The House of Saud has brought the Apocalypse upon itself by invading Yemen. Pakistan is wise not to tag along in its march to ruin.
An excerpt from, "Pakistan should stay away from military intervention in Yemen" By Talat Masood, Tribune Pakistan, April 15, 2015:
The question that was on everyone’s mind is: is Saudi Arabia really threatened by Yemen’s internal turmoil? It couldn’t be: probably the determinants influencing the Saudis were a fear of Iranian expansionist policy and the possibility of events in Yemen spilling over and having a destabilising impact on the Saudi regime. After all, the rationale that launching a military invasion was necessary to restore Abu Mansour Hadi, is only half the truth. Finding little support from the masses and under military pressure from Houthis, Hadi fled the country. There is no international law or practice which suggests that a country may take upon itself the right to invade another when its government is removed by internal public unrest or a coup. If that is the criterion, then Pakistan should have been invaded several times as military rulers have overthrown many democratic governments. After 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan was UN-mandated and enjoyed legal cover. When the US, as an unchallenged superpower, unilaterally invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, it was practising the doctrine of exceptionalism. In case of Yemen, the military operation under international law can be termed an aggression.An excerpt from, "Why Pakistan should not enter Yemen" By Shaukat Qadir, Daily Times, April 15, 2015:
Legal niceties aside, what is Saudi Arabia, along with its allies, aiming to achieve by imposing its will on the poorest and most beleaguered country of the Middle East? It is obvious that the objective is to install a pliant regime and create ‘strategic depth’ in Yemen to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region. Saudi sensitivities are understandable as Yemen has a significant Shia population. What is generally overlooked is that Middle Eastern countries lack democratic legitimacy to protect their regimes from forces which challenge their authoritarian character, and tend to gang up. Although it is difficult to make sense of Saudi Arab’s internal politics, astute Saudi watchers have indicated that this operation was also launched to promote the image of Prince Mohammed bin Salman and to internally consolidate the regime. But this could well backfire, as military intervention is going to further compound the already complex nature of conflict, making stabilisation more difficult. It could open up new opportunities for Daesh and al Qaeda to expand their influence. But even if the Arab coalition forces, through a ground operation, are able to take control of Sana’a and establish a proxy government, it will be more of a symbolic victory. Without addressing the core issue of the marginalisation of the Houthis and other tribes, the problem will only be temporarily masked.
Recently, Pakistan decided not to intervene in Yemen despite urgent messages from Saudi Arabia. The news promptly resulted in a harsh response — almost a warning — by UAE’s minister of state for foreign affairs, Dr Anwar Muhammed Gargash. Gargash might be a mouthpiece for the Saudis or his own government but this response was to be expected. Pakistan’s decision will not please the heads of state of kingdoms/princedoms. This decision might also be considered unexpected since ‘requests’ from Saudis are usually fulfilled promptly.
.
.
Pakistan can afford to displease the current rulers of Arab states but it cannot afford to permanently alienate the many people of these states. Why does no one refer to the fact that, despite the ongoing conflict in Yemen, hundreds of deaths and the fact that so many countries have entered this fray, the UN has only passed a resolution “condemning” the Houthis dissolution of parliament? Why is there no more? The UN charter mandates all member states to support democracy. Could that mandate be interpreted as legitimising such populist revolts?
