Where are we heading? I wonder.

When the USA and the UK and Israel (attacks against Palestine, Lebanon and Syria) go around bombing countries they dislike, there is reason to fear anarchy in the worst sense of that word. For one thing: If they can do it, why can’t anyone else? One or more of the global south countries that nurture well-founded grudges against neo-colonialism, perhaps?

Admittedly, the Houthis targeted ships entering the Red Sea. But those ships were potentially carrying military supplies to Israel, a nation in the process of committing a genocide. Moreover most European nations are vassals of the USA and therefore support the said genocide, so to the extent trade to Europe is blocked – the effect is intentional. (The EU has made their support to the genocide all the more clear by introducing additional “sanctions” this week against Hamas, that is to say against the Gazans and Palestinians in the entire area.)

Moreover, Houtis were operating in their own back yard, as it were. Look at the map:

There are those who maintain that the Biden administration has violated the US Constitution by attacking a country without Congressional permission.

(I admit for the record that Jens Stoltenberg did not ask the Norwegian National Assembly for permission when he decided, possibly already then vying for the position he now holds – who knows? – that Norway should bomb Libya to kingdom come.)

I don’t much care about the US Constitution. True, the famous first amendment protects free speech, but the second guarantees the right to bear arms. However, I do understand that most citizens of any state, mine or yours, do not want to be dragged into a war, not to mention a World War, without being asked. And US / UK actions with regard to Ukraine, Palestine and Yemen are supremely reckless. Those boys upstairs, evidently just love war games. After all, their own children in prep schools will not be the ones to get killed.

Since the USA, and its lapdog the UK, are attacking the distant and relatively poor country Yemen, lets look at international law, the UN Charter. Take a look at Articles 33 through 51, snippets of which I include below:

The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.

Article 33

Should the parties to a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 fail to settle it by the means indicated in that Article, they shall refer it to the Security Council.

Article 37

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, ….

Article 41

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

Article 42

And, finally:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Article 51

I cannot see that the USA / the UK have been attacked by Yemen or by any other country. Declarations issued by their top guns, according to which they are “not at war with Yemen” amount to no more than a play with words. They have repeatedly bombed Yemen, and though Yemen cannot harm the USA / UK, powerful allies of Yemen might take it into their heads that enough is enough. And frankly, can you blame them? After all, the one party to all these disputes that systematically disregards “rule of Law” is the USA. Oh yes, and Israel, of course.

Where does all this lead us? I’m just a human without powers of any kind. I have no gun, no powerful friends in high positions. I don’t adhere to any religious or political group, but my blood seethes. I am impotently furious!

In the USA, however, fury could take on an altogether different dimension, and there is quite a scenario straddling the horizon: It appears that the winner of the next presidential election would under normal circumstances be Donald Trump. It also appears that they are trying convict and sentence the said Donald Trump to a prison sentence. Regardless of whether they convict him to prevent his election or after, people – possibly more than half the population – will be furious.

One furious person can be disregarded. The interesting question here is whether loyal supporters of the Democratic Party will be in favour of applying the same measures against furious Trump voters as their government is applying in the Middle East. Something like the Jakarta Method, perhaps?

As Emmanuel Todd has allegedly said:

The idea that, under the pretext that a country is democratic, its citizens, after an internal debate, can legitimately decide to bomb the citizens of another country is an idea that will end up killing democracy. The United States is a greater danger to peace than Iran.

Wikipedia as at 19 January 2024

For those of you who read French, his last book La Défaite de l’Occident was published last week. Not unexpectedly, Le Monde assassinates the book. All the more reason to read it.