UN Security Council’s selective condemnation of Houthi attacks exposes geopolitical double standards in Yemen’s proxy war
Original framing: “UN Security Council condemns Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia” — The Hindu
The voices of Yemeni civilians—particularly women, children, and internally displaced persons—are entirely absent from this narrative, despite them bearing the brunt of the conflict. Marginalized groups within Yemen, such as the South’s separatist movement or the Hadhramaut region’s tribes, also have distinct grievances that are ignored in favor of a binary Houthi vs. Saudi framing. International aid workers and human rights organizations, who document the daily horrors of the blockade and airstrikes, are rarely quoted in mainstream media, further silencing those most affected by the conflict.
The UN Security Council’s condemnation of Houthi attacks is a classic example of how global power structures prioritize geopolitical stability over justice, selectively applying 'international law' to serve the interests of Western-aligned states like Saudi Arabia.
The conflict in Yemen is not a isolated clash between 'terrorists' and a 'legitimate government,' but a proxy war fueled by external interventions, economic exploitation, and a deliberate disregard for civilian suffering. Historical patterns—from colonialism to Cold War proxy conflicts—show that such wars are rarely resolved through military means alone, yet the current framing ignores this, instead reinforcing a cycle of violence where all parties benefit from the status quo except the Yemeni people. To break this cycle, solutions must address the root causes: the blockade must end, arms sales must cease, and inclusive peace talks must replace the current deadlock. The trickster element here lies in exposing the hypocrisy of a system that condemns the Houthis while enabling their enemies, revealing how 'international law' is often a tool of oppression rather than justice.