PNN – In a note, an international affairs analyst has analyzed the deceptions of the America and England regarding the attacks on Yemen.
Pakistan News Network – “Attacks in Yemen were necessary, proportionate and in accordance with international laws.” The representative of the United States in the United Nations defended the military attacks of the United States and the United Kingdom in Yemen with these sentences.
Scott Ritter, a former American intelligence officer and the author of several books, who was previously one of the United Nations weapons experts, wrote in a note in Rashatudi about how the United States is deceiving the world about its role in Yemen.
According to Ritter, the above sentences are demonstrative because they were stated in an institution (the United Nations Security Council) that had not issued authorization for military action, and therefore, discredits any claim of legitimacy of attacks by the United States.
The United Nations Charter states two conditions under which the use of military force is permitted: one is for self-defense, which is stated in Article 51 of the Charter, and the second is by virtue of a Security Council resolution issued under Chapter Seven.
“David Cameron”, the British foreign minister, pointed to the authorization of the Security Council to justify the country’s role in the attacks on Yemen, claiming that the council “clarified” that “Houthi attacks in the Red Sea must stop.”
Read more:
The plan of the Arab countries to end the Gaza war according to the English publication
Scott Ritter writes that although the Security Council issued a resolution calling for an end to Yemeni attacks on ships in the Red Sea, this resolution was not issued under Chapter 7, and therefore, the United States and Britain had no right to attack Yemen.
Both America and England have resorted to the idea of ​​self-defense to justify their attacks and in this way they wanted to imply that their attacks were under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
For example, US President Joe Biden claimed in a statement issued after the first attack on Yemen: “I ordered this military action because of my responsibility to protect Americans at home and abroad.”
The main problem with this argument, writes Ritter, is that the Yemenis had not attacked Americans, neither inside the United States nor outside of it. The conflicts that the Americans had resorted to before to restrain the actions of the Yemenis were also to protect non-American equipment, that is, Israeli ships or ships of countries other than the United States. Therefore, America cannot in any way argue that it was attacked by the Yemenis.
In a part of his statement last week, Joe Biden claimed that these attacks were carried out “to weaken and restrain the ability of the Houthis and to prevent their further actions in the future”.
In this part, the tone of Joe Biden’s statement is as if the United States is seeking to eliminate an immediate threat to commercial maritime operations on commercial shipping lines. In order for America’s action to be in accordance with international laws, it is necessary for Washington to show that it was part of a coalition of countries that were either attacked by the Yemenis or faced an immediate threat of attack from them.
At the end of December 2023, the United States, together with some other countries, tried to form a coalition called “Operation to protect prosperity” and stop Yemeni attacks on ships. Despite this, according to Scott Ritter’s argument, the United States from that date on undermined any argument that could make its action appear to be a collective act of self-defense and give it the color of international legitimacy.