Going back to session 6, where there was much talk of classifications and typologies, there is yet much left to be said over the delicate nature of the thought process that goes into classifying groups of people and as well as entire nations.
Over the past few months, especially keeping in mind the geopolitical situation brewing up in the middle east, it becomes even more vital to look at the implications of labelling certain entities the way that they are eventually labelled.
There is much talk of the US and the UK working to arm and train the so-called 'moderate Syrian rebels' to fight against ISIS, but who get to decide to call these rebels 'moderate'? Surely Assad would not be too happy to have elements fighting against his regime being labelled as 'moderate', which would imply a degree of tolerance for anti-state actions.
Furthermore, ISIS itself was once part of this 'moderate Syrian rebels' group. Gradually, swaying into the realms of extremism was something of a predictable outcome. Then, what guarantee can the UK or the US provide that the beneficiaries of their military support will not follow suit?
As of this week, Saudia Arabia has launched a joint military operation with other Arab states against the state of Yemen. The guise is of regional security against extremist rebel elements. The Houthi 'rebels' have taken administrative and military control of large parts of Yemen. The problem? Saudia Arabia may indeed be concerned about the growing threat from ISIS and now the Houthis, but it could be very well to counter the growing Iranian influence in Yemen. The Russian-Iran nexus has criticised this military operation quite strongly.
It becomes problematic when proxy wars are fought over the basis of manufactured labels and classifications. Even if the Houthis are actually rebels, how is the killing of Yemeni civilians justified?
Over the past few months, especially keeping in mind the geopolitical situation brewing up in the middle east, it becomes even more vital to look at the implications of labelling certain entities the way that they are eventually labelled.
There is much talk of the US and the UK working to arm and train the so-called 'moderate Syrian rebels' to fight against ISIS, but who get to decide to call these rebels 'moderate'? Surely Assad would not be too happy to have elements fighting against his regime being labelled as 'moderate', which would imply a degree of tolerance for anti-state actions.
Furthermore, ISIS itself was once part of this 'moderate Syrian rebels' group. Gradually, swaying into the realms of extremism was something of a predictable outcome. Then, what guarantee can the UK or the US provide that the beneficiaries of their military support will not follow suit?
As of this week, Saudia Arabia has launched a joint military operation with other Arab states against the state of Yemen. The guise is of regional security against extremist rebel elements. The Houthi 'rebels' have taken administrative and military control of large parts of Yemen. The problem? Saudia Arabia may indeed be concerned about the growing threat from ISIS and now the Houthis, but it could be very well to counter the growing Iranian influence in Yemen. The Russian-Iran nexus has criticised this military operation quite strongly.
It becomes problematic when proxy wars are fought over the basis of manufactured labels and classifications. Even if the Houthis are actually rebels, how is the killing of Yemeni civilians justified?
No comments:
Post a Comment