Opinion: Yemen's grim reality

Despite the recent expressions of unity within the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) following the al Ula summit, a unified approach towards Yemen appears unlikely. Continued external interference will exacerbate the political stalemate and add to the suffering of the Yemeni people, argue Mahmoud Shamsan and Noman Ahmed in this op-ed.

In 2011, the wave of uprisings across the Middle East reached Yemen as demonstrators protested for social and economic rights. The Yemeni youth revolution is often described as the “stolen uprising” in which many political parties supported by foreign actors hijacked and marginalised the demands of the revolutionary youth. Qatar was one of the countries who supported the uprising from early on, causing concern amongst its neighbours. The Yemeni scenario would soon contribute to the diplomatic rift between Qatar and its Arab neighbours. Yemen suffered much from foreign interference and progress towards a political resolution remains unlikely despite the recent reconciliation within the GCC.

On 3rd, April 2011, Gulf Cooperation Council, supported a Saudi-led initiative to settle the situation by arranging the transfer of power to the then Vice President Abdu Rabbu Mansoor Hadi, following peaceful protests. The following year, an uncontested election confirmed Hadi as the legitimate president and soon a dialogue process, known as the National Dialogue Conference (NDC), was launched to create a federal state with all political factions represented. Unfortunately, the restructuring of the armed forces and the political transition only happened on paper, stalling any progress.

Over the next few years, the domestic situation in Yemen pushed Qatar away from its GCC partners. Qatar’s rapprochement with the Houthis, and generally with Iran, on one front; and their alignment with Al Islah party on the other front angered its neighbours.

However, Qatar and GCC cannot be solely blamed for this deterioration and lack of progress. The Yemeni war is a culmination of decades long crisis of sovereignty. The events in the past ten years. and the recent GCC rift, have simply prolonged the prospects of a political settlement. Fortunately, and to the benefit of the Gulf states, the blockade of Qatar has now been lifted, and the Arabs states involved restored normal ties. This, however, does not entail their policy towards various political actors in Yemen will forthwith be harmonious, as each state has fostered its own proxy actors and identified its interests in the Yemeni political process, and this is likely to persist.

Several scenarios could play out in Yemen in the aftermath of the Gulf reconciliation.

The first scenario entails Qatari support for Saudi security and military policy in Yemen. This scenario will depend on how much the Saudis would want to involve the Qataris in Yemeni affairs. The Al Ula statement coming out of the GCC 41st summit explicitly referred to supporting Yemen at both humanitarian and political levels. The statement, nonetheless, did not explicitly suggest what role would the GCC play in this process.

If Qatar works within the framework of the Arab coalition and within the parameters set by Saudi Arabia, it will have to scale down its tacit support of the Houthi cause and refrain from polishing their political image.  Nevertheless, the designation of the Houthis as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) by the United States, will push Qatar to revaluate its commitment to the Houthis.

The coalition, or at least the UAE, could also require Qatar not to support the Al Islah party due to their links with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is anathema for the Emiratis.

This first scenario is more likely to occur if the Saudi leadership of the Arab coalition involved in Yemen remains uncontested. There are other factors such as pressure that may be forthcoming from the Biden administration which could challenge this Saudi leadership and force it to alter its course. In this case, Qatar may have more leeway in shaping the political future in Yemen. With the current designation of Houthis as a Foreigner Terrorist Organisation (FTO), Qatar may wish to play a mediating role by hosting dialogue between Houthis and the Saudis given that the Houthis would be in a de jure isolation. While this dialogue could open prospects for progress, the Yemeni government would be forced to accept a role for the Houthis’ in Yemen’s political future, an idea that is currently dismissed by the majority in the Yemeni political landscape.

ِIn another scenario, both Qatar and UAE, now with full diplomatic relations restored, could implicitly continue their support of various proxy groups. Hence, the Gulf reconciliation would not reflect a unified policy towards Yemen with each group supporting its ideologically aligned militia group. The Saudi-backed government would then have to suffer from a lack of cooperation from Qatari-supported and UAE-supported political and military factions. If such a situation occurs, the legitimate government would be weakened and the struggle against the Houthis will hit another bump giving the Houthis a higher leverage both militarily and politically despite their designation as a terror organisation. In this scenario the Yemeni political process would face years of further stalemate and the services and security situation in government held areas will likely worsen, with ramifications on the humanitarian situation.

It most cases, the Yemeni government would have to consider, and perhaps accept, a political situation that doesn’t meet its interests. The Houthis will continue pressuring the Yemeni government and deny it the chance to reach its goals. The government itself may continue to be riddled by divisions within its ranks. The clear winner here are the external forces that seek to undermine Yemen’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Those suffering the most from continued political stalemate will be Yemen’s 30 million population of whom critical numbers are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance.  As Nicholas Kristof said in a recent article in the New York Times, Yemen’s starving children will not cry. Instead, they will remain eerily calm; apathetic and often expressionless in the face of a failing political system. 

source: Mahmoud Shamsan is a Yemeni activist focusing on social and political issues of Yemen and the Middle East, and  initiator of several cultural and humanitarian initiatives in Aden, Yemen. He is an engineering graduate and is currently based in Turkey.  Noman Ahmed is a research associate at LINKS Europe.
photo: Houthi Troops in Yemen's capital, Sanaa (archive picture).

 

The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)