The humanitarian crisis in yemen has been one of the most devastating and underreported tragedies of the past decade. Ongoing conflict, blockades, economic collapse, and foreign intervention have led to the deaths of nearly a quarter of a million people, including tens of thousands of children. Despite being labeled the world’s worst humanitarian crisis by the UN, the plight of yemen rarely garners the global attention it desperately needs. Many international activists and movements that focus on justice and human rights have often overlooked or minimally engaged with the crisis, leading to frustration and accusations of selective outrage.
When it comes to environmental or social justice movements like the one led by Greta Thunberg, critics argue that they focus disproportionately on causes that align with Western political and media interests or that receive significant global traction, such as climate strikes in wealthy nations. While the climate crisis certainly affects vulnerable regions like yemen — through drought, crop failure, and water scarcity — the intersection of war, famine, and climate collapse is complex and rarely addressed in mainstream activism. Activists like Thunberg may argue their focus is environmental rather than geopolitical, but the failure to speak up on issues like yemen raises questions about the inclusivity and scope of their moral compass.
This selective engagement fosters skepticism and disillusionment, especially when activists show strong solidarity with some causes (like Palestine) while remaining silent on others (like yemen or Sudan). Some interpret this as a form of ideological favoritism or even opportunism, choosing causes that resonate more with Western guilt or progressive trends. Critics argue that if these movements were truly driven by compassion and global justice, they would consistently raise their voices against all forms of suffering, regardless of media visibility or political convenience. The disparity suggests that many so-called global movements are more reflective of Western sentiment than universal humanitarian principles.
When it comes to environmental or social justice movements like the one led by Greta Thunberg, critics argue that they focus disproportionately on causes that align with Western political and media interests or that receive significant global traction, such as climate strikes in wealthy nations. While the climate crisis certainly affects vulnerable regions like yemen — through drought, crop failure, and water scarcity — the intersection of war, famine, and climate collapse is complex and rarely addressed in mainstream activism. Activists like Thunberg may argue their focus is environmental rather than geopolitical, but the failure to speak up on issues like yemen raises questions about the inclusivity and scope of their moral compass.
This selective engagement fosters skepticism and disillusionment, especially when activists show strong solidarity with some causes (like Palestine) while remaining silent on others (like yemen or Sudan). Some interpret this as a form of ideological favoritism or even opportunism, choosing causes that resonate more with Western guilt or progressive trends. Critics argue that if these movements were truly driven by compassion and global justice, they would consistently raise their voices against all forms of suffering, regardless of media visibility or political convenience. The disparity suggests that many so-called global movements are more reflective of Western sentiment than universal humanitarian principles.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel