In memory of Christopher Hitchens
The situation in Yemen is characterized by humanitarian disaster. The UN estimates that the death toll exceeds 100,000 people, with some commentators believing that the loss of life in Yemen has reached genocidal levels. When researching the issue two main things stood out to me. Firstly, a 'David vs Goliath' mentality pervades not just social media institutions but also conventional media institutions. The narrative that the notorious 'Arab League' led by Saudi Arabia is wholly responsible for the gruesome acts of violence, torture, and death plaguing Yemen and that the Houthi's are merely fighting for 'whats right' and fighting against Saudi led tyranny is a flawed narrative that serves only to demonstrate the feeble-mindedness of those who believe it. Secondly, almost all sources dared not to cross the hallowed territory of religion when explaining the conflict ensuing in Yemen. Apparently, a group (Houthis) whose raison d'etre preaches "God is Greater, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam" cannot possibly be motivated by religious creeds in their struggle against the enemy. These factors serve to distort the actual situation in Yemen and act as a disservice to all those living under the harsh climate of war. All those who believe a simple donation to the UN will resolve things and preach the simplicity of a solution should be ashamed of their ignorance and their desecration of the strife of those living under constant fear of death.
A Brief History
The situation in Yemen began with a series of Arab Spring demonstrations back in 2011, campaigning against the corruption inherent in the Yemeni government led by Ali Abdullah Saleh. This prompted Saleh to hand over power to his deputy Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi. Due to persisting problems such as food insecurity, corruption, and unemployment, the armed rebel group known as the Houthis seized a large portion of territory, including Yemen's capital Sanaa. Fearing an overthrow Mr. Hadi appealed to the international community for help and the Saudi's responded with Operation Direct Storm, an international coalition known as the 'Arab League', formed during the previous 'Arab-Israeli' war, offered military aid to the Yemeni government, now in exile. Thus the seemingly eternal conflict began between the Houthis and the Saudis.
By the way, in my opinion the argument that Saudi's occupation of Yemen is illegal and in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is moot when considering the fact that Mr. Hadi invited international help, thereby making concerns over "territorial integrity" a non-issue. Further, the Saudi's are fighting for the "political independence" of Yemen rather than violating it, given the fact that it is supporting Mr. Hadi's government in exile (the only government of Yemen that is internationally recognized by the UN).
Religion and Eternal Conflict
Both sides to this deadly conflict aren't blameless and rather than weighing up which side is 'more to blame' as most articles attempt to do I will demonstrate why this conflict has raged on for so long and is unlikely to end in the near future. Both sides are motivated by underlying religious reasons. Whilst it has often been said that the Saudi's involved themselves in the region primarily to guard against an expansion of an Iranian sphere of influence, most casually chalk this up to a political game, a sort of 'Middle-Eastern Cold War'. Rarely do we stop to ask ourselves where this tension arises from. The political dimension of this conflict stems from a deep seated religious divide between the Sunni and Shia factions of Islam. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the tension in Northern Ireland, the violence in Palestine, the discrimination in India, etc. These all stand as incontrovertible proof of the extent to which institutionalized religion can sponsor violence and distrust. The same is applicable in Yemen. For those that preach the legitimacy of the Houthis in their creation of a supposedly 'civil state' I'd ask them to explain why they launched missiles at Riyadh despite their apparent willingness to negotiate. I'd like them to explain why, if the Houthis are determined to protect the Yemeni people, are they torturing ordinary civilians and suppressing dissent. I'd like them to explain why, if the Houthis are determined to create a "civil democratic state" are they imposing Shariah law in Saada. As Yemeni researcher Nabil al-Bokairi said:
"This group does not believe in politics and it alleges it has the divine right to govern people. So what can be discussed with them? Elections? Pluralism? Voting polls? Such discussions will be in vain because the group does not believe in such concepts".
By no means do I mean to legitimate the actions of the Saudi's by criticizing the Houthis, I merely hope to dispel the ridiculous notion that the Houthis are somehow right and the Saudi's are somehow wrong. To award such a group the moral superiority to rule Yemen not only serves to promote oppression but is also tantamount to an admission of belief that the conflict should perpetuate until the Houthis are successful in governing the entirety of Yemen. Given the diversity of actors involved in the region, the only reasonable solution would be a partitioning of Yemen into zones of influence, where each respective actor has access to key ports that create economic viability and political stability within the respective zones of influence. Indeed this was previously suggested by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and parallels the reasoning employed in the Israel-Palestine conflict where a two-state solution was proposed. Here, like in the Israeli-Palestine conflict, partitioning was unsuccessful due the stupidity of religious zeal. The Houthis, who are comprised largely of Zaydis (a sect of Islam) believe that they have a religious claim to Yemen because Yemen had been governed by Zaydis for a 1,000 years up until 1962. A similar claim is mounted by both the Israeli's and Palestinians where their lands are concerned, claiming respectively that the 'holy land' belongs to "their" people. The sheer idiocy of this argument (hopefully it is already apparent) is that the historical basis for territorial disputes inevitably leads to conflict if two groups of people have previously occupied the same territory. However, the difference between the territorial dispute in question and other modern disputes is religious zealotry. For example, the dispute between India and China for the Aksai-Chin-Ladakh region in the Galwan Valley, has not lead to a major outbreak of violence, precisely because that stretch of land is just land. A bargaining chip. A tool. Nothing more than land. This was also true of World War 1, where the map was severely redrawn pursuant to the Treaty of Versailles. In fact, Neville Chamberlain even used land as a means to appease Hitler just prior to the second world war. Land that is not sacred is treated as flexibly as any other property and thus allows for amicable resolution should disputes arise. However, the fetishism of land in the hands of the devout don't leave any room for diplomatic resolution despite the posturing on either side. The Saudi's want to crush Iranian influence and the Houthis believe that this war is blessed by God, and thus every brutal action is divinely willed.
In my estimation this is what lies at the heart of the crisis. A democratic movement (Arab Spring) intending to liberate the Middle East from its theocratic chains was exploited to wage jihad (holy war). Indeed one need only look to Iraq to witness the travesties that lie in wait when a jihad is waged by two nations believing they have the divine mandate to govern. Some may criticize my assessment of the situation in Yemen as being overly reductionist, however to those critics I pose a very simple question, "Would the Yemen conflict exist if it was stripped of its divine origins?". I would find anyone who answers "yes" either an infant or an idiot. The two major players, Saudi and Iran would have no cause to engage in proxy warfare as it does currently. Even by the most liberal of estimates, if we say that the government of Yemen is corrupt (although I find that corruption decreases exponentially when religion is removed from the picture) and that an armed militia rises in opposition to this corrupt government, it is highly likely that this militia will accept a partitioning agreement like that proposed by the GCC. It has no good reason to extend the conflict with an armed power thrice its size, and if the objective were to weed out corruption and confer upon the people a freer and less corrupt Yemen, then it stands to reason that the partitioning agreement would guarantee all those things. Without religion clouding the water, the Saudi's likely don't have any reason to continue the 'good fight' either as their economic interests in Yemen can be secured under the GCC's partitioning. So the answer? No, the Yemeni conflict would not exist or even if it did, it certainly would not have dragged on for this long if religion had been taken out of the picture. In simpler terms, religion is a necessary condition in causing and perpetuating the Yemen civil war, however by no means is it a sufficient condition. Yemen has become a failed state by all standards and whilst I view the GCC's plan as the only reasonable conclusion to this ghastly period of Yemen's history, I do not see it being realized anytime soon. The humanitarian crisis indicates the continued indifference of the world to mass suffering. Shame on the UN and on us for not learning anything from the last great event of mass suffering. Of course UN intervention can easily resolve the issue by pressing down on all actors with the veritable weight of the world, however behind the facade of the UN's globalization lies the same system of 'Balance of Power' that pervaded the 19th century and prevents the world from taking effective action. As Abdulla Mahdi, a Sanaa resident aptly said:
"Whatever laws the Houthis make, the population is silent. They (Houthis) have been capable of combating the Yemeni government and the Saudi-led Arab coalition for five years, and they can easily punish all dissidents in areas they control."
Both sides, the Saudi's and the Houthis are unmistakably (and I say this without ambiguity) pursuing a 'Final Solution' in their approach to the war, unchecked by anyone. It truly is one of the greatest tragedies in modern times. War for whom? Certainly not the people, they'd all be gone by the time this perilous stint of stupidity was over. For a Houthi governed Yemen? Even if possible, stability would be hard to come by and again over whom are they ruling, the people are no longer citizens but rather fearful lambs to the slaughter. For a Saudi governed Yemen? Sure maybe economic interests are secured, but again stability will be hard to come by. A war with no victors. Truly humanity hath sunk to the depths.
"To such heights of evil are men driven by religion" - Lucretius