UN Security Council… a tool that legitimizes ongoing aggression, deepens Yemen suffering
SANAA, Nov. 17 (YPA) – It is clear that the UN Security Council, before the launch of the aggression against Yemen until today, has become a tool used to serve the coalition countries and provide political and legal cover for the ongoing aggression and blockade imposed on Yemen.
Instead of exercising its neutral and responsible role, the Council has been adopted positions and decisions that clearly side with the external aggressor, contributing to deepening the crisis and escalating human suffering. This raises questions about the true nature of its role and the extent of its commitment to the principles of international law and the United Nations Charter.
Decision to Extend Sanctions
Among the latest of these decisions was the resolution to extend sanctions that the council recently has issued, which reflects the American agenda. Through the council, the United States and Britain are attempting to legitimize the militarization of the Red Sea and threaten navigation in the Arabian and Red Seas, as confirmed today by the Sanaa-based Deputy Foreign Minister in Sanaa, Abdulwahid Abu Ras, in a statement.
This decision came as an extension of a series of resolutions that legalized the aggression and blockade on Yemen, beginning with Resolution (2140) of 2014, which declared that the situation in Yemen poses a threat to regional peace, relying on Chapter VII to impose measures that represent direct interference in the internal affairs of the country; and Resolution (2216) issued by the Security Council on April 14, 2015, in which it directly or implicitly expressed its support for the Saudi-led coalition’s aggression on Yemen on March 26, 2015, thereby granting the coalition the legal cover to continue the aggression and blockade on Yemen; and Resolution (2564), issued on February 25, 2021, which condemned certain parties following events in Marib and drone attacks, without any mention of the ongoing bombings or the blockade imposed on the Yemeni people by the coalition, up to the decision to extend sanctions on Yemen, which was issued last Friday.
Militarization of the Red Sea and Threat to Navigation
The council’s Friday decision, concerning the extension of sanctions imposed on Yemen, clearly reflected the extent of American and British influence within the council, and revealed a renewed political bias aimed at serving the agendas of these countries in the region. This decision was not the result of objective legal or security considerations, but rather a consequence of intensive American–British efforts to legitimize the militarization of the Red Sea and to provide international cover for the military activities carried out by their forces in the Red and Arabian Seas, under the pretext of ‘protecting navigation.’
This decision also represented a continuation of the approach adopted by Washington and London since the beginning of the aggression against Yemen, where they have been working to use the Security Council as a platform to redefine the regional landscape in line with their geopolitical interests, particularly in the strategic waterways which are among the most important arteries of global trade, instead of addressing the root causes of tension in the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf, these powers seek to impose a new military reality that enables them to control these waterways, which Sanaa considers a direct threat to Yemen’s sovereignty and the security of the Red Sea as a shared regional area.
Furthermore, the decision can only be viewed as another political pressure attempt aimed at changing Yemen’s stance on the Palestinian issue, especially in light of the role that Sanaa has declared its commitment to in support of the Palestinian factions and opposition to “Israeli” policies in Gaza. The political timing of the decision, coinciding with the rise of Yemeni positions supporting Palestine, confirms that the countries sponsoring the decision seek to use sanctions as a tool to deter Yemen from its firm position towards the Palestinian people.
The main reasons for the suffering of the Yemeni people
The resolutions Security Council issued over more than ten years of aggression and blockade have proven to be one of the main direct causes of the suffering of the Yemeni people. Instead of the Council fulfilling the neutral role mandated by the United Nations Charter and seeking to defuse the conflict and alleviate humanitarian burdens. These resolutions came to legitimize the continuation of the aggression and provide political cover for the blockade imposed on Yemen.
It can be said that the Security Council, by adopting unbalanced positions and drafting resolutions that serve the states of aggression, did not merely neglect its role as a peace guardian but became an influential party in the continuation of the war. It ignored the effects of the blockade and bombing operations and the resulting severe humanitarian crises, including food insecurity, the deterioration of basic services, and the disruption of state institutions.
This bias, which has accumulated over the course of a decade, represented a direct crime against the Yemeni people, and showed that the council had not fulfilled its legal and moral responsibilities, but rather contributed to complicating the situation and increasing the suffering of civilians by continuing to legitimize aggression and the siege instead of pushing for a comprehensive political solution that ends the humanitarian tragedy in the country.
Sanaa’s stance rejecting the decision to extend sanctions
Sanaa, through its official political and diplomatic institutions, has affirmed its strongly rejection of the recent Security Council decision concerning the extension of sanctions on Yemen. The Sanaa leadership saw this decision as clearly reflecting the American and British agenda, seeking to use the Security Council to serve their regional interests, far from any legal or humanitarian considerations related to the Yemeni situation.
In this context, the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs in Sanaa, Abdul Wahid Abu Ras, emphasized that Resolution 2801 was issued based on claims from parties that participated in the war on Yemen, in the complete absence of the Yemeni voice in the Council’s deliberations. Abu Ras considered this decision as a new attempt to legitimize the militarization of the Red Sea and to open the door to threatening navigation in both the Arabian and Red Seas, stressing that any attempt to exploit the decision to harm Yemen’s interests is completely rejected, with lessons drawn from recent history.
The Sanaa foreign ministry also reaffirmed that Yemen’s firm stance on the Palestinian issue would not change regardless of the pressures, considering that the UN resolution carries political messages related to the Palestine file more than it is connected to the situation in Yemen. Abu Ras confirmed that Sanaa did not recognize the Security Council’s Committee of Experts, describing its reports as politicized and full of distortions.
In the same context, the House of Representatives in Sanaa issued a statement condemning the sanctions decision, considering it a new example of the double standards policy practiced by the Security Council towards Yemen and the issues of the Arab nation.
The statement pointed out that the Security Council, which has remained silent in the face of the suffering of civilians in Palestine and the hardships faced by Yemenis during the years of war and blockade, is the same one that continues to issue biased resolutions that contribute to covering up these violations instead of holding them accountable.
It held the Security Council responsible for continuing policies that entrench bias and weaken the peoples’ trust in the role of the UN, affirming that the Council has become a tool in the hands of major powers, instead of being a neutral international institution that works to maintain peace and prevent the deterioration of humanitarian conditions in the region.
The parliament also emphasized that Yemen would remain steadfast in its positions supporting the causes of the Arab and Islamic nation, with the Palestinian cause at the forefront, despite all attempts at external pressure.
AA