If
there was any question about which country was interfering in Yemen’s
civil war, Saudi Arabia provided the answer when its F-15 and Tornado
fighter jets struck Zaidi rebel positions two weeks ago in the
mountainous border region between the two countries, and beyond.
The
Zaidi fighters, known as Houthis, have been engaged in an on-and-off
struggle with Yemen’s government since 2004; a conflict which most
recently flared again this August (for additional background, see “Saada Under Siege”).
The
Saudi assault was allegedly in retaliation for the killing of a border
guard by the rebels in early November. The Houthis however, charge
Saudi Arabia with allowing Yemen’s army to launch attacks from Saudi
territory and participating in cross-border raids themselves.
Iran or Saudi Arabia?
Indeed,
the most traded accusation between the Houthis and the government of
Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh has been which third-party country
is providing material support to the other. A longstanding – and as yet
unsubstantiated – allegation made by both Yemen and Saudi Arabia is
that Iran is bankrolling the Houthi insurgency, providing money, arms
and training.
In
reality, most of the weapons that have found their way into the
northern governorate of Saada and into rebel hands have likely come
from disaffected Yemeni soldiers (many of whom are Zaidi) ambivalent
about fighting their countrymen, or from those who have simply
abandoned their positions and fled.
In
late October, Yemen purportedly seized an Iranian ship carrying arms to
the Houthis and arrested five of its crewmen. Although vowing to make
details of the subsequent investigation public, little has been heard
of it since. The Iranian government denied any of its vessels were
captured off Yemen’s waters, describing the entire incident as a “media
fabrication.”
In
a Nov. 11 Christian Science Monitor article entitled “Does Iran play
role in Yemen conflict?” Joost Hilterman, deputy Middle East program
director for the International Crisis Group in Washington D.C., said,
“There is probably next to no Iranian involvement. I have seen no
evidence for it [and] it's really a bit too far afield.” He went on to say, “The Iranians are just brilliant. [They play] no role whatsoever, but they get all the credit ... ”
But who most assuredly does get credit for their meddling is Saudi Arabia.
Worried
that the Houthis – in their quest to end political and socioeconomic
discrimination of the Zaidi community as a result of an encroaching
Wahabi and Al-Qaeda presence – may transform themselves into a
Hezbollah-like group, the Saudis have resorted to using sophisticated
weaponry against them and the impoverished people of north Yemen. These
include jets, attack helicopters, surface-to-air missiles, and possibly
ones more sinister.
White phosphorus?
There
are now claims by the Houthis that the Saudi military has been firing
white phosphorus shells into civilian areas. As reported by the AFP, an
unnamed Saudi government advisor said they were merely flares (much
like the Israelis said in the Gaza war).
In response, Amnesty International issued the following statement:
“Allegations
that the Saudi Arabian air force dropped phosphorus bombs have been
carried by news reports. It is unclear whether anyone was killed in the
bombing and, if so, whether they included civilians, but some 300
families are reported to have fled the area afterwards.
“Phosphorus bombs are highly incendiary weapons and pose grave risks to
civilians. They should never be used in the vicinity of civilians.
“The day after the bombing raid, Amnesty International wrote to Saudi
Arabia’s Defense Minister, Crown Prince Sultan bin ‘Abdul ‘Aziz
Al-Saud, asking whether phosphorus bombs were used and, if so, in what
manner and what precautions were taken to ensure that civilians were
not put at risk. As yet, the organization has received no response.”
The human toll
The
Saudi attack on northern Yemen is the epitome of military adventurism
and opportunism. It allows them to use – for the first time – advanced
weapons purchased from the United States against an ill-equipped band
of rebels in the midst of a destitute, malnourished, and displaced
population. The humanitarian consequences of this reckless offensive
are already evident.
UNICEF
indicates that 240 villages on the Saudi Arabian side of the border
have been evacuated and the civilian residents forced to settle in
refugee camps. On the Yemeni side, the number of internally displaced
persons has increased in a matter of weeks by 25,000, and now totals
175,000 since the conflict began. It is impossible to know the number
of people killed due to a government-enforced media blackout.
Despite
this, there are all the hallmarks of an impending disaster. Signad
Kaag, UNICEF Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa,
said, “During the past three months, children affected by the conflict
in the north have seen all their basic rights violated. Lack of safe
water, nutrition and hygiene is exerting a heavy toll on their health
and well-being and threatening their very survival – a situation that
will only get worse with the coming of winter.”
Saudi
Arabia shows no sign of letting up. They have voiced their intent to
create a “buffer zone” 10 km deep into Yemeni territory and have
imposed a naval blockade on its north coast.
Taking sides
Shortly after the Saudi airstrikes, U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly stated:
“It’s our view that there can be no long-term military solution to the conflict between the Yemeni government and the rebels.”
Yet,
the U.S. signed a cooperation agreement on military intelligence and
training with Saleh’s government last week, thus making them party to
the conflict. This ironically puts them on the same side as elements of
Al-Qaeda, employed by Saleh to fight the Houthis.
Although
the Gulf monarchies and other Arab dictatorships have voiced support
for Yemen and the “territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia,” the tone
adopted by both Shia and Sunni Muslim groups in the Middle East, such
as Iran’s Society of the Seminary Teachers of Qum and the
Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, has been one lamenting the hostilities and
stressing the need for reconciliation (this is in stark contrast to the
overtly hostile, anti-Iranian, anti-Shia vitriol of the Saudi religious
establishment, which called on their government to strike the “deviant”
Houthis “with an iron fist”).
Saudi
Arabia’s irresponsible muscle-flexing only exacerbates regional and
sectarian tensions, and puts a solution to the conflict further out of
reach. It is clear the only solution to be had is a diplomatic one. The
time for the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference,
and the U.N. Security Council to intercede before the conflict and its
attendant humanitarian costs spiral out of hand is long overdue.
And
if the Saudis are worried the Houthis have, or will, become another
Hezbollah, they would be wise to remember what Hezbollah did to the
Israeli army when they decided to attack, and leave Yemen alone.
Information Clearinghouse