[icopyright one button toolbar]

The Saudi intervention in Yemen as the lead military power in a Gulf coalition opens a Pandora’s Box that could be the first fatal step in unravelling the United Nations security system set up after World War II.

The UN system prohibits military intervention in any foreign country without Security Council authorization and the UN’s founding principle, considered sacrosanct by many, is non-interference in the internal affairs of another nation.

The US, former Soviet Union and Russia have regularly flouted these UN principles but no middle sized regional power has dared to do so.

The Saudi intervention sets a precedent that could be potentially more destabilizing for the UN’s peace and security system than Super Power interventions since the UN depends on adherence by all members.

It could start unravelling if other middle level powers begin settling scores militarily across borders with neighbors — much like the proliferation of nuclear weapons would puncture the global UN system if signatories to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) start flouting it with impunity.

The NPT expects forbearance although five major powers officially possess nuclear arsenals and four others, including Israel, have them. The ongoing negotiations with Iran are on this point.

Some 193 countries have signed up to belong to the United Nations mainly because of the mutual pledge of all members not to use armed force against any member’s territory and abjure interference in its internal affairs.

Most UN members accept occasional US violations of UN principles because US power is overwhelming and they broadly trust that Washington acts after transparent deliberations to prevent humanitarian disasters against civilians.

Saudi Arabia has not earned such an exceptional status. Its example will make countries more wary of neighbors especially if they profess a different religion or sect, and could heighten local and regional arms races.

With many countries already buying more lower-cost weapons from China, Russia, Israel and India, Washington no longer has control over national arsenals. If it acts as global or regional policeman, its coalition soldiers may face more unfamiliar and lethal weapons systems reducing the credibility of American force.

There is a real risk of reversal to a 19th century world when coalitions and temporary alliances regularly went to war to settle local quarrels. That is the opposite of the UN-regulated world order established by the US after World War II and kept within disciplines by the threat or use of American military power.

From its viewpoint the Saudi regime, which claims to lead all Sunni Muslims as the custodian of Sunni Islam, has good reasons to intervene militarily in Yemen’s internal affairs especially in light of Shia Iran’s rising influence in its near abroad. But this turns the situation into a religious war that has little to do with preventing global disorder.

The Saudis can cite as precedents American and European military interventions, not backed by the UN Security Council, in several countries including Serbia, Libya, Iraq and the Horn of Africa.

But there are crucial differences. Each American intervention was undertaken to prevent humanitarian catastrophes, had nothing to do with religion, and none was designed to obtain US or coalition political hegemony over the territories involved.

The broader goals were to promote democratic and inclusive governments committed to human rights protection although things often went horribly wrong because of prolonged infighting among the authoritarian governments and tribal militias from which the US tried to protect innocent civilians.

The Saudi intervention has no similar justifications. It was launched suddenly without any discussion at the UN and even Washington seemed surprised.

For boots on the ground, it has offers from the world’s two quasi failed regimes – Sudan whose president Omar al-Bashir is sought by the International Criminal Court on charges of genocide, and Pakistan, which provides safe haven for al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists.

The chief Saudi purpose seems to be to enforce restoration of a Saudi-backed administration established in Yemen in 2012. President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi who fled the country earlier this week led that administration.

Another reason is Sunni Saudi Arabia’s fear of a takeover in Yemen by an offshoot of Shia Islam practiced by the Houthi tribe and former despot Ali Abdullah Saleh, who was a US-backed President for 13 years and a top Yemeni leader for 33.

Yemeni military units loyal to him are currently fighting alongside the Houthis to capture Aden, a strategic port for Saudi and global oil transport, and to help consolidate Houthi power in Sanaa, the capital.

Current indications are that the Saudis will not be able to control Yemen without putting Saudi boots on the ground, thus taking heavy casualties because Yemenis of any kind are no less fierce and hostile to foreign invaders than Afghans.

graphic via shutterstock.com