29 April 21
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
The US May Still Be Helping Saudi Arabia in the Yemen War After All
Alex Ward, Vox
Ward writes: "In February, President Joe Biden announced that he was ending America's 'offensive' support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, six years into the conflict that has killed around 230,000 people and triggered the world's worst humanitarian crisis."
The US authorized contractors to service Saudi warplanes. Some of those warplanes fight in the Yemen war.
n February, President Joe Biden announced that he was ending America’s “offensive” support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, six years into the conflict that has killed around 230,000 people and triggered the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.
Instead, the US role would be limited to “defensive” operations “to support and help Saudi Arabia defend its sovereignty and its territorial integrity and its people.”
There’s just one problem: The line between “offensive” and “defensive” support is murky, and critics argue even the limited support the US is providing still helps Riyadh carry out its offensive bombing campaign in Yemen.
Since 2015, the US has supported the Saudi-led coalition’s fight against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. Until November 2018, that support included refueling Saudi warplanes that dropped bombs on Yemen — many of which killed civilians, including children. The Trump administration ended that practice after increased pressure from activists and lawmakers about Riyadh’s brutal conduct in the conflict.
But the US continued to provide logistical and intelligence support for the Saudi war effort and planned to sell billions in advanced weapons like precision-guided missiles to the Saudis.
With Biden’s new policy, the US would stop all of the above and solely help Saudi Arabia defend its territory against threats from the Houthis and elsewhere. As an example of the danger Riyadh faces, a Pentagon spokesperson told reporters that the Saudis have suffered over 100 cross-border air attacks with missiles and drones since January.
Biden’s policy sounds straightforward enough. For the past few months, the US made a clean break and no longer provides assistance to Riyadh’s ongoing strikes inside Yemen, right?
Not quite. That’s because the “defensive” support the US is still providing includes greenlighting the servicing of Saudi aircraft.
Multiple US defense officials and experts acknowledged that, through a US government process, the Saudi government pays commercial contractors to maintain and service their aircraft, and those contractors keep Saudi warplanes in the air. What the Saudis do with those fighter jets, however, is up to them.
The US could cancel those contracts at any time, thus effectively grounding the Saudi Air Force, but doing so would risk losing Riyadh as a key regional partner.
The reality of the situation, then, is squishy enough that the administration says it’s following Biden’s directive and securing its interests in the Middle East, while critics say that Biden’s team is indirectly supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s offensive operations inside Yemen.
The issue isn’t really a he-said/she-said or who’s right and who’s wrong. It’s a question of how you look at the entirety of America’s role in the war.
“It’s a definitional and kind of theological argument,” said David DesRoches, a professor at the National Defense University in Washington, DC, a Pentagon-funded school.
The Biden administration finally clarified its support of Saudi’s military
It took a long time to get a straight answer as to how, exactly, the US was assisting Saudi Arabia after Biden’s February announcement.
Lawmakers on the House Foreign Affairs Committee asked Tim Lenderking, the State Department’s special envoy for Yemen, last Wednesday about the new policy. His response was wanting. He said he was “not totally in the loop” and that the panel should ask the Pentagon for specifics.
A reporter the next day asked Marine Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie, who oversees all US troops in the Middle East, to provide some clarity. He responded that, when possible, the US military provides the Saudis with warning of any incoming attacks on Saudi Arabia that the US has detected coming from Yemen.
“The principal thing I do with the Saudis is I give them advanced notice when I’m able to do that,” he said, adding that the US provides no intelligence, surveillance, or reconnaissance support inside Yemen. “I would characterize our support as essentially defensive in nature.”
I wanted to know specifically whether the US provides any maintenance, logistical, or refueling support for Saudi warplanes, so on Friday, I asked chief Defense Department spokesperson John Kirby those questions during a regular briefing. His staff got back to me with an answer over the weekend.
“The United States continues to provide maintenance support to Saudi Arabia’s Air Force given the critical role it plays in Saudi air defense and our longstanding security partnership,” said Navy Commander Jessica McNulty, a Pentagon spokesperson.
While more specific than the administration had been to date, that statement still wasn’t entirely clear. Was the US military directly providing that support? And did the maintenance go to Saudi fighter jets, its missile defense system, or both?
So I asked McNulty to clarify her statement, which she did on Monday in an email. “[The] Department of Defense supports Saudi aircraft maintenance through Foreign Military Sales to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for which Saudi Arabia bears the costs and implementation is conducted by DoD contractors,” she wrote.
That means Riyadh, with its own money and at no cost to the US taxpayer, uses a US government program to procure maintenance for its warplanes. (That service likely was included when the Saudis bought the American-made warplanes.) It may not be the US military providing direct support, then, but the service was still greenlit by the US.
This doesn’t please critics of the war and America’s role in it. A Democratic congressional aide complained, “Oh, great, the ‘they’re civilian contractors’ line,” adding that a US-approved service to provide maintenance and spare parts for Saudi aircraft is tantamount to America backing Riyadh’s offensive plans.
Others agreed. “The recent admission by the Department of Defense that US companies are still authorized to maintain Saudi warplanes ... means that our government is still enabling the Saudi operations, including bombings and enforcing a blockade on Yemen’s ports,” Hassan El-Tayyab, the legislative manager for Middle East policy at the Friends Committee on National Legislation lobbying group, told me. “The administration should use its existing authority to block US military contractors from aiding the Saudi war effort in Yemen.”
Later on Monday, I asked Kirby, the top Pentagon spokesperson, to address those concerns.
“What the president has decided is that the support we’re giving [Saudi Arabia] will be primarily for their self-defense, and not further participating in the Saudi-led coalition’s offensive operations inside Yemen,” he told me and other reporters in a regular briefing.
“I understand where the question’s going,” he continued, “that maintenance support for systems could be used for both purposes” — that is, offensive and defensive operations. But, he said, the US is doing what it’s doing because “we have a military-to-military relationship with Saudi Arabia that is important to the region and to our interests, and we have a commitment to help them defend themselves against what are real threats.”
Okay, so what does this all mean? Is the US participating in Saudi-led offensive operations in Yemen or not? The unsatisfying answer: possibly, but if so, not directly.
The US probably supports some Saudi offensive operations. But canceling the maintenance contract has drawbacks.
There are two main issues here: 1) How do you define an offensive versus defensive operation? and 2) what would the US government canceling the maintenance contract actually mean?
The first question is extremely hard to answer, experts say. “I haven’t heard anybody clearly explain the difference between offensive and defensive operations,” the National Defense University’s Des Roches told me.
That makes sense, especially when you consider that Saudi Arabia doesn’t have an Offensive Air Force and a Defensive Air Force. It just has the one aerial service that the US supports.
Still, the offensive part is relatively straightforward: The Saudis find a Houthi target inside Yemen they want to hit, and they bomb it.
But it gets more complicated when you consider what “defensive” might mean. As the Houthis continue to launch missile and drone attacks inside Saudi Arabia, Riyadh might decide to strike a few of the Houthis’ launch points to dissuade further assaults.
Would such a move be defensive or offensive? It’s unclear.
What is clear is that without the US-approved maintenance of Saudi fighters, Riyadh wouldn’t really have the option of launching such retaliatory responses. “They’d be able to fly two out of every 10 aircraft,” said Des Roches. That would give the Houthis an edge in the ongoing fight.
Which leads to the second question: What if the US canceled the maintenance contract?
The Biden administration has the right to do that, experts say, but the consequences of that decision might lead Riyadh to no longer consider the US a reliable partner. That outcome could see Washington lose a key regional friend, a bulwark against Iran, and a nation that lets America station troops in its territory.
Would potentially losing Saudi Arabia as a partner be worth essentially grounding its air force? The Biden administration seems to have calculated that it’s not.
Put together, it seems likely that US-authorized contractors maintaining Saudi warplanes are indirectly involved in helping the Saudis carry out “offensive” operations, however one defines them. “If we’re servicing the planes that are fighting the war, we’re still supporting the war,” said the Democratic congressional aide. That the contract remains in place, after all, is a policy decision. The US could also decide to maintain other equipment and provide training instead of keeping Saudi aircraft in the sky.
But it’s also true that without the maintenance support, Saudi Arabia would be further exposed to all kinds of attacks from the Houthis (and others). And after nixing the contract, the decades-old ties between Washington and Riyadh might not just spiral downward but sever entirely.
Biden’s definitive line between offensive and defensive support isn’t as clean as he may have hoped. The question is if he’ll do anything about it.
Rep. Jamal Bowman. (photo: Caroline Bergman/Getty)
Progressive Democrats Praise Biden on Covid but Call for Bolder Action
Adam Gabbatt, Guardian UK
Gabbatt writes: "The progressive wing of the Democratic party praised Joe Biden for his handling of the Covid-19 crisis in a response to the president's first address to Congress, but urged the president to be bolder in tackling the climate crisis and economic inequality, and to do more to address 'the burning crisis of structural racism in our country.'"
READ MORE
Glenda Brown Thomas displays a photo of her nephew, Andrew Brown Jr., on her cellphone at her home last week in Elizabeth City, N.C. Brown was shot and killed by sheriff's deputies attempting to execute a warrant. (photo: Allen G. Breed/AP)
NC Judge Delays Public Release of Bodycam Footage of Andrew Brown Jr.'s Death
Laurel Wamsley, NPR
Wamsley writes: "A judge in North Carolina ordered law enforcement body camera footage of the death of Andrew Brown Jr. disclosed to his family, but not released to the public until completion of a state investigation into Brown's death."
READ MORE
Amazon workers demonstrate support for forming union. (photo: Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images)
Union's Evidence in Amazon Vote 'Could Be Grounds for Overturning Election,' US Labor Board Says
Nandita Bose, Reuters
Bose writes: "Evidence submitted by a retail union that raised objections to Amazon.com Inc's conduct at this month's union election in Alabama 'could be grounds for overturning the vote', the National Labor Relations Board said on Wednesday."
READ MORE
Travis McMichael (from left), his father, Gregory McMichael, and William ‘Roddie’ Bryan face federal hate crime charges in the death of Ahmaud Arbery, a Georgia man who was killed while out for a run last year. (photo: Glynn County Ga. Detention Center/AP)
3 Men Indicted on Federal Hate Crime Charges in Ahmaud Arbery Killing
Emma Bowman, NPR
Bowman writes:
grand jury has charged three Georgia men with federal hate crimes and attempted kidnapping in the death of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man who was shot while jogging last year.
Gregory McMichael, 65; his son, Travis McMichael, 35; and William "Roddie" Bryan, 51, were each charged with one count of interference with rights and with one count of attempted kidnapping, according to a Justice Department statement.
Travis and Gregory McMichael also face charges of using guns to inflict violence.
The indictment alleges the defendants used force and threats to intimidate and interfere with Arbery's right to use a public street because he was Black.
The McMichaels chased Arbery through a suburban neighborhood outside Brunswick, Ga., yelling at him, cutting off his jogging route with their truck and threatening him with guns.
Arbery died during that encounter on Feb. 23, 2020. When a video capturing the confrontation was leaked and posted online that May, sparking widespread outrage, the case investigation sped up.
All three men were later charged in state court. They face state charges including murder, aggravated assault and false imprisonment. A trial date has not yet been set for that case.
Attorneys representing Travis McMichael told NPR in a statement they were upset "that the Justice Department bought the false narrative that the media and state prosecutors have promulgated."
"There is absolutely nothing in the indictment that identifies how this is a federal hate crime and it ignores without apology that Georgia law allows a citizen to detain a person who was committing burglaries until police arrive," attorneys Bob Rubin and Jason Sheffield said.
Bryan's attorney, Kevin Gough, told NPR that he is disappointed with the Justice Department's decision to pursue federal charges.
"Roddie Bryan has committed no crime," Gough said in a statement. "We look forward to a fair and speedy trial, and to the day when Mr. Bryan is released and reunited with his family."
Gregory McMichael's attorneys, Frank and Laura Hogue, did not immediately respond to NPR email and voicemail messages seeking comment.
Ensaf Haidar, wife of imprisoned Saudi Arabian blogger Raif Badawi, protests for his release. (photo: Ryan Rodrick Beiler/Alamy)
Saudi Blogger Raif Badawi Is in Prison for Calling for Religious Freedom. The US Has Given Saudi Arabia a Free Pass for Too Long
Gayle Manchin and Nadine Maenza, TIME
or years, successive U.S. administrations have given Saudi Arabia a free pass to harass, arrest and even execute those who do not accept the government’s official interpretation of Hanbali Sunni Islam. One such case is peaceful blogger Raif Badawi, who is serving a 10-year sentence for a series of blog posts calling for freedom of religion or belief in the kingdom.
Despite years of international concern over the case, Badawi remains in prison. The Biden Administration is recalibrating the U.S.-Saudi relationship and has indicated that human rights will be at the center of its foreign-policy objectives. As such, it should react forcefully to the ongoing persecution of Badawi and other religious dissidents in Saudi Arabia, including applying the new Khashoggi visa bans where applicable.
Badawi is not the only one who has faced severe violations of his religious freedom. Recently freed activist Loujain al-Hathloul was arrested in 2018 following peaceful advocacy against religious guardianship laws. She was allegedly subjected to torture in prison, pressured to sign a false confession and remains under a travel and media ban. Shi’a Sheikh Mohammed bin Hassan al-Habib remains in prison after calling for greater rights for Shi’a Muslims. Poet Ashraf Fayadh is also still in jail on an eight-year sentence for allegedly questioning religion and spreading atheist thought.
Even among these egregious cases, Badawi’s stands out. Sentenced in 2014 to 10 years in prison and 1,000 whip lashes, Badawi has been refused access to crucial medicine, thrown in solitary confinement and denied contact with his family. In January 2015, he was given 50 whip lashes publicly outside a mosque in Jeddah.
The Saudi government’s continued detention of Badawi is a test case for the Biden Administration’s willingness to use the new “Khashoggi Ban,” which allows the State Department to deny U.S. visas to those who “suppress, harass, surveil, threaten, or harm journalists, activists, or other persons perceived to be dissidents for their work.” The Saudi government’s disregard for these serious American concerns destabilizes the U.S.-Saudi relationship. It also undermines ongoing social and economic reform efforts initiated by King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman over the last few years.
Giving the Saudi government a free pass to violate freedom of religion or belief without consequences is not a sustainable U.S. policy. The future of our relationship must be premised on respect for and protection of internationally recognized human rights and the political inclusion of dissidents who might otherwise adopt more radical positions. An inclusive vision for Saudi Arabia’s future would no doubt hasten a recovery from the economic effects of COVID-19 and spur greater international business investment in the kingdom.
As such, the Biden Administration should disrupt this concerning trend of impunity in three ways. First, it should lift the waiver on sanctions to which Saudi Arabia would otherwise be subjected as a designated Country of Particular Concern (CPC) for religious freedom violations. Second, it should hold accountable high-level Saudi officials directly responsible for egregious religious freedom violations using the Khashoggi Ban and Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. Finally, President Joe Biden and Secretary Antony Blinken should call publicly for Saudi Arabia, during this month of Ramadan, to grant clemency to Raif Badawi, and cease persecuting peaceful dissidents on spurious legal charges.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game biologist Lacy Robinson pulls on gloves as she prepares to release a male wolf pup back to its den in the North Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River drainage on May 12, 2014. (photo: Becky Kramer/The Spokesman-Review)
Idaho Lawmakers Pass Bill to Kill Most of State's Wolf Population
Dan Whitcomb, Reuters
Whitcomb writes: "Idaho lawmakers have approved a bill authorizing the state to kill up to 90% of its wolf population, a measure championed by farmers and cattle ranchers that will become law if signed by the governor in the coming days."
Governor Brad Little has not indicated whether or not he supports the legislation and a spokeswoman said the office did not comment on bills awaiting his signature. The first-term Republican has six days to sign or veto the measure, which becomes law if he takes no action in that time.
The Idaho House of Representatives this week voted 58-11 to approve the fast-tracked legislation, which passed the state senate last week with backing from the agricultural sector, who say the wolves are killing or scaring off sheep, cattle and other farm animals.
"They're destroying ranchers; they're destroying wildlife," Idaho State Senator Mark Harris told his colleagues in support of the bill last week, according to the New York Times.
Idaho Fish and Wildlife in 2002 established a Wolf Conservation and Management plan that calls for the state to maintain a population of at least 150 wolves. Harris said that number had grown to ten times that number, or more than 1,500, at last count.
Wildlife conservation groups have called on Little to veto the legislation.
"The bill will waste millions of dollars of public funds on killing wolves, and threatens to ultimately return the species to the endangered species list and federal management," the Western Watersheds Project said in a statement on behalf of three conservation groups.
Gray wolves were delisted from the Endangered Species Act last year by the U.S. Department of the Interior, which said the population had sufficiently recovered to no longer warrant protection.
If Little signs the legislation, the state would be permitted to hire contractors to kill the wolves and hunters would have no limits on the number they could target.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.