The US fears pulling the plug on Saleh will destabilise Yemen. But
the political impasse, hunger and conflict are doing it already
By Simon Tisdall
Yemen's foreign minister, Abu Bakr al-Qirbi, at a session of the UN human rights council held in the wake of the violence in Sana'a. Photograph: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/Getty Images
The
Yemeni regime's indiscriminate machine-gunning of demonstrators in the capital,
Sana'a, and the opposition's furious reaction, suggests the country's
eight-month-old crisis may be coming to a head. But the interests of two key
outside players, the US and Saudi Arabia, remain focused more on strategic
security and terrorism concerns than on spreading democracy and prosperity in
the Arabian peninsula.
The
US stepped up pressure last week for an end to the rule of President Ali
Abdullah Saleh, urging the regime to accept a previously formulated political
transition deal within seven days. The plan, mediated by the Saudis and other
members of the Gulf Co-operation Council, calls for a government of national
unity, presidential elections and a new constitution.
But
Saleh, holed up in Saudi Arabia after an assassination attempt in June, has so
far resisted the plan's key provision – that he step down and hand over power
to his vice-president in exchange for immunity. Although the US state
department said it was "encouraged" that Saleh had ceded negotiating
authority to his deputy, there is as yet no sign that either the US or the
Saudis are ready or willing to force his departure from the scene. If they
were, they surely would have done it months ago, one way or another. This
hesitation to definitively pull the plug, despite rising mayhem in Sana'a and
other Yemeni cities, contrasts sharply with the way Washington ruthlessly cut
Hosni Mubarak's legs from under him in Egypt. Indeed, Riyadh's unelected
princelings strongly objected to Mubarak's treatment, viewing it as a dangerous
precedent, and now appear doubly determined to prevent Saleh being disposed of
in the same manner. Even if a transition deal is agreed, Saleh might remain in
power almost indefinitely by finessing its terms.
Yet
the principal reason why the regime is still in power is overriding US and
Saudi worries about the potentially hugely destabilising ramifications of what
may follow. The street-level, pro-democracy, Arab-spring struggle is but one
aspect of a wider, more complex Yemeni conflict.
Others
facets include power struggles between military and business elites,
long-standing tribal rivalries, armed separatism in the south, Iranian-fomented
Shia Muslim rebellion in the north, and most significant of all (for the Saudis
and Americans), the tightening grip on Yemen of al-Qaida in the Arabian
Peninsula – viewed by Washington as a bigger threat than al-Qaida in
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Saleh,
for all his faults, was a staunch post-9/11 "war on terror" ally. The
bottom-line fear shared in European capitals is that without Saleh Yemen could
become a failed state, threatening Saudi Arabia's soft underbelly and thus
western oil and gas supplies.
This
may help explain why the US has been much more active bombing Yemen than
reforming it in recent months. Obama administration officials told Karen
DeYoung of the Washington Post this weekend that the US has "significantly
increased" the number of Pakistan-style unmanned drone attacks on White House-approved
al-Qaida targets, mostly in south Yemen. The CIA had been told to expand its
Yemen operations and was building a new regional base, the officials said.
Several drone attacks each week have been reported by local media. None of the
attacks is publicly acknowledged.
In
a speech at Harvard last week, John Brennan, Barack Obama's counter-terrorism
adviser, indicated that Washington sees Yemen first and foremost as an
important new battleground rather than a future bastion of Arab democracy.
"The United States does not view our authority to use military force
against al-Qaida as being restricted solely to 'hot' battlefields like
Afghanistan," he said. "We reserve the right to take unilateral
action if or when other governments are unwilling or unable to take the
necessary actions themselves." Brennan maintained that this doctrine did
not mean the US could use military force "whenever we want, wherever we
want" – but it certainly points that way.
Amid
the military escalation and political wrangling, another battle is taking shape
in Yemen that could be more lethal than all that has gone before. According to
a new report published by Oxfam, many Yemeni communities are "on the brink
of disaster" due to rising hunger caused by rocketing food and fuel prices.
Child malnutrition in Yemen, already the third highest in the world, is rising.
Making matters worse, about 90,000 people have been displaced by fighting in
the south.
But
instead of increasing humanitarian relief and other assistance to Yemen as the
crisis deepens, the World Bank has cut back on aid, citing the uncertain
political and security situation. The UN and other agencies have also been
handicapped by funding shortfalls as recession-hit wealthy countries keep their
hands in their pockets. A UN-administered emergency relief fund only has 57% of
its required funding for 2011.
With
the political impasse continuing, and fighting flaring on all fronts, fears
grow that Yemen may be reincarnated as Somalia II.
-This commentary was published in The Guardian on 19/09/2011
- Simon Tisdall is an assistant editor of the Guardian and a foreign affairs columnist. He was previously a foreign leader writer for the paper and has also served as its foreign editor and its US editor, based in Washington DC. He was the Observer's foreign editor from 1996-98
- Simon Tisdall is an assistant editor of the Guardian and a foreign affairs columnist. He was previously a foreign leader writer for the paper and has also served as its foreign editor and its US editor, based in Washington DC. He was the Observer's foreign editor from 1996-98
No comments:
Post a Comment