so military equipment and supplies can continue being sold. Of course, this will never be admitted to so excuses have to be made or, like in this article, just avoid discussing about it at all.

      What about businesses not directly involved in the MIC? Perhaps they see it fit to not start trouble that doesn’t involve them or to not bite the hand that feeds them. Whether it is positive press or direct contracts with the government. They’ll only be forced to criticize the government when it comes to hurting their business like Silicon Valley and immigration against the Trump presidency.

      Laying off Americans for cheap, exploitable foreign labor either immigrated or outsourced. That’s just business. If they continue to think it’s just business and people continue to buy into that myth, then it helps washes the blood off their hands.

      Promoting diversity then can be seen as an attempt to make their customer or client or employee base feel good about working with such a progressive seeming company. The Hollywood analogy works. Appeal to as many demographics as possible and invite them in order to generate the most profit. Of course, profit is still the king motive.

      It’s good that there is a building consciousness that is opposed to these militaristic endeavors that sweep aside war crimes for profit. There is also one building against the shallowness of corporate diversity or unfair immigration policies, but there’s worry that the reaction is turning rightward with the kind of anti-diversity sentiment that voted for Trump. I think transcending past identity politics and embracing a unifying economics/class based platform (ideally socialist) would go a long way, especially since that other article had the study concluding that Trump was elected in out of desperation for a better and more fair economy. On that note, the recent successes of the DSA celebrated in another article is very promising.

      Reply
      1. JBird

        I am very much for diversity as I do think that there is a lot of racism even flat-out supremacism, sexism even misogyny, hatred of all kinds. I am a uber-leftist, but the more I step/walk by/see the ever growing numbers of homeless (and worry that might be me someday) the louder the call is of the oppressed “fill-in-the-blank” group. Something like a third of American children are in poverty, as of 2016 there are twelve thousand homeless in San Francisco alone, more die from drugs than guns, and it’s insane.

        F@@k guns, the war on terror is a lie, the Left/Right divide is manufactured baloney, and LGBTQ are important, but so what? The number of Americans homeless, jobless, hopeless, ill has been growing for years. The number of children suffering grows.

        And I better stop before I get angry! :-)

        Seriously, using the oppression of some to destract from the oppression of many is an old, old, evil device.

        Reply
  3. Thuto

    I was once in Dubai with a German colleague, crossing a busy street at a pedestrian crossing when he made a very interesting comment which confirmed what I’d always suspected to be the case. He said “you know, if we both get hit by a car here your family would get as compensation one-tenth of what my family would get, because i’m white and european and you’re black and african”. Dehumanizing others (whether based on race, religion, gender or class) is a behaviour that walks in lockstep with massive loss of conscience, and loss of conscience is always on the crime scene when the most unspeakable atrocities are committed against those considered to be less than human.

    Those in power consider the Yemenis in this crisis to be expendable commodities that can be slaughtered sanctimoniously in the pursuit geopolitical ends (variously, and euphemistically called “protecting our interests”, “fighting terrorism”, “saving the [insert nation] people from impending death at the hands of [insert dictator]” etc.) Meanwhile, with the loss of one her most sacrosanct virtues, blindness, lady justice has become as impotent as she is pliable (to the dictates of the rich and powerful) and her “long arm of the law” reaches only as far as the jungles of Africa and the bullet ridden soviet style fortresses of Eastern Europe in search of warlords and despots. Criminals of the worst kind (read bush, blair et al), instead of languishing in prison cells tormented at night by the faces of all those whose tragic departure from this planet they sanctioned, go on to make millions in book deals, speaking tours and consulting gigs.

    Reply
    1. UserFriendly

      Bingo. But just like every other cluster fuck in this world there is about a zero percent chance of anything changing on a time scale that would do any good for the survival of the planet.

      Reply
      1. JBird

        Poor Americans, Britains, poor Greeks, poor anybody are not important either. It’s funny that neoliberalism is often used to explain and excuse the very suffering it causes. Indeed, Neoliberalism’s concepts of “Free Trade,” “Free Markets,” “Capitalism,” “Low Taxes,” and “Reduced Regutions” or the related ideology of a “a Meritocracy,” or the “Forever War on Terror,” somehow almost always becomes a war on poor people or a cover for the latest imperialism. An excuse to murder, steal, and destroy.

        Reply
  4. Jim Haygood

    They really don’t want a full and open debate. They don’t want this to become a real political and possibly electoral issue.

    … which is precisely why our dead-letter constitution requires the peoples’ representatives to declare war. It’s supposed to be a political issue with electoral consequences.

    The US military’s interventions in Yemen, Niger, Mogadishu and so forth recall the Japanese military’s invasion of Manchuria in the 1930s regardless of what the Diet thought.

    Ultimately the US unleashed nuclear arms to smack expansionist Japan back to its senses. Now we’ve become the fanatical global aggressors under an militarist, openly illegitimate government. Hope it don’t take an enemy nuke to send the yankee occupation troops home with their tails between their legs.

    Reply
      1. nonclassical

        …frank herbert would approve…(met him twice, university-Frank worked for Seattle Post-Intelligencer at one time..)

        Reply
  5. Jim Haygood

    They really don’t want a full and open debate. They don’t want this to become a real political and possibly electoral issue.

    … which is precisely why our dead-letter constitution requires the peoples’ representatives to declare war. It’s supposed to be a political issue with electoral consequences.

    The US military’s interventions in Yemen, Niger, Mogadishu and so forth recall the Japanese military’s invasion of Manchuria in the 1930s regardless of what the Diet thought.

    Ultimately the US unleashed nuclear arms to smack expansionist Japan back to its senses. Now we’ve become the fanatical global aggressors under an militarist, openly illegitimate government. Hope it don’t take an enemy nuke to send the yankee occupation troops home with their tails between their legs.

    Reply
  6. financial matters

    This seems very significant.

    “”For example, this week the New York Times had an editorial from its Editorial Board saying that the Saudis were trying to starve Yemen into submission, calling it a war crime and specifying that the U.S. was involved in this war crime. This is something I’ve never seen in the New York Times where the New York Times Editorial Board to say, and I’m pretty sure it’s never happened before. That the U.S. was actually involved, militarily involved in the perpetration of wars crimes while it’s actually happening.””

    “”Now, if the United Nations and so many agencies within the United Nations has come out berating Saudi Arabia for this blockade and not allowing humanitarian aid, stopping the landing of aid, cargo from arriving in Yemen, and if members of Congress are so opposed to the U.S. support for Saudi war in Yemen as the vote we discussed reflects, 366 to 30, why not stop it by invoking the War Powers Act, and how could that unfold in Congress?””

    ———-

    This seems to represent a welcome shift in main street media and congressional focus.

    Reply
  7. nilavar

    For the military industrial complex running America, it is just ‘business’, a profitable one. of course!

    Does anything else matters in Corporate America?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

  • Keep it constructive and courteous
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Flag bad behavior
  • Follow the rules

Please read our Comments Policies here.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *