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 EUās diplomatic service proposes sending āat least threeā warships with āmulti mission capabilitiesā to the region as early as next month.
The document recommends the āfast-tracking implementationā of an operation mandated to act āfrom the Red Sea to the Gulf,ā 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 doesnāt 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 itās all paid for by the US taxpayers.
If flies under that flag just to save on taxes and labor laws. The ship owners donāt want safety, or at least they donāt want to pay for it. Let them suffer. Care for the crews, if possible, but let the owners rot.
The ship owners donāt want safety, or at least they donāt want to pay for it. Let them suffer.
The ship owners (the company owners) are more than likely not on that ship. Itās just regular workers.
Thereās no way to ālet them rotā without risking the lives of the people on the ship.
I get that Lemmy has a very diehard āeat the richā stance, and I do too, but make sure itās 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 citizensā¦ 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 donāt want an escalation of tensions in the middle east." The US then proceeds to escalate tensions in the middle east.
Itās one of the most glaring examples of disconnect between what theyāre saying and what theyāre doing that Iāve seen.
The US is lying about their intent again to no oneās 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 canāt expect them to do nothing.
More than weeks, itās been going on since November. Itās 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 Yemenās missile attacks and hijackings of civilian ships.
Well, for weeks before the Houthis said that the reason for the blockade is Israelās 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 itās 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, itās 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 itās 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 theyāre simply providing cover for Israel to continue bombing Gaza and terrorising the West Bank.
Replying from my alt account
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In a document dated January 10 and seen by Euronews, the EUās diplomatic service proposes sending āat least threeā warships with āmulti mission capabilitiesā to the region as early as next month.
The document recommends the āfast-tracking implementationā of an operation mandated to act āfrom theĀ Red Sea to the Gulf,ā 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 attacksĀ 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 Spainās prime minister Pedro SĆ”nchez, who said the country was āwillingā to consider a bespoke European mission to patrol the area and protect Europeās 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%. Iām a bot and Iām open source!
