Yemen’s quandary in Dammaj - By Fatima Abo Alasrar | The Middle East Channel

Yemen’s quandary in Dammaj - By Fatima Abo Alasrar | The Middle East Channel

After years of intermittent violence in the northern provinces of Yemen, political machinations are outpacing the state countermeasures that are mired in indifference and complacency. While the capital, Sanaa, claims to make headway through the National Dialogue, brutal attacks in Sadaa governorate between the Salafis and Houthis have left a significant death toll. The Yemeni government has chosen its usual modus operandi response to the protracted conflict through actively playing a part in the acrimonious disputes over territory and sphere of influence.

Sadaa has been an arena for political gamesmanship and power control since the Houthi rebellion started in 2004. Former President Ali Abdullah Saleh sent the military to fight the Houthis while equipping them with artillery in order to prolong the conflict and weaken the forces of General Ali Mohsen in the Yemeni army. After the Arab Spring, the Houthi movement evolved from a rebellion against the former regime, into a conflict with political parties that are increasingly marred by sectarian divisions, regional meddling, and a complex tribal dimension. The intentions of all factions are clearer now than they have ever been. Political alliances are forming in a way that is increasing the onslaught on the Houthis in order to curb their expanding political influence in Yemen. 

While it is not entirely clear who the protagonist was in the recent violent events in the town of Dammaj, Yemeni officials have expediently assigned responsibility for the conflict to the Houthis, prior to launching any investigation. Such conspicuous political bias from the government is escalating the situation, leading to further disastrous reactions in Sadaa. This government-sponsored scenario of the conflict is purposefully constructed to stir national consciousness in favor of one side, the Salafis. The Dammaj students who were caught in the battle are exalted to martyrdom status, pictures of their dead are published in newspapers and websites, while there is almost nothing reported on the Houthis besides their violent role and support from Iran. 

Although the Houthis have been demonized in this process, they are not the benevolent altruistic group either. Houthis claim that the Sadaa-based Dar al-Hadith institute in the city of Dammaj, which hosts unarmed Salafi scholars from all around the world, is heavily militarized. Furthermore, the institute recently benefitted from the protection of tribes and Islah party affiliates in the area, which have opted to respond belligerently to limit the Houthi's influence in Sadaa. In fact, these were not the first skirmishes around Dammaj. Salafis fighting alongside the government in the former six wars of Sadaa caught the attention of the Houthis and prompted retaliation. The Houthis sought to trammel the Salafis' influence in Dammaj in 2011 by laying siege to the entire area from October to December 2011 and cutting off food and medical access. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reported more than 100 people killed in the conflict, including four children who died of starvation and three elderly men of lack of medication.

Sanaa, however, is intimidated by the rising Houthi influence and organized military ability. The Houthis' power in Sadaa and their independent governance structure have allowed them to negotiate border security agreements with their main adversary, Saudi Arabia. This is all causing further discomfort to the policymakers in Yemen, as they grow aware of the unexpected groundswell that the Houthis generated. The Houthis are now emerging with their own political party, which is becoming increasingly popular among the Yemeni youth.

The Houthis influence need not be underestimated. While ostensibly regressive, Houthis believe that ruling is a privilege for Zaidi sects of Hashemite origin. Zaidism was the order of the day in Yemen for more than a millennia, and the Zaidi imamate rule was removed in the 1962 revolution and is likely to see a resurgence amid the prevailing corrupt political culture in Yemen.

At the heart of the Houthis' allure to the Yemeni youth is the realization that the Arab Spring revolution did not reach its full potential. While the head of the regime is gone, elements of a remaining dysfunctional system threaten a relapse. As such, there are more youth than before who are supporting the Houthis for their unrelenting opposition to the former regime and its allies. Furthermore, the Houthi notion of state sovereignty appears to many to be far better than what is currently offered by the Yemeni state where infringement on Yemen's territory has taken place with the connivance of Yemeni officials.

Meanwhile, the Houthis do not invite international sympathy with their narrow vision, nor do they seek it. Their "death to America" slogan has been a recruiting factor for the radically inclined. But if the relationship between the United States and Iran changes positively, this will have implications on the Houthi movement, which could find itself reinventing its messages to suit the political winds of Iran. It is more likely, however, that the Houthis will remain one of Iran's cards to play in the region. As the Obama administration is tinkering with its Iranian counterparts, Yemeni politicians feel the urgency to stop the Houthi movement before it transforms into a political power that the current ruling alliances cannot face.

Undoubtedly, Dammaj has tested the sincerity and commitment of the Yemeni government in its ability to protect all Yemeni citizens and contain a crisis. As the government falters, the political parties grow more confrontational. All sides of this conflict appear to be deliberately drawing more attention to themselves in a conspicuous effort to garner additional financing and recruits while the Yemeni government assumes the role of a victim, rather than an interceptor of the violence which has further inflamed the situation in the north.

Furthermore, communities in the south are watching this tragedy with fear that it could repeat itself in their neighborhoods. Southern political parties and media have tilted toward the Houthis in their reporting. The Houthis-Southern alliance, which intensified after the Arab revolution and southerners' call for session, is starting to become a nuisance for the policymakers in the capital who were used to conducting their business the "Saleh" way.

Events in Dammaj have also prompted the Group of Ten Ambassadors of the permanent five members of the U.N. Security Council, the GCC, and the European Union to issue a statement that called upon all sides to stop fighting and defuse the tensions. But most importantly, they called on the Yemeni government to resume its mediation attempts and to take whatever measures are necessary to restore security and the state's presence. The government sent a presidential committee to investigate the situation on November 6 but this came after the death toll surpassed 200 people. The question for international partners is if they are willing to be creative enough to find complementary ways to support Yemen's near-ending transitional process while helping the government address urgent needs of the community.

The current security threats in the north and the antipathetic responses by the state challenge assurances that the Yemeni government is on the right track. The effort to sustain peace should be long term, as Yemen cannot afford to have the same military conflicts experienced during the Saleh regime. Recognizing that Sadaa has some degree of autonomy and a unique culture that needs to be preserved peacefully is the first step toward real integration. But most importantly, bearing the responsibility to protect the people in Sadaa, just as much as the people in Dammaj, is crucial if the state wants to gain respect and influence.

Hailing Hellfires - On drones and Human Rights Watch Report

Hailing Hellfires

BY FATIMA ABO ALASRAR

A destroyed building as a result of fighting between AQAP and the Yemeni government in 2012, taken in June 2013. (Photo: Fatima Abo Alasrar)

Apart from the Yemeni National Dialogue Conference that has been generating good news in the press, the country is on a rapidly deteriorating course toward uncertainty. On October 18, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) launched a suicide attack targeting a military installation in al-Ahwar district of Abyan governorate which killed twelve soldiers and left several others wounded. This  was the same governorate that fell under control of the terrorist group of Ansar al-Sharia during the Arab Spring uprising in 2011. Despite the liberation of Abyan from the terrorist occupation, the group still conducts terrorist acts, through planting land mines in schools, kidnapping aid workers, in addition to their usual suicide tactics against military installations and local popular committees that guard the city.

The danger of AQAP in Yemen is real, but so are the drone attacks which intensified during the Obama administration. The weapon meant to target terrorists  caused great harm to Yemen in a number of ways. Human Rights Watch issued a report on October 22 highlighting the devastating effects of air strikes. The report examined six drone strikes since 2009. Although the number of investigated cases is not a representative quantitive sample on the drone strikes in Yemen (various sources document an estimated eighty-two to ninety-two drones attacks during this period), the qualitative sample made one important point abundantly clear: no matter how precise the drones, they still generate civilian casualties, destruction, fear, trauma, motherless children, loss of income, and increasing rage towards the United States.

The report did not intend to hold the United States accountable for extrajudicial killings or its violation of Yemen’s state sovereignty (it would have been futile to highlight the latter given that Yemeni President Abdrabbo Mansour Hadi is a proponent of drones). Rather, it criticizes President Barack Obama’s administration for its failure to provide a clear legal justification for the targeted killings and calls on the US government to respond to alleged violations of international law in individual attacks. Human Rights Watch questioned the US administration’s compliance and commitment to international humanitarian law under the drone program, and questioned the legal framework for US intervention in Yemen, viewing it as a party to an armed conflict between the Yemeni government and AQAP. 

President Obama’s speech at the National Defense University in May this year attempted to highlight drones as an efficient weapon of war, arguing that the precision of these weapons minimizes civilian casualties. But this instrument fails when it uses false or insufficient intelligence that leads to the killing of innocent civilians. In one of the six cases, the report sheds light on the death of a cleric who worked vigilantly to weaken the influence of AQAP by denouncing them in his sermons. In another case, a drone missile hit a minibus that killed a pregnant woman, three children, and eight other people. Not only was the intended target absent from the vehicle, but also his affiliation with a terrorist organization was never substantiated. No matter how much the Obama administration emphasizes its desire to curb civilian casualties by using drones, a trail of unintended consequences and a number of unaddressed cases fall in the policy’s wake.

Evaluating the impacts of drones is difficult in absence of concrete data and information regarding the nature of attacks, targeting, and response. The failure of the Yemeni government to acknowledge these cases and the lack of transparency on this issue threatens to offset the foundation of a democratic system though the National Dialogue Conference. Citizens will dismiss the dialogue so long as their government remains unwilling to face its responsibility towards communities affected by drones.

The United States is reticent in acknowledging the operations conducted in Yemen and therefore fails to compensate victims when damages occur. This  has generally given  the  perception that US policymakers are  indifferent towards the suffering of civilians, as if anyone in the vicinity of terrorists is fair game in the interest of US national security. The human cost of the drone program is weighing less on the consciousness of Washington, and the Yemeni government for that matter. 

The sad reality is that the Yemeni government does not advocate for scrutiny of the air strikes and many argue it even actively inhibits the discussion on drones. President Hadi, a former military man, has welcomed drones with open arms, and millions of Yemenis feel powerless in the face of this unconditional embrace for Hellfire missiles. As more and more Yemenis fall victim to the policy, they  increasingly view the United States as an asymmetrical force that can only be challenged by terrorism. In the broader context of those interpreting it as targeting Muslims as opposed to terrorists, more misunderstandings and violence will inevitably follow.

The US projection of power in Yemen stokes the fires of anger and resentment in many communities even among non-extremists, that generates the mental conditioning required for recruitment. This sense of powerlessness provides AQAP with its breeding ground to challenge the security interests of the United States and Yemen—the exact opposite effect for which the drone program was born. Human Rights Watch highlighted AQAP’s ability to capitalize on the lack of accountability towards civilian casualties through AQAP’s various propaganda outlets.

As long as Yemen continues to accept drones, stability will be a remote possibility. Drones have weakened the capacity of Yemeni districts to achieve their economic potential in an already difficult economic environment. Local communities in many cities in Yemen, most notably Abyan, repudiate the presence of AQAP. The city of Moodiya, for example, has armed itself against AQAP and stopped them from entering their district in 2011. The United States could invest in these communities without a single US soldier or drone missles. This engagement does not require arming popular committees, but rather through targeted economic and education assistance that could aid these communities in defeating the conditions in which terrorists thrive.

The United States must not wait any longer to reconsider a change of policy in Yemen. Without swift action to address the issue of metastasizing extremists, there will neither be a foreseeable halt to AQAP operations, nor the subsequent drone attacks meant to stop them. The United States must find a way to empower the Yemeni government to work with its citizens and consider the prospect of working with local popular committees. A revival of democracy programs is needed, not only with civil society, but with the Yemeni government that has a fundamental responsibility to seek the wellbeing of its people, will help prevent the persistent cycle of violence.

Yemen can no longer afford to be trapped between al-Qaeda and Hellfire missiles. Yemenis need a real partnership with the United States in order to combat the challenges threatening their stability. The United States also must realize that assisting the Yemeni government with upholding the rule of law and bringing terrorists to justice will strengthen the people's faith in the National Dialogue. It is imperative to move the Yemen-US relationship from its dysfunctional series of one night stands to a long term cooperation effort that will respect the lives and dignity of Yemeni citizens.

Fatima Abo Alasrar is an independent Middle East policy analyst from Yemen and a former OSI International Policy Fellow.

This blog was initially posted in the Atlantic Council, MENA source http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/hailing-hellfires