The current situation in Yemen: causes and consequences

Introduction

The war in Yemen reflects the
failure of the 2011 transition deal to end the influence of the powerful
patronage networks of the Salih regime and deal with the marginalisation of the
Huthis and the south.

Press Association/Abdulnasser Alseddik. All rights reserved.Huthi leaders used militias
developed in the 2000s, their skills in mobilising tribal support and a
Faustian pact with Salih to defeat Islah and, in the process, force President
Hadi out of the country. Hubris may have led to their attempt to move out of
their Zaydi heartland, but this provoked a Saudi-led coalition to mobilise
against them. Fighting has continued for six months with much destruction of
human life, infrastructure and the economy. The war may soon culminate in
battles to capture Sanaa and Ta’izz.

The combatants are not ready for
serious negotiations. When they do talk they will find it difficult to
establish a regime that enjoys the support of a majority of Yemenis. The war
has empowered local groups and created sectarian tensions that previously did
not exist. The conflict will not lead to a clear victory: the Yemenis and the
coalition will need to make some difficult compromises. Meanwhile, the
destruction continues and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Islamic State
terrorists are exploiting the situation.

The ultimate causes of the 2015
crisis in Yemen can be traced to the way that President ‘Ali ‘Abd Allah Salih
constructed his regime in the Yemen Arab Republic (YAR) after coming to power
in 1978 through building up strong security and defence forces led by members
of his family, his Sanhan tribe or loyal associates; mobilising the support of
the powerful Hashid tribal confederations (of which the Sanhan is a part) and
its paramount chief, ‘Abd Allah al-Ahmar, through patronage; coopting tribal
and local leaders throughout Yemen into the patronage networks and isolating those
who would not participate; building the General People’s Congress (GPC) as a
means of mobilising political support to win elections; and using
divide-and-rule tactics.

These methods worked well in the
1980s and 1990s when they were sustained by rapidly rising oil revenues.

PDRY and Yemen unity

The Yemeni Socialist Party (YSP)
ruled the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen (PDRY) from 1967, adopted
Marxist policies and aligned itself with the Soviet Union. Compared with the
YAR, PDRY citizens enjoyed good government services, the rule of law and little
inequality or corruption. However, the YSP failed to find non-violent methods
of settling divisions among its leaders, who collectively aimed to reduce
tribalism while individually building their personal power based on tribal
alliances. Their differences led to a virtual civil war in January 1986 that
undermined the legitimacy of the state and damaged the economy. The PDRY was
further adversely affected by the demise of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s.

Salih understood in late 1989 that
the PDRY was ready for unity and negotiated a deal directly with the
southern leader, ‘Ali Salim al-Baydh, that led to the unification of two very
diverse states in six months. The flaws in the unification process led to a
civil war in 1994 that saw Salih extend his method of ruling to the south in
the Republic of Yemen. To many southerners it seemed like occupation – that
their good state had been taken from them. The abuse of northern power has been
a major influence in the rise of southern separatism after 2006. However, the
divisions of the past still plague the Southern Movement.

Emergence of Islah

One consequence of unity was that
Salih encouraged the formation of the Yemen Congregation for Reform (known as
Islah) led by ‘Abd Allah al-Ahmar, but involving the Muslim Brotherhood (which
had been introduced to Yemen in the 1960s by teachers expelled from Egypt and
Syria) and Salafis (including many who had been educated in Saudi Arabia).
Salih saw it as a counterweight to the YSP. Although Islah was a rival and
competed against the GPC in elections, its leaders shared with Salih an
interest in maintaining the patronage systems to their mutual benefit. Islah,
the YSP and several smaller parties formed a coalition in 2003 – the Joint
Meeting Parties (JMP) – to challenge the GPC in elections.

The Huthis

The Huthis have been part of the
Khawlan bin Amir, a relatively small tribal confederation compared with the
Bakil and Hashid, in the Sa’ada governorate where the Hashid, Bakil and Khawlan
interact without any being predominant. The Huthis are one of several Hashimi
families (descendants of the Prophet), who functioned as mediators and
religious teachers among the Zaydi Shia tribes, marrying into them. Under the
Zaydi Imamate, imams were always drawn from Hashimi families. Following the
1962 revolution and the adoption of more secular values by successive regimes,
the Hashimis were marginalised and their prestige fell. This was reversed as
the Salih patronage system and its policies in the area allowed the Hashimis to
re-emerge as voices for ordinary people.

Press Association/Hani Mohammed. All rights reserved.In the early 1990s prominent
Hashimis wanted to create new messages appropriate for the late 20th century.
The Believing Youth under the influence of Hussain Badr al-Din al-Huthi proved
to be effective at organising people at the grassroots level, drawing
inspiration from the revolutionary regime in Iran. It accused the Salih regime
of betraying Zaydi values, even though Salih and his leading supporters were
notionally Zaydis. Salih was accused of marginalising the Zaydis while allowing
excessive Salafi influence on state policy. Increasing militancy and government
reaction led in 2004 to the first of six rounds of major fighting between the
regime and the Huthis. The last of these mini-wars in 2009-10 drew in Saudi
forces. The Huthis acquired skills and weapons, and organised themselves during
these wars, and developed a highly effective militia.

The current leader, ‘Abd al-Malik
al-Huthi, still in his early 30s, is supported by a council of elders, but
makes the important decisions. While part of his agenda is clearly religious,
he has not put this in the forefront of his public statements. Some Huthis have
become Twelver Shia and a few want to establish a Zaydi-dominated state and
roll back the advance in the last 60 years of Salafism – and secularism.

The movement has developed both a
militia and a political organisation, Ansar Allah, modelled on Hizbullah in
Lebanon, which since 2011 has participated in mainstream Yemeni politics. Ansar
Allah calls for reform and clean governance. Huthi leaders have built alliances
among tribes in the Hashid and other confederations and now have an effective
political organisation, a well-equipped militia (with arms acquired from the
Yemeni military), powerful alliances with former president ‘Ali ‘Abd Allah
Salih and indications of Iranian support.

Since taking power in February 2015
they give the impression that, having fought to defeat their enemies, they are
not sufficiently sure of themselves or their policies to be able to or want to
rule alone. They would much prefer to have power without responsibility, acting
as king maker, not king. Those under the Huthi “government” criticise its
incompetence and indecisiveness.

Disintegration of the Salih regime

The death of ‘Abd Allah al-Ahmar in
December 2007 brought into the open rivalries between his sons and the sons and
nephews of President Salih, who commanded the elite units in the defence and
security forces. There was growing divergence between Salih and General ‘Ali
Muhsin, commander of the First Armoured Division and long his close Sanhan
ally. ‘Ali Muhsin’s forces bore the brunt of the fighting against the Huthis,
which led some of his allies to suspect that Salih was deliberately trying to
weaken his power. Tensions were exacerbated by the decline in oil revenues
after 2003 – leading figures had to fight for their share of the spoils.
Rivalry between the GPC and Islah increased.

Impact of the Arab uprisings

The Arab Spring reached Yemen in
February 2011 in the form of huge demonstrations and protest camps in Sanaa and
other cities. Islah supported the protesters, providing tents and food. The
Huthis took part, but kept themselves separate from Islah. When in March 2011
over 50 demonstrators were killed by plainclothes snipers in Sanaa, many of his
allies abandoned Salih. ‘Ali Muhsin announced that his First Armoured Division
would protect the demonstrators.

The threat of civil war provided the
opportunity for the international community to push Yemeni leaders into a
political transition deal that had three main elements: the resignation of
Salih and the election of his vice president (since 1994), Hadi, in an
uncontested election; the formation of a coalition government of the GPC and
JMP (dominated by Islah); and an inclusive National Dialogue Conference (NDC)
to draw up a new constitution.

But the deal had several major
flaws: Salih was allowed to stay in Yemen as head of the GPC. He was to be held
in check by the threat of United Nations (UN) sanctions. Measures to break up the
patronage networks in the armed and security forces were not fully implemented,
enabling Salih to retain the loyalty of the elite forces. The Huthis and the
Southern Movement were excluded from the coalition government and inadequately
represented in the NDC. Large sums of international financial support were
promised (via the Friends of Yemen set up in January 2010), but little was
delivered.

Thus, although the NDC after many
delays eventually produced 1,800 recommendations, and a new constitution was
drafted, by early 2014 Yemen had passed the point of no return. One unintended
consequence was to increase the power of Islah. Salih and the Huthis responded
by working together to counter Islah.

The rise of the Huthis

While the Huthis took part in the NDC
they simultaneously extended their influence into neighbouring governorates
using their militias when necessary, but preferring to reach deals with tribes
to support or not oppose them. They had reached an understanding with Salih,
who ordered elite military units either to assist or not obstruct the Huthi
advance. In July 2014 they took over Amran, ending the domination of the Al
Ahmar family. The Huthis targeted military units linked to ‘Ali Muhsin and
Islah. They set up popular committees to control the areas they had taken over
and Ansar Allah adopted populist causes – organising protests, for example,
against cuts in fuel subsidies.

By September 2014 the Huthis were in
Sanaa and forced Hadi to sign the Peace and National Partnership Agreement
(PNPA), which granted them major political concessions in exchange for their
agreeing to withdraw their militias from the city. The Huthis took over control
of other governorates and then entered governorates with Shafa’i majorities,
including Hudayda and Ibb, and threatened Ta’izz. As soon as Hadi had fulfilled
his part of the PNPA the Huthis refused to withdraw, demanding even more
concessions until Hadi’s resignation on 22 January 2015.

The Huthi Revolutionary Council took
power on 6 February and laid out a series of proposed steps to create a new
political system. When President Hadi escaped from house arrest in Sanaa to
Aden on 21 February 2015, he withdrew his resignation and cancelled all
measures taken by the Huthi regime. It reacted by mobilising militias to work
with pro-Salih troops to take over Aden and the south as soon as possible and
arrest Hadi, who fled to Riyadh.

It was this move that led to the
launch of the Saudi-led coalition intervention on 26 March 2015. UN Security
Council Resolution 2216, while not endorsing the attack, demanded in effect
that the Huthis withdraw from Sanaa and other areas they had taken, hand over
their weapons, and recognise the legitimacy of President Hadi’s regime.

Progress of the war

The Saudi-led coalition’s tactics
are to use air power to degrade the military capacity of Salih and the Huthis
while supporting a range of local militias in the Shafa’i areas to fight the
Huthis. A naval blockade is in place. The coalition has trained Yemenis in
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Yemen itself to form forces
that could fight alongside re-forming anti-Huthi military units and tribal
militias. It has assembled a force of up to 20,000 men in Marib and is moving
towards Sanaa. Ten thousand coalition troops may now be in Yemen; a UAE brigade
helped to drive the Huthis from the south. The Huthis seem determined to retain
their grip on the Zaydi-majority provinces and have launched small-scale
attacks into Saudi Arabia.

The outcome of the current fighting
in Marib is likely to have a decisive impact, as will the battle for Ta’izz,
where pro- and anti-Huthi groups are of roughly equal strength. Neither side
seems concerned about the growing number of casualties and displaced people,
the threat of famine, and the immense damage being done to infrastructure and
to what was already a very fragile economy.

Saudi Arabia and the GCC

For decades Saudi Arabia used its
money and influence to ensure that Yemen was too weak to threaten the Kingdom but
strong enough to maintain its own internal stability. Riyadh played an
important but often passive role between 2011 and January 2015, when the newly
crowned King Salman immediately gave the highest priority to Yemen as a theatre
in its regional cold war with Iran. Riyadh asserts that the Huthis are Iranian
lackeys, even though the available evidence is that Iranian backing for the
Huthis has been low cost and low risk, resulting in the enhancement of the
Huthi organisation, but not in a significant increase in its military capacity.
The declared aim is to restore the Hadi regime.

Press Association/Adam Schreck. All rights reserved.The UAE has played a key part,
despite some differences with Riyadh over tactics. Other GCC states, apart from
Oman, have provided aircraft and troops, with several other countries,
including Egypt and Sudan, promising help. The US, Britain, and France are
providing intelligence and logistical support, which seems to be motivated by
national interests in backing the Saudis and countering Islamic terrorism.

Re-establishing a Hadi regime

President Hadi is re-establishing his
government in Aden. But it will be a difficult task, because there are so many
different players involved:

• The anti-Huthi resistance in the
south is composed of local militias, many of which want southern independence.

• Throughout Yemen the fighting has
empowered local groups who will be reluctant to cede control to a central
authority, which is likely to be very weak.

• Hadi will struggle to persuade
many in the Zaydi north to accept his legitimacy, given his dependence on Saudi
Arabia for restoring his control.

• Islah appears to be the best
organised political party and it has support in the armed forces fighting
against the Huthis and in important resistance groups such as in Ta’izz. It
will demand a significant say in any future government.

Added to this are the following
factors:

• There is much disagreement over
the likely shape of any future Yemeni state: centralised or federated.

• The Yemeni economy was in very
bad shape in early 2015 as a result of three years of an unstable transition
exacerbated by falling oil revenues. The fighting has caused severe damage to
infrastructure and the economy and immense harm to Yemen’s people.
Reconstruction will take years and require a massive input from the international
community.

• Until the mid-20th century the
Zaydi and Sunni Shafa’i had lived in relative harmony for centuries, even
though Zaydis dominated most regimes. In the 21st century Zaydi reaction to
Salafism seems to be driving them towards sectarianism. The current fighting
will exacerbate the problem.

A role for Salih and the Huthis

Yemenis showed in the 1970s that
they could compromise and work together after eight years of civil war. They
will have to do so again. The draft constitution and the NDC arrangements could
be the starting point for a new process.

Hadi, the Saudis and the
international community agree that Salih can play no role in the future of
Yemen. However, he remains a potent force, if now greatly diminished. Any deal
will need to take account of his interests.

The Huthis have clearly shown that
they are now a major political force and will need to be part of any successor
regime. They control Sanaa and the main government institutions, even if they
often seem unsure about what policies to adopt. They will be aware that they
have support in the Zaydi north, where the terrain is likely to suit their
methods of fighting and not those of their opponents.

Attempts at a negotiated settlement

The current UN envoy has been
organising meetings of the main actors in Muscat – with some support from the
US. His efforts have been inhibited by a lack of knowledge of Yemen and
strains in the otherwise remarkable international consensus on Yemen since
2011. These will continue and provide a process for when the combatants are
eventually ready for serious negotiations.

Hadi and the Saudis demand that the
Huthis/Salih implement UN Security Council Resolution 2216 before negotiations;
the Huthis want negotiations about how Resolution 2216 should be implemented.
This might eventually lead to progress, since it implies that the Huthis accept
Resolution 2216 in principle, but there is no other sign that the warring
parties are ready for serious negotiations.

Two factors might influence the
attitude of the international community. Firstly, several thousand people have
died, tens of thousands have been wounded and hundreds of thousands displaced.
The coalition is using a naval blockade to limit supplies; the Huthis use siege
tactics internally. Relief agencies issue daily warnings of an impending
humanitarian disaster. Britain and France, in particular, are looking for ways
of responding to growing public concern about the human and physical costs of
the war to an already impoverished Yemen. So far they have not been willing to
put pressure on Riyadh, which sees the damage as a consequence of war or blames
it on the Huthis, but this could change soon, especially if there is more
public awareness of the situation.

Secondly, al-Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula (AQAP) is the most dangerous of the al-Qaeda franchises. It has
pursued both a global agenda (attempts to bring down western aircraft and
foment lone-wolf attacks) and a local one (the creation of Islamic emirates in
south Yemen in 2011-12 using its insurgency arm, Ansar al-Shariah). Western governments
provided extensive assistance to the Yemeni counterterrorist forces – most of
which were commanded by Salih cronies and have remained loyal to him. Drones
are still being used to kill top AQAP leaders – most recently in September
2015. AQAP, working through Ansar alShariah, seized on the Huthi advance to
“protect” Sunnis in parts of central Yemen, work alongside militias in the
south and take partial control of coastal areas in Hadhramaut. Elements within
AQAP have declared loyalty to the Islamic State (IS) and have attacked mosques
in Sanaa and claimed operations elsewhere.

The longer the fighting continues
the greater the danger that AQAP and IS will entrench themselves and possibly
take control of some areas. The coalition says that it is aware of this and
will soon move against the terrorists. The Huthis, their political opponents,
the GCC, and the west share a common objective of eliminating AQAP and IS,
which is one potential benefit of a negotiated settlement.

Originally published by NOREF.