Brussels wants to launch a bespoke EU mission to protect commercial vessels in the Red Sea from attacks by Iran-backed Houthi rebels.
In a document dated January 10 and seen by Euronews, the EU’s diplomatic service proposes sending “at least three” warships with “multi mission capabilities” to the region as early as next month.
The document recommends the “fast-tracking implementation” of an operation mandated to act “from the Red Sea to the Gulf,” in order to protect maritime security in a region plagued by instability in recent weeks.
Why not let Liberia, Malta, Bahamas, and wherever else those ships are flagged with deal with it? It is the duty of the countries under which the ships are registered to take care of the protection in international waters. How many ships running in the Persian Golf/Red Sea/Horn of Africa region are actually registered to a (non-Malta) EU state or the USA?
Tell them that if you want cheap, you get cheap.
Just because it flies under a certain flag doesn’t mean it only serves that country.
Also, the people on those ships deserve the right to work safely, regardless of who is providing that protection.
That being said, other countries that rely on these ships should be helping as well. US warships are doing it to prove their weapons and train the crew, but in the end it’s all paid for by the US taxpayers.
If flies under that flag just to save on taxes and labor laws. The ship owners don’t want safety, or at least they don’t want to pay for it. Let them suffer. Care for the crews, if possible, but let the owners rot.
The best way to protect the ship and then take the ship in tow. They can be released in exchange for tax concessions from the Bahamas.
The ship owners don’t want safety, or at least they don’t want to pay for it. Let them suffer.
The ship owners (the company owners) are more than likely not on that ship. It’s just regular workers.
There’s no way to “let them rot” without risking the lives of the people on the ship.
I get that Lemmy has a very diehard “eat the rich” stance, and I do too, but make sure it’s directed at the correct people.
While its an unsympathetic way to look at it the other poster is correct. Its like saying the EU should pay for insurance claims in China when work is outsourced because its cheaper.
One of the unfortunate consequences of modern globalization is that we are now starting to move away from multilateralism as each country moves to secure their own interests and citizens… and the massive flaws in the design of the UN security council has left them impotent.
World War 3: Middle East proxy war
The US: " we don’t want an escalation of tensions in the middle east." The US then proceeds to escalate tensions in the middle east.
It’s one of the most glaring examples of disconnect between what they’re saying and what they’re doing that I’ve seen.
The US is lying about their intent again to no one’s surprise.
The houthis were launching missiles and drones at civilian ships in the red sea for weeks before these strikes took place.
If the us/eu goal is to protect said traffic you can’t expect them to do nothing.
More than weeks, it’s been going on since November. It’s amazing how some people find it acceptable for Yemen to blow up and hijack civilian ships and are then brazen enough to blame others when a coalition of governments put a stop to it.
Sure, but have you considered the possibility that America Bad?
Lol never! Why would I EVER think that the largest military power in the history of mankind would EVER be anything but good?
The Houthis have made it clear that they don’t want israel to be supplied for their genocide.
Well, for weeks before the Houthis said that the reason for the blockade is Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. And that once Israel ceases their attacks on Gaza they would end the blockade.
Instead of using their political leverage to get Israel to stop their bombing, and thereby ensuring the end of the Houthi blockade, the US is instead attacking the Houthis and providing even more cover to Israel to continue it’s genocide.
But yes, of course the US and allies would value the delays of shipments and providing genocide cover for Israel more than stopping an ongoing genocide against Palestinians
And yes, it’s a major worldwide shipment route. So why does the US not use their political capital to stop Israel and thereby the blockade instead of attacking the Houthis on their own territory and greatly exacerbating tensions in the region.
That is why i said that there is a disconnect in what the US says and what it does. It has a diplomatic route to take but instead starts warring. And no, saying that the Houthis should just stop the blockade without Israel stopping it’s genocide is not a valid diplomatic route.
So that begs the question if the US is truly concerned with the blockade of a major shipping route or if they’re simply providing cover for Israel to continue bombing Gaza and terrorising the West Bank.
Replying from my alt account
why does the US not use their political capital to stop Israel
The US is highly religious and primarily Christian (68%). Generally, Christians see Jews and by extension Israelis as “God’s chosen people”. The second largest religion in the US behind Christianity is Judaism (2%).
“Religious practice is widespread, among the most diverse in the world, and profoundly vibrant. The country has the world’s largest Christian population. A majority of the global Jewish population lives in the United States, as measured by the Law of Return.” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Religion
And yet people will argue that the US is being charitable and concerned about a justified ( in my opinion) blockade of a major shipping route.
Why does everyone support Hamas in this? If Hama hadn’t kidnapped civilians we would not be here. But no everyone only blames Isreal.
sure Isreal should have done things differently, their response should have been better. However the options here are to support Isreal, or Support Hamas. There is no neutral as neural serves one side.
Why does everyone support Hamas in this?
They don’t.
However the options here are to support Isreal, or Support Hamas.
That’s ridiculous.
South Africa places Israel’s actions since October 7 in the context of a history of “apartheid, expulsion, ethnic cleansing, annexation, occupation, discrimination, and the ongoing denial of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” … “during its 75-year-long apartheid, its 56-year-long belligerent occupation of Palestinian territory and its 16-year-long blockade of Gaza.” Notably, South Africa points out that Israel has been carrying out extreme violence against Palestinians even before Hamas’s actions on October 7 (which it unequivocally condemns but notes cannot justify genocide).
https://africasacountry.com/2024/01/understanding-south-africas-icj-case-against-israel
Nobody invoked Hamas specifically in this thread until you did now.
This is clearly about Hamas andithe various reactions to it. Not invoking Hamas is thus trying to hide something.
If goal was to protect traffic broadly they could simply avoid turning the area into a warzone. This has only ever been about supporting Israel.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In a document dated January 10 and seen by Euronews, the EU’s diplomatic service proposes sending “at least three” warships with “multi mission capabilities” to the region as early as next month.
The document recommends the “fast-tracking implementation” of an operation mandated to act “from the Red Sea to the Gulf,” in order to protect maritime security in a region plagued by instability in recent weeks.
Since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war, a raft of drone and rocket attacks in the Red Sea by the Houthis, an Iran-backed rebel group that controls a part of Yemen, has threatened to severely disrupt trade flows into Europe.
Tensions escalated at the turn of the new year when ten Houthi militants attempting to sabotage a Danish-operated ship were killed by Prosperity Guardian officers, prompting Iran to send in its own frigate on January 1.
But the request was shut down by Spain’s prime minister Pedro Sánchez, who said the country was “willing” to consider a bespoke European mission to patrol the area and protect Europe’s commercial interests.
American and British forces, with backing from the Netherlands, stepped up their response to the attacks overnight with the first air and missile strikes in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen.
The original article contains 514 words, the summary contains 202 words. Saved 61%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
