By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Amidst the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Houthis, a surprising revelation has emerged: the Houthis are operating a large oil tanker, the Yemen, originally purchased by the UN for $55 million. The vessel was intended to prevent an environmental disaster by offloading oil from a decaying tanker, the FSO Safer. Despite the UN’s efforts, the Yemen has reportedly been used to store Russian oil, violating international sanctions. Furthermore, the Houthis have utilized the tanker to load and transfer oil, drawing criticism from the UN, while Israel has targeted the Yemen’s infrastructure with airstrikes.
Read the original article here
As Israel strikes Yemen, investigation reveals UN funding Houthis’ massive oil tanker.
This whole situation is, to put it mildly, a tangled mess. You have Israel engaging in strikes in Yemen, and then you unearth this bombshell: an investigation reveals the UN is directly funding the Houthis’ operation of a massive oil tanker. It’s a narrative that just keeps unraveling, the more you look at it. It really does give you something to think about.
The UN, you see, isn’t some independent entity pulling the strings. It’s a collection of member states, acting on the collective will of the majority. Their decisions, their funding – it all reflects the priorities of its members. And in this case, we find the UN Development Programme (UNDP) channeling funds towards the upkeep of a massive oil tanker, a ship controlled by the Houthis. This tanker isn’t just any vessel; it’s reportedly been used to store Russian oil, enabling the Houthis to sidestep international sanctions.
The investigation points to the UNDP shelling out $450,000 a month to cover the tanker’s maintenance and crew salaries. This is not some peripheral matter; it’s a direct financial contribution to an entity that, according to reports, is also using this vessel for activities that are not in alignment with international norms. Moreover, the Israeli military has stated that the Houthis have equipped the vessel with a maritime radar system used to target other ships in the Red Sea. So essentially, the UN is helping to maintain and keep running a vessel that is actively being used to target other vessels. This is bad.
Now, the response from the UN is noteworthy. They claim to have “sharply criticized” the use of the tanker for the transportation of Russian oil. However, mere criticism seems woefully inadequate when faced with the reality of the situation. Are they even thinking of what happens if this is struck by a missile. It would be a catastrophe.
This whole affair brings to the forefront questions about the UN’s role and its priorities. It seems that the UN mission of maintaining international peace and security, promoting friendly relations among nations, and fostering international cooperation has been lost in translation. With the US contributing a large chunk of the UN’s budget, you have to wonder if this is the way they had intended for their funds to be allocated.
It’s easy to see how the UN’s actions in this case appear to contradict the very principles it claims to uphold. There is also the underlying issue of the UN’s complex relationship with the Middle East. One cannot deny the pattern of bias and the disproportionate focus on Israel. The UN’s anti-Israel stance, with more resolutions condemning Israel than all other countries combined, raises serious questions about fairness and impartiality. It’s hard to ignore how this is playing out.
The UN Human Rights Council’s exclusive focus on Israel, along with instances of anti-Semitic language employed by UN investigators, only deepens the distrust. The legacy of the “Zionism is racism” resolution and the failure to condemn Hamas by name further fuels skepticism. It appears to many that the UN is more concerned with criticizing Israel than addressing genuine issues.
This situation involving the oil tanker becomes a microcosm of a much larger problem. There’s a pattern of behavior that seems to prioritize certain political agendas over the core mission of the UN. The fact that the UN is involved in funding an entity that is potentially involved in activities that threaten international stability is a major cause for concern. It’s easy to see how this narrative can easily be interpreted as a sign of bias.
One has to question why the UN is providing financial support to an entity that is actively working against its own supposed goals. It begs the question: is the UN actually promoting peace and security, or is it enabling those who are contributing to the conflict? It’s a damning situation.
Ultimately, the revelation of the UN’s funding of the Houthi oil tanker is a wake-up call. It forces us to question the UN’s actions and motives. It’s a stark reminder that even international organizations can fall prey to bias, political agendas, and a lack of accountability. It shows the need for a more critical evaluation of the UN’s activities, especially when it comes to the allocation of funds and its role in complex geopolitical situations. The UN needs to re-evaluate how and where they are providing funding.