I haven’t seen a thread on this, but you’ve probably heard that the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels are attacking shipping in the Red Sea, standing in solidarity with the Palestinians.
So this has the US and others sending warships to the region, which is a perfectly reasonable and appropriate things to do, IMO.
But today I read that France, Italy, Spain, China, and Saudi Arabia have refused to take part in the coalition.
It seems to me that all those nations (and especially China) benefit from open sea lanes. Arguably, more than the US in this particular case, since I question what percent of US bound ships are going through the Red Sea.
This is maybe one of those cases where the America First crowd has a point- we’re happy to do our part, but if you aren’t willing to help yourself I don’t think we should carry all the burden all the time.
There is probably an element of tangled non-USA relationships in play there - those countries may have varying relationships or commitments with Iran, and to support something that opposes something Iran is supporting means your are going against them. France, in particular, is probably super-sensitive right now about their international image in advance of the Olympics.
the less china - and other countries do - the more US resources will be bound up there … so doing nothing and let the US do the heavy lifting makes sense for them.
The governments of Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand and South Korea joined the U.S. and U.K. in issuing a statement saying that while the aim is to de-escalate tensions and restore stability in the Red Sea, the allies won’t hesitate to defend lives and protect commerce in the critical waterway.
Many of those countries participated in the bombings, although how/to what extent isn’t known ATM. I’m sure the goal is to influence the retaliation calculus, but given the power projection capabilities of those parties I would guess it’s not super effective.
China has by far the most trade travelling through the Red Sea but abstained (along with Russia and two others) from the UN Security Council vote on Wednesday that demanded a halt to the Houthi attacks.
The resolution had the following line which called for
additional practical cooperation to prevent the Houthis from acquiring the materiel necessary to carry out further attacks
This was the green line for the US/UK action. The Houthis and the Saudis are currently in a cease-fire so these event could impact that and China has been working to build that peace as a way to hold influence over the region. They literally don’t want to rock the boat.
At least France and Italy have warships in the red sea as a response to the Houthi threat. As I understand it, they will cooperate with the US alliance, but will prioritize protection of ships under their own flag. So they’re not just freeloading.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who feels this way. In China’s case it’s a cynical political move, and I wonder what would happen if we simply said we wouldn’t defend Chinese-origin ships.
In the other cases, it’s once again saying “let the US handle it.” Which- and I am definitely a globalist- I’m kinda tired of. These missiles cost $1 million each. I wasn’t put on this earth to pay for another rich country’s defense.
Just because they aren’t taking part in a US led coalition does not mean they aren’t acting against the Houthis. Most of those countries have warships in the region, they’re just acting independently.
This is one of those cases where the America First people let their ego get to them by assuming that these coutnries are “either with us or against us”.
Personally, I’m fine with China not handling it. That would mean they have an effective blue-water navy capable of projecting power in the region, and I’d rather they didn’t.
I regret to inform you that China is very likely capable of operating a blue water navy that is certainly sufficient for engaging the Houthis out of their base in nearby Djibouti.
I take issue with that. I don’t think they’re “with us or against us” but you can’t dispute that the US carries more of the burden on these things than anyone else. And then suffers the consequences when something unpleasant happens.
Especially the reporter on ABC Nightly News.