Finding an explanation for the Yemen crisis

Why Saudi’s pre-emptive self-defence?

The outbreak of an intra-state conflict in Yemen followed by the military intervention of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states has raised concerns at different levels of analysis since the ongoing efforts to resolve the conflict are not only challenging the existing paradigms of international law but also highlights the regional power politics in the Middle Eastern region dominated by religion and identity based competition. Moreover, issues concerning the proliferation of violent non-state actors particularly in those states that have experienced the phenomenon of Arab Spring in the recent past draw attention to the inability and incompetency of the nascent democratic political forces across the region to fortify the process of democratisation, hence exacerbating the vulnerability and instability of the Middle Eastern region.

The proximate cause of the current crisis in Yemen goes back to 2011, when Yemen also experienced political upheaval as a part of the spill-over effect of the broader changes brought about in the region owing their origin to the forces of globalisation and democracy, primarily promoted through the power of social media. Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who remained the president of north Yemen from 1978 till 1990 and then the president of United Yemen from 1990 till 2012, resigned and handed over power to his vice president Mansur Hadi. Hadi then continued to be the president of the country after contesting the 2012 elections in which he was the only candidate.

Northern parts of Yemen concentrated by the Shi’a continued to denounce the government of Mansur Hadi since 2012. The president’s efforts to draft the constitution with a proposal to divide the country in six federating units was completely rejected by Houths-impoverished Shi’a faction, which is demanding increased political, social and economic participation in the decision making process of the country. This deadlock has led to a civil war between Houthis and loyal forces of Mansur Hadi from the southern parts of the Yemen. Further, the resistance movement popularly known as al-Hirak; a secessionist movement of military character making irredentist claims to South Yemen has seized the opportunity to demonstrate protests in the wake of growing chaos in the country. The presence of al Qaeda’s off-shoot known as Ansar-al-Sharia in Yemen has already waged a war against the government of Yemen for being one of the “stooges of the US”.

Since 2001, the US and Yemen have been collaborating with one another in counter-terrorist operations with US Special forces stationed in Yemen and training Yemeni Special forces to curb the destabilising elements in the country. Nonetheless, the current situation clearly raises questions regarding the actual motivations of the presence of US forces, since Yemeni forces succumbed to rebel forces quickly leaving the capital Sana’a to be occupied by them. Had the US forces strengthened counter terrorist units of Yemen in the last fourteen years, the world might have experienced the effective manifestation of “state’s monopoly to legitimate use of violence” by the Yemeni government itself to maintain law and order. On the contrary, the Yemeni law enforcing agencies remained unsuccessful in countering the situation themselves and requested the Saudi government to help them in overcoming the crisis.

Northern parts of Yemen concentrated by the Shi’a continued to denounce the government of Mansur Hadi since 2012

The first challenge which Saudi led military intervention poses to international law comes from the fact that this intervention to support Hadi’s government against rebels in the country can neither be qualified as an act of self defence as claimed by the Saudi ambassador to USA nor as an act of collective security as embodied within the principles of international law. Self defence, according to Article 51 of the UN Charter, is justified only once an armed attack has occurred on the state taking the plea of self-defence. Pre-emptory self-defence has no justification within established international legal paradigms. The concept of collective security also remains irrelevant in providing plausible explanation for the Saudi led intervention aimed at re-establishing the status quo by strengthening Hadi’s government. The application of the doctrine of “collective security” is comprehensible only in case of state to state aggression, where security of one state is considered as security of all states which are part of an institutional regional or global security arrangement. Thus, an act of aggression against one state is considered as an act of aggression against all states and collective action is adopted to counter it. A conflict between a state and non-state actor as in case of Yemen does not merit itself for the application of self defence or collective security mechanism. Neither can it be constituted as humanitarian military intervention since the support is extended not to the protesting factions within Yemen but to the government against the rebels. Thus, the Saudi based military intervention remains challenged in this regard.

Secondly, the disillusionment of international norms and values can also be understood while making a comparison of the responses of international and regional powers towards similar crisis experienced by Arab countries primarily including Libya, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain and recently Yemen. The response has varied from biasness to selectivity and from inaction to quick-action based on realpolitik approach implying the significance of geostrategic compulsions and national interests of the responsive states.

For instance, in case of the Libyan crisis of 2011, rebel forces were immediately recognised as “civilians” that required “protection” from genocidal intent of the deceased dictator Gaddafi. Armed opposition group TNC was not only recognised as legitimate government of Libya but rebels were also provided with arms and ammunition through regional actors, primarily Gulf states, to bring about regime change in the country since the dictator was always a nuisance for both regional and global powers. The UN hastened to adopt UNSC resolution 1973, invoking humanitarian intervention in the form of “Responsibility to Protect” implemented through the creation of no-fly-zone in the region. In contrast, the rebel forces in Yemen fighting for the same cause of increased power sharing opportunities according to the UN has staged a coup against the government. As far as the role of the sole superpower is concerned, the grand strategy of the US in the Middle Eastern region revolves around two factors, namely security of its ally Israel and security of energy resources of the region. To preserve its interests, it supports alternates between extending support to dictators to revolutionary forces depending upon the best suited outcome to its own interests. In case of the recent turmoil in Yemen, the US currently favours the status quo since the rebels are protesting along Bab-el-Mandeb, located between Yemen and the African continent, which connects the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea via the Red Sea. The control of Bab-el-Mandeb in the hands of rebels could be an economic and strategic blow to the West since it’s significant for the passage of petroleum products from Asia to Europe and USA.

Thirdly, historical animosity between Sunni authorities of Saudi Arabia and Shi’a authorities of Iran for hegemonic designs in the Middle East has always ignited sectarian violence, primarily through tactical employment of proxies. Sectarian conflicts in the Middle East are one of the main derivatives of authoritarianism that has long prevailed in the region. Rentier states with centralised political systems, and marginalised minority sects had utilised repressive and oppressive policies to maintain pseudo-stability in the region for decades. As rightly pointed out by Vali Nasr in his book The Shi’a Revival that “when change comes in the Middle Eastern states, it is abrupt and violent; what engineers call graceful, as opposed to cataclysmic system transformation, is a difficult thing to bring about in the Middle East”. It is so because the authoritative leaders in the past did not focus on “evolving” the institutions, thus paving the way for “revolutions” to occur.

Abolition of dictatorial rule through radical changes in the region as in case of Yemen has made the peaceful transition towards the democratic future of the country apparently unattainable. The current political instability in Yemen should have been understood as a natural outcome of a situation where dictatorship continued to exist for decades and lack of political institutions make the transitory phase prone to greater violence and instability. However, democracy cannot be achieved instantaneously; it’s a process which develops and strengthens over time with indigenous efforts. Thus, essentially an intra-state conflict with no imminent threat to Saudi Arabia’s security has been transcended beyond the boundaries of Yemen as a projection of wider Sunni-Shi’a rivalry in the region.

History suggests that Pakistan has always remained unsuccessful in establishing a balancing act with regards to relations with Saudi Arabia and Iran

The growing power of the Shi’a crescent from Iraq to Syria in the region has once again highlighted the importance of sectarian identity in the Middle East. Yemen is not any different in this regard. The Shi’a comprised the largest minority group in the country yet remained politically isolated for years under the Saudi and the US backed Sunni authorities of Yemen. Shi’a-Houthis movement was formally launched in 2004 and grabbed the opportunity to exert their influence in the wake of 2011 uprisings. Since 2011, they are consistently protesting on streets and demanding greater political rights. Although the unequivocal support of Iran to the Alawite government of Syria remains a reality, however, the involvement of Iran in supporting Houthis protestors remains less significant yet undeniable considering distinctive changes occurring in the region. Houthis are fiercely anti-US while recent breakthrough in the US and moderate government of Iran makes it dubious that Iran would continue to use Houthis as their strategic weapon since the US still supports Hadi’s government in Yemen.

Moreover, this breakthrough in US-Iran relations has created a security dilemma for Saudi Arabia in the region where possibility of a new US-Iran nexus, similar to one that existed during pre-Iranian revolution, is already being speculated. Thus, the over-powering response of Saudi Arabia to militarily intervene in Yemeni while ruling out the possibilities to resolve the conflict through benign measures can be understood as an amalgamation of the religion and identity based intervention with embedded interest and power based preferences; a power-show exhibiting that extremists will go more extreme to preserve their theological and identity based self-righteousness through covert or overt means.

Emotions of fear, anger, bitterness and hatred and not to mention exploitation by global powers as manifested through Yemeni crisis this time, would continue to plague the Middle Eastern region unless states at individual level respond to the needs and demands of aggrieved factions through problem solving approaches that require inclusion of all communities in the power sharing mechanism. At regional level, rightful intentions accompanied with relentless commitment and dedication with meaningful dialogue between Shi’a and Sunni authorities can ensure stability which in turn could establish hopes of equal and balanced relations between the East and the West. However, keeping in mind the current fragility and hostilities of the region it appears utopian that states would alleviate their power centric political approach to achieve what Immanuel Kant called “Perpetual Peace”.

On a side note, history suggests that Pakistan has always remained unsuccessful in establishing a balancing act with regards to relations with Saudi Arabia and Iran. Thus, Pakistan’s inclination to support Saudi Arabia comes as no surprise despite the fact that it can result in severe unintended consequences for the country where likelihood of sectarian conflicts flaring up remains as real as ever.