The United States and Britain launched dozens of military strikes on Yemen on Thursday, raising fears of an escalation of conflict in the region. The strikes, launched in response to Houthi attacks on ships in the Red Sea that have disrupted global trade, left at least five people dead. The Houthi movement began targeting ships in November “essentially using a naval blockade in the Red Sea to prevent the blockade against civilians in Gaza,” according to our guest, Yemeni American scholar Shireen Al-Adeimi. “This is an offensive act. This is a breach of Yemeni sovereignty,” she says about the U.S. coalition’s strikes, which were launched without approval from Congress, and which Al-Adeimi additionally characterizes as “a defense of capitalism.”
The issue is that the sovereignty of nation states is a somewhat nonsensical idea that has little to no solid philosophical backing. Nations aren’t living things and shouldn’t have rights in the same way people have. They are imaginary constructs, and the consequences of this are inevitable debates over what is or is not a nation. But there is no clear dividing line or definition—and in this ambiguity, powerful nations are free to recognize or ignore nations as they choose.
If you support the US action, you can claim that the Houthis are not a sovereign nation, the action was at the invitation of the legitimate government of this region against an terrorist organization, and was entirely legal and justified.
If you oppose the action, you claim that Houthis are a group of freedom fighters who have established a new separate nation that should be recognized, and this action was an illegal violation of that newfound sovereignty.
Neither can be said to be completely correct or incorrect because there is no solid basis for this idea of sovereignty.
That doesn’t answer my question either. I wasn’t the one who brought up sovereignty, it was the article. It seems to ridiculous to say, this is “A Breach of Yemeni Sovereignty” but no one seems to able to assert the Houthis have sovereignty to start with.
The issue is that the sovereignty of nation states is a somewhat nonsensical idea that has little to no solid philosophical backing. Nations aren’t living things and shouldn’t have rights in the same way people have. They are imaginary constructs, and the consequences of this are inevitable debates over what is or is not a nation. But there is no clear dividing line or definition—and in this ambiguity, powerful nations are free to recognize or ignore nations as they choose.
If you support the US action, you can claim that the Houthis are not a sovereign nation, the action was at the invitation of the legitimate government of this region against an terrorist organization, and was entirely legal and justified.
If you oppose the action, you claim that Houthis are a group of freedom fighters who have established a new separate nation that should be recognized, and this action was an illegal violation of that newfound sovereignty.
Neither can be said to be completely correct or incorrect because there is no solid basis for this idea of sovereignty.
That doesn’t answer my question either. I wasn’t the one who brought up sovereignty, it was the article. It seems to ridiculous to say, this is “A Breach of Yemeni Sovereignty” but no one seems to able to assert the Houthis have sovereignty to start with.
None of which matters as the Houthis committed Acts of War and were idiots not to accept this would be the response when flat out told it would be.