After the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led coalition bombed a hospital in Yemen supported by Doctors Without Borders on Monday, the U.S. State Department offered a rare condemnation of the coalition’s violence.
“Of course we condemn the attack,” said Elizabeth Trudeau, a spokesman for the State Department.
The State Department has previously deflected questions about coalition attacks by referring reporters to the Saudi government — even though the U.S. has supplied the coalition with billions of dollars of weapons, and has refueled Saudi planes.
Trudeau also stressed that “U.S. officials regularly engage with Saudi officials” about civilian casualties — a line that spokespeople have repeated for months. Saudi Arabia has nevertheless continued to bomb civilian sites, including homes, markets, factories, and schools.
“We’ve also encouraged them to do their utmost to protect entities protected by international law, such as hospitals,” said Trudeau.
But for the Saudi coalition, bombing medical facilities has become business as usual. In October, the coalition bombed an MSF-supported hospital in Yemen’s Haydan district, destroying the only emergency medical facility serving 200,000 people. (Doctors Without Borders is also known as Médecins Sans Frontières, or MSF.) In December, airstrikes destroyed an MSF clinic in Taiz while doctors were treating the wounded from a nearby Saudi airstrike in a park. And in January, the coalition destroyed a hospital in Razeh district, killing five people — and killing an ambulance driver working for MSF later that month.
Those strikes have been widely reported because they targeted a prominent Western charity, but the coalition has likely carried out far more attacks on Yemeni-run hospitals. During the first eight months of the war, between March and November 2015, the International Red Cross received hundreds of reports on attacks on health facilities throughout the country.
The hospital attack comes in the midst of an aggressive offensive by the Saudi regime after Houthi rebels in Yemen rejected a one-sided peace deal earlier this month. The coalition has since destroyed a food factory, a children’s school, and a bridge that Oxfam described as “the main supply route for Sana.”
On Monday, Trudeau also denounced the destruction of the bridge. “We have seen those reports, and if the bridge was deliberately struck by coalition forces, we would find this completely unacceptable,” she said. “The bridge was critical for the delivery of humanitarian assistance, destruction will further complicate efforts to provide assistance to the people of Yemen.”
Trudeau clarified with reporters after the briefing that she meant that statement as a condemnation. “The bridge — you saw me condemn that today,” she said. Condemnation, rather than, say, concern, is considered strong diplomatic language.
The Saudi-led campaign in Yemen has launched the country into a humanitarian crisis. In March 2015, Saudi Arabia has imposed a strict blockade on Yemen, which previously imported 90 percent of its food and medicine. According to UNICEF in May, the conflict has left 21 million people in need of urgent humanitarian assistance, and more than 300,000 children under 5 at risk of severe malnutrition.
Despite the condemnations, Trudeau refused to say whether the State Department would reconsider arming the Saudi regime. “I have nothing to preview on that,” she said.
Top Photo: Jet fighters of the Saudi Royal air force performs during the graduation ceremony of the 83rd batch of King Faisal Air Academy.
Translation into English: don’t get caught again.
“Despite the condemnations, Trudeau refused to say whether the State Department would reconsider arming the Saudi regime.”
Nothing will change, because the American people don’t give a damn about other countries; we are too indispensable and exceptional to care about anything but Trump and Hillary.
I seriously doubt MSF is this unlucky. It’s as if the major military powers (the US, Russia and Saudi Arabia) have decided that MSF’s work goes against their interests.
Certainly looks that way. Discourage any presence of international humanitarian eyes on the ground in any of these horrible, dirty, soulless, scorched earth campaigns to kill poor people.
Its not really terrorism if real humans (Americans) aren’t killed
U.S.A. Terrorists #1 at home and abroad.
They were caught with their pants down; what else will they say ? Hypocrites.
Really terrible that I thought the mass murder of those MSF workers I read about on The Intercept earlier this year or last year (I honestly can’t remember and am using TOR) were going to be the only ones that I discovered had been bombed to death in the Middle East. When do they plan on dropping the nuclear warheads on the hospital in Iran?
The US State Department’s is condemning violence!
Why? Do they also think that they own the patent for bombing hospitals?
Or .. They are afraid not enough (patented) explosives were used?
” ‘Of course we condemn the attack,’ said Elizabeth Trudeau, a spokesman for the State Department.”
The “of course” gives it away, doesn’t it. Yes we were going to get right around to condemning that attack, you happened to ask and that reminded me.
i guess we should expect that professional writers will attach more importance to mere words than the rest of us
Why does it seem the older I get the more corrupt the world governments get? What would happen if every person in the USA REFUSED to pay taxes to this government since they are supporting TERRORISM? I truly want someone to explain this to me . I really want to understand why this is OKAY with taxpayers. IS it not true that if we sent money to someone in the middle east the USA government would not have us under surveillance? Why is it okay for government to be terrorist and it be legal?
If you can imagine everybody taking the extraordinary step of not paying taxes, then why not go way farther than just that and imagine far more sweeping actions, given that level of commitment…..although I question whether imagining utopias is an effective way of improving current conditions in a world mostly full of people just trying to get on.
I am glad you are starting to grasp the bigger picture. I like to ask myself how we would feel if someone did to us as a people what this country gets away with doing to people. I am pretty sure we would be acting even worse than the people we see fit to oppress. Equally, I like to ask how we would feel about hostile forces at or near our borders. It didn’t go over very well during the Cold War and I do not think we will be lucky enough to get a JFK to cool things off. Yet we do this (nb I am neither ‘pro-Russia nor anti-America; I am pro-sovereignty for every nation (or what’s the point?)) in eastern Europe, the ME, etc, and demand acquiescence. At times I do not think it is at all about the nukes at all, but rather about making sure we ‘get what we want’ (whatever that may be); the thing might be less relevant than merely the narcissistic demand for obeisance on bended knee. And after we have gotten that everywhere else, maybe the only logical end is essentially cannibalism of our own people, surveillance of our own people, and enslavement of our own people. Maybe not even for the power. Maybe they just do it for the entertainment value.
Didn’t the US bomb one in Kunduz not so long ago? Being as I originally read about that over here it seems a chunky over site that it wasn’t mentioned in this article. Bombing hospitals in the Middle East either by or with weapons from the US is practically a fad nowadays.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike
In October, the coalition bombed an MSF-supported hospital in Yemen’s Haydan district, destroying the only emergency medical facility serving 200,000 people
WELL GEE WIZ, HELLERY.
Hellery would say, “Well it aint like Palestine for pete’s sake. At least in Palestine the elimination of the population there isn’t currently being broadcasted by my supporters, right? And i’m pleased as punch to be able to provide sufficient color to the entire area of yemen to be a terrorist state and eliminating the entire population there is a blessing for the planet… and the Saudi friends too by the way. And another thing, anybody complaining about this being genocide? Uh uh. No no. All this is perfectly legal. a ha ha ha ha.”
loved the saudi response after bombing the school:
“We would have hoped MSF would take measures to stop the recruitment of children to fight in wars instead of crying over them in the media.”
that’s right…they didn’t just kill 10+ kids, they then accused the kids of being “child soldiers”. these are the apes that enjoy bipartisan support from the whores in congress. that’s why a “rare rebuke” is all we’ll ever get. ask ban ki moon.
best to just hope the houthis continue being ridiculously good at what they do and wipe out enough wahabi pricks (along with the central american death squad scumbags and the US mercs helping the subhumans with their carthaginian schemes) to produce a saudi vietnam.
They are right children are hired to plant to mines and fight in battle fields. What is wrong? Your comment shows how ignorant you are. What do you mean by saying wahabi? You hate SA for being muslims or what. Wahabi is a fictional word. It does not exist.
In a report by the legislative government, they mentioned that children are hired to plant mines and fight in battle fields. So, SA in their response did not make assumptions based on nothing. As for the part of your point, you shift the blame to SA without paying attention to the whole story. Houthis are part of Iran. Iran would never stop spreading chaos in the region.
P.R. pure and simple Separate yourself from your proxy by name, but the money and the effect intended remain making it a win-win for the operative U.S. government strategists. It appears that this “condemnation” occurred much more quickly than that of our own recent military atrocity on DWOB in Afghanistan. They are playing the public.
Hellery: “naughty naughty you little kingdom stinky winkies…… wanna buy some more weapons? you must be running low by now. gotta deal for ya. already negotiated. and dont forget my CGI. and i tossed in a bonus for ya – next time in town, my speaking fee is half off. a ha ha ha ha.”
Apparently the State Department is changing its tack, and now uses sarcasm. How otherwise to explain how there was no real US government response to the US’ own, hour-long attack on the MSF hospital in Kabul (other than a ‘change in procedures’) and the US’ tacit approval of the numerous Israeli attacks on hospitals and UN schools in Gaza.
An alternative explanation for the State Department statement is the desire of the Obama administration to paint its candidate for the presidency in a light that juxtaposes well with that cast on the other major candidate of the Party. You know, as in the democrats are such fucking humanitarians. What a laugh.
No, no, no.
You’ve got it all wrong.
This is all part of executive order US-8675309 in which Obama decreed 2016 to be the Tribute To Mel Brooks Year.
How else can you explain State Department condemnations of atrocities we enable, and Trump vs Clinton?
In December, Obama will end his final press conference by putting a gun to his head saying “Nobody move, or I’ll shoot the nigger” as he backs out of the room.
It’s true.
Snopes gave a harrumph to it.
If they really opposed bombing civilians, the US establishment wouldn’t keep selling the Saudis or the Israelis weapons, plus they would themselves stop bombing civilians in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and so on. So this is just bullshitting.
They obviously don’t give a damn about civilian casualties. What they care about is resources (mainly oil and pipelines), money, and power. The U.S. and its proxies have killed many times more people in my lifetime than all other governments combined.
As others here have said, this is just PR. Condemnations mean nothing without actions like cutting off military supplies to Saudi Arabia, but that won’t happen because of oil, both for the ultra rich who profit from it, and for rich Americans who insist on driving everywhere on cheap oil.
Donald Trump is dangerous in theory.
Hillary Clinton is dangerous in application.
It is too bad three of the four major media outlets refuse to apply scrutiny to her record and judgment. Meanwhile, the fourth (FOX News) has spent so many years flaming garbage conspiracy theories and grasping at straws that it has killed its credibility in the eyes of most non-right-wingers.
I agree with you almost completely. The only caveat is Trump’s implied threat of being the first to use nuclear weapons, something over which neither Congress nor the courts have any control. (And to make matters worse, the NY Times just today ran an editorial saying the US should institute a policy of no first use! Dumb me, thinking that had always been our policy. But sorry, guys and gals, that horse has left the barn now: a policy instituted this late would be rightly rejected by Trump as simple obstructionism, and overturned.)
Apart from the possibility of The Donald nuking someone and starting a general exchange of thermonuclear weapons, Hillary Clinton is far more dangerous, because the morons we keep sending to Congress will be more inclined to cooperate with her than with Trump.
Always been our policy? Two civilian cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We are the only country to kill with nuclear weapons, and we even did it twice for no significant reason!
Thank you for your post. I can only think that at the present time, we are at the cusp of more violent wars if Hillary gets the nod. Sure, Trump is a bloviating dolt/blowhard/ egotist, but really I fear for the world. Hillary and Nutjobyahu will most certainly lead us into Iran, the only true democratic country in the ME, until, the CIA and the MI6 overthrew Mossadeq, and installed the Shah to cowtow to the whims of the Western World, (read oil). Be afraid going forward.
RoI, power, a place on a rapidly changing global stage…. Those are clearly a significant reason to be proud too bomb civilian centers in horrific ways with WMDs. The capacity of people to do evil things is astounding.
Clearly I mis-spoke. What I was referring to was the announced position of every single US president during the cold war, that we would never initiate a nuclear exchange against the Soviet Union, but would retaliate to any nuclear attack with the full force of our arsenal. The doctrine was called MAD, mutually assured destruction.
Hillary is more likely to stumble into a war than calculatingly start one
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/is-hillary-a-warmonger_b_10440976.html
Great link..I’ve seen you post it a couple of times before but never clicked on it. Michael Brenner’s analysis is spot on, though I do disagree with his assertion that she is more likely to “stumble into” a war than calculatingly start one. I believe that all wars have a lot of planning and preparation involved in “starting” them, and in perpetuating them, and the warhawks “advising” Hillary are chomping at the bit…
I’ll open it up everytime you post it and re-read the article, as it often takes me multiple readthroughs to fully “grok” a meaty text anyways….but only if you’ll afford me the same consideration with my “favorite link”, namely this one:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-us-created-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad
Deal? : )
…on another note, I was channel surfing through the waves of TV muck, and happened to land on “Nightline”. It was the middle of their “teaser” for the later segment, and I heard a pleasant, excited-sounding female voice greet my ears with:
“..by ex-boyfriend Justin Bieber, sparking a social media feud!…but first, the Nightline 5….”
I thought to myself, “Ted Coppell would be rolling over in his grave!..wait, is Ted Coppell dead?”
Insofar as conventional wars are concerned, I completely agree with you. Whereas Trump would probably escalate US involvement in Syria, and seek confrontation against Iran, Hillary could be safely assumed to do far more than just that. On the other hand, I don’t see her as someone who would initiate use of nuclear weapons against anyone.
Although it may seem a subtle distinction, I contend that there is a very substantial difference between the postwar environments of a nuclear versus non-nuclear war.
Also, I do not mean to imply support for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump; I reject them both. The only sensible thing for any humanist to do in this election is vote for Jill Stein, and to be very careful about who they support for Congress.
If it isn’t too uncouth to say on this very serious commenting section, you deserve a hug. :)
The US did not have a no first use policy during the Cold War.
When you support Trump you support his advisors, the military, the IC and his pride. Imho the one thing I pay attention to the most is veto power. Then I ask myself “can this person stand up to inordinate pressure from powerful forces?” Providing they possess a set of ethical beliefs I consider to be beneficial for society, if they can do so, then that is who gets my vote. I honestly do not know how well Stein will hold up, but I do know of all of the candidates with any chance to win (and obviously that chance is kind of slim) I would personally like to see her try. At a minimum she is probably fairly stubborn compared to Bush and Obama.