Connect with us

Middle East

War in Yemen: Enough is enough – what else?

Published

on

The situation in Yemen has recently taken a bad turn both for Saudi Arabia and its allies from the so-called “Arab NATO” – countries, which formally joined the Saudi invasion of Yemen in 2015. Since then, this coalition, backed by the United States, has been fighting the opposition Houthi movement, the so-called Shia Muslim local religious minority, which Riyadh claims is getting military and financial support from Iran.

There are three factors hampering the military campaign, being conducted by the Saudi-led coalition. First, the Saudis’ ally, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), has almost completely pulled its forces out of the conflict zone; secondly, the Houthis show no signs of giving up their resistance and are now using the tactic of sending missiles and drones into Saudi territory; thirdly, there has been increased separatist activity in southern Yemen by the pro-secession Southern Transitional Council (STC).

The official Yemeni government of President Abd Rabbah Mansour Hadi even had temporarily lost control over the country’s provisional capital and the largest seaport – Aden.

Meanwhile, cracks are already running across the coalition, which lay bare the conflicting goals of its members, with the government of President Hadi, who is currently living in Saudi Arabia, accusing Riyadh’s ally, the United Arab Emirates, of supporting the STC separatists.

The US and the EU, both of which urge the warring parties to sign a ceasefire, have allied themselves with the side which, according to many experts and journalists, has proved itself as the most ruthless in this conflict.

The New York Times recently acknowledged this in an editorial commenting on the Emirates’ withdrawal from the conflict zone.

“The Emiratis are withdrawing their forces at a scale and speed that all but rules out further ground advances, a belated recognition that a grinding war that has killed thousands of civilians and turned Yemen into a humanitarian disaster is no longer winnable,” the newspaper wrote. The question that naturally comes to mind here is why did the West greenlight the start of the war in 2015, and who is to blame for the death of thousands of people and the starvation of millions of others? There have been no official answers to this question, and never will be. However, reports of the dire consequences of the bombings of Yemen, killing and maiming thousands of innocent civilians, have for the past few years been appearing in the Western media, including in the United States. What is not mentioned, however, is that the Saudi-led campaign was sanctioned by former US President Barack Obama and the EU leaders. Without their consent, Saudi Arabia, whose oil industry heavily depends on US and West European markets, would hardly have decided to go ahead with a military intervention in Yemen.

Meanwhile, it looks like Western enthusiasm for the Saudi plan for “restoring the rule of law” in Yemen has started to wane. In an article with a tell-tale headline: “The Incredible Saudi Fiasco in Yemen,” recently carried by the French newspaper Le Figaro, columnist Renaud Girard thus described Riyadh’s operation “Determination Storm”: “Looking at 3 million refugees and 11 million starving people, we can see that the Yemeni people have gone through a real storm. But what the “determination,” advertised by Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman, is really all about? And what kind of “hope” has it revived? … The population is starving under the pressure of multiple embargoes imposed by the Arab coalition. The traditional supply channels were destroyed as a result of the least “surgical” ones in modern military history. The country has been hit by a cholera epidemic, and over 10,000 civilians have been killed by strikes that did not bring them the slightest hope.”

The flow of horrible evidence of human suffering coming from Yemen has recently been changing the tonality of Western media reports about the situation in that war-torn country. An article by the International Crisis Group spokesman Robert Malley, titled “America Should Talk to the Houthis,” that appeared in the New York Times’ Opinion section, actually admits the failure of Washington’s aggressive policy in the region. According to Malley, most people in Sana rightfully blame the United States for the war and see it as the initiator of the pro-Saudi coalition, which unleashed the hostilities. The Houthi leaders know this: they see the popular anger against the coalition … and gain confidence from this. The Houthis believe that time is on their side. Despite the huge military superiority of the Saudis, the Houthis have managed to face up to the powerful Western-backed coalition, Malley noted.

The Saudi-led intervention in Yemen looks like a PR disaster for the United States and its allies. This is probably why Washington called on the Saudis to end hostilities in Yemen. Analysts still believe that Riyadh is unlikely to lose Washington’s backing because Iran is viewed by the US as the biggest threat to regional stability. The whole situation seems to have lost any semblance of legality, with the Trump administration supplying arms to the “Arab coalition” in defiance of a Congressional ban, justifying this by the need to “deter” Iran. The UAE and the Saudis are helping various proxy factions in Yemen, while the UAE itself is supported by separatists from South Yemen. Most experts believe that negotiations are the only way to go now. Much will depend on the degree of the Trump administration’s hostility towards Iran. The European factor is also important: the European Union is opposed to Washington’s sanctions against Tehran, but will it agree to abandon America’s “regime change” policy, which Brussels has directly or indirectly endorsed since the 1991 Gulf War?

 From our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

Process to draft Syria constitution begins this week

Published

on

The process of drafting a new constitution for Syria will begin this week, the UN Special Envoy for the country, Geir Pedersen, said on Sunday at a press conference in Geneva.

Mr. Pedersen was speaking following a meeting with the government and opposition co-chairs of the Syrian Constitutional Committee, who have agreed to start the process for constitutional reform.

The members of its so-called “small body”, tasked with preparing and drafting the Constitution, are in the Swiss city for their sixth round of talks in two years, which begin on Monday. 

Their last meeting, held in January, ended without progress, and the UN envoy has been negotiating between the parties on a way forward.

“The two Co-Chairs now agree that we will not only prepare for constitutional reform, but we will prepare and start drafting for constitutional reform,” Mr. Pedersen told journalists.

“So, the new thing this week is that we will actually be starting a drafting process for constitutional reform in Syria.”

The UN continues to support efforts towards a Syrian-owned and led political solution to end more than a decade of war that has killed upwards of 350,000 people and left 13 million in need of humanitarian aid.

An important contribution

The Syrian Constitutional Committee was formed in 2019, comprising 150 men and women, with the Government, the opposition and civil society each nominating 50 people.

This larger group established the 45-member small body, which consists of 15 representatives from each of the three sectors.

For the first time ever, committee co-chairs Ahmad Kuzbari, the Syrian government representative, and Hadi al-Bahra, from the opposition side, met together with Mr. Pedersen on Sunday morning. 

He described it as “a substantial and frank discussion on how we are to proceed with the constitutional reform and indeed in detail how we are planning for the week ahead of us.”

Mr. Pedersen told journalists that while the Syrian Constitutional Committee is an important contribution to the political process, “the committee in itself will not be able to solve the Syrian crisis, so we need to come together, with serious work, on the Constitutional Committee, but also address the other aspects of the Syrian crisis.”

Continue Reading

Middle East

North Africa: Is Algeria Weaponizing Airspace and Natural Gas?

Published

on

In a series of shocking and unintelligible decisions, the Algerian Government closed its airspace to Moroccan military and civilian aircraft on September 22, 2021, banned French military planes from using its airspace on October 3rd, and decided not to renew the contract relative to the Maghreb-Europe gas pipeline, which goes through Morocco and has been up and running since 1996–a contract that comes to end on October 31.

In the case of Morocco, Algeria advanced ‘provocations and hostile’ actions as a reason to shut airspace and end the pipeline contract, a claim that has yet to be substantiated with evidence. Whereas in the case of France, Algeria got angry regarding visa restrictions and comments by French President Emmanuel Macron on the Algerian military grip on power and whether the North African country was a nation prior to French colonization in 1830.

Tensions for decades

Algeria has had continued tensions with Morocco for decades, over border issues and over the Western Sahara, a territory claimed by Morocco as part of its historical territorial unity, but contested by Algeria which supports an alleged liberation movement that desperately fights for independence since the 1970s.

With France, the relation is even more complex and plagued with memories of colonial exactions and liberation and post-colonial traumas, passions and injuries. France and Algeria have therefore developed, over the post-independence decades, a love-hate attitude that quite often mars otherwise strong economic and social relations.

Algeria has often reacted to the two countries’ alleged ‘misbehavior’ by closing borders –as is the case with Morocco since 1994—or calling its ambassadors for consultations, or even cutting diplomatic relations, as just happened in August when it cut ties with its western neighbor.

But it is the first-time Algeria resorts to the weaponization of energy and airspace. “Weaponization” is a term used in geostrategy to mean the use of goods and commodities, that are mainly destined for civilian use and are beneficial for international trade and the welfare of nations, for geostrategic, political and even military gains. As such “weaponization” is contrary to the spirit of free trade, open borders, and solidarity among nations, values that are at the core of common international action and positive globalization.

What happened?

Some observers advance continued domestic political and social unrest in Algeria, whereby thousands of Algerians have been taking to the streets for years to demand regime-change and profound political and economic reforms. Instead of positively responding to the demands of Algerians, the government is probably looking for desperate ways to divert attention and cerate foreign enemies as sources of domestic woes. Morocco and France qualify perfectly for the role of national scapegoats.

It may be true also that in the case of Morocco, Algeria is getting nervous at its seeing its Western neighbor become a main trade and investment partner in Africa, a role it can levy to develop diplomatic clout regarding the Western Sahara issue. Algeria has been looking for ways to curb Morocco’s growing influence in Africa for years. A pro-Algerian German expert, by the name of Isabelle Werenfels, a senior fellow in the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, even recommended to the EU to put a halt to Morocco’s pace and economic clout so that Algeria could catch up. Weaponization may be a desperate attempt to hurt the Moroccan economy and curb its dynamism, especially in Africa.

The impact of Algeria’s weaponization of energy and airspace on the Moroccan economy is minimal and on French military presence in Mali is close to insignificant; however, it shows how far a country that has failed to administer the right reforms and to transfer power to democratically elected civilians can go.

In a region, that is beleaguered by threats and challenges of terrorism, organized crime, youth bulge, illegal migration and climate change, you would expect countries like Algeria, with its geographic extension and oil wealth, to be a beacon of peace and cooperation. Weaponization in international relations is inacceptable as it reminds us of an age when bullying and blackmail between nations, was the norm. The people of the two countries, which share the same history, language and ethnic fabric, will need natural gas and unrestricted travel to prosper and grow and overcome adversity; using energy and airspace as weapons is at odds with the dreams of millions of young people in Algeria and Morocco that aspire for a brighter future in an otherwise gloomy economic landscape. Please don’t shatter those dreams!

Continue Reading

Middle East

Breaking The Line of the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Published

on

The conflict between Israel-Palestine is a prolonged conflict and has become a major problem, especially in the Middle East region.

A series of ceasefires and peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine that occurred repeatedly did not really “normalize” the relationship between the two parties.

In order to end the conflict, a number of parties consider that the two-state solution is the best approach to create two independent and coexistent states. Although a number of other parties disagreed with the proposal, and instead proposed a one-state solution, combining Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip into one big state.

Throughout the period of stalemate reaching an ideal solution, the construction and expansion of settlements carried out illegally by Israel in the Palestinian territories, especially the West Bank and East Jerusalem, also continued without stopping and actually made the prospect of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis increasingly eroded, and this could jeopardize any solutions.

The attempted forced eviction in the Sheikh Jarrah district, which became one of the sources of the conflict in May 2021, for example, is an example of how Israel has designed a system to be able to change the demographics of its territory by continuing to annex or “occupy” extensively in the East Jerusalem area. This is also done in other areas, including the West Bank.

In fact, Israel’s “occupation” of the eastern part of Jerusalem which began at the end of the 1967 war, is an act that has never received international recognition.

This is also confirmed in a number of resolutions issued by the UN Security Council Numbers 242, 252, 267, 298, 476, 478, 672, 681, 692, 726, 799, 2334 and also United Nations General Assembly Resolutions Number 2253, 55/130, 60/104, 70/89, 71/96, A/72/L.11 and A/ES-10/L.22 and supported by the Advisory Opinion issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2004 on Legal Consequences of The Construction of A Wall in The Occupied Palestine Territory which states that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territories under Israeli “occupation”.

1 or 2 country solution

Back to the issue of the two-state solution or the one-state solution that the author mentioned earlier. The author considers that the one-state solution does not seem to be the right choice.

Facts on the ground show how Israel has implemented a policy of “apartheid” that is so harsh against Palestinians. so that the one-state solution will further legitimize the policy and make Israel more dominant. In addition, there is another consideration that cannot be ignored that Israel and Palestine are 2 parties with very different and conflicting political and cultural identities that are difficult to reconcile.

Meanwhile, the idea of ​​a two-state solution is an idea that is also difficult to implement. Because the idea still seems too abstract, especially on one thing that is very fundamental and becomes the core of the Israel-Palestine conflict, namely the “division” of territory between Israel and Palestine.

This is also what makes it difficult for Israel-Palestine to be able to break the line of conflict between them and repeatedly put them back into the status quo which is not a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The status quo, is in fact a way for Israel to continue to “annex” more Palestinian territories by establishing widespread and systematic illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Today, more than 600,000 Israeli settlers now live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

In fact, a number of resolutions issued by the UN Security Council have explicitly and explicitly called for Israel to end the expansion of Israeli settlement construction in the occupied territory and require recognition of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the region.

Thus, all efforts and actions of Israel both legislatively and administratively that can cause changes in the status and demographic composition in East Jerusalem and the West Bank must continue to be condemned. Because this is a violation of the provisions of international law.

Fundamental thing

To find a solution to the conflict, it is necessary to look back at the core of the conflict that the author has mentioned earlier, and the best way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to encourage Israel to immediately end the “occupation” that it began in 1967, and return the settlements to the pre-Islamic borders 1967 In accordance with UN Security Council resolution No. 242.

But the question is, who can stop the illegal Israeli settlements in the East Jerusalem and West Bank areas that violate the Palestinian territories?

In this condition, international political will is needed from countries in the world, to continue to urge Israel to comply with the provisions of international law, international humanitarian law, international human rights law and also the UN Security Council Resolutions.

At the same time, the international community must be able to encourage the United Nations, especially the United Nations Security Council, as the organ that has the main responsibility for maintaining and creating world peace and security based on Article 24 of the United Nations Charter to take constructive and effective steps in order to enforce all United Nations Resolutions, and dare to sanction violations committed by Israel, and also ensure that Palestinian rights are important to protect.

So, do not let this weak enforcement of international law become an external factor that also “perpetuates” the cycle of the Israel-Palestine conflict. It will demonstrate that John Austin was correct when he stated that international law is only positive morality and not real law.

And in the end, the most fundamental thing is that the blockade, illegal development, violence, and violations of international law must end. Because the ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine conflict is only a temporary solution to the conflict.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Defense5 hours ago

Will India be sanctioned over the S-400 Air Defense System?

The Russian S-400 air defense system has emerged as a serious concern for US policymakers. Amongst other states, US allies...

Finance8 hours ago

Albania Has Opportunity to Build a More Sustainable Growth Model

Albania’s economy, like other countries in the region, is recovering faster than expected after the historic recession created by the...

Middle East9 hours ago

Process to draft Syria constitution begins this week

The process of drafting a new constitution for Syria will begin this week, the UN Special Envoy for the country,...

Human Rights11 hours ago

Only ‘real equality’ can end vicious cycle of poverty

Although poverty and privilege “continue to reproduce themselves in vicious cycles”, it is possible to break the chain and shift the paradigm, an independent UN human rights...

Finance13 hours ago

Montenegro on Course for Stronger Economic Recovery in 2021

The Western Balkans region is rebounding from the COVID-19-induced recession of 2020, thanks to a faster-than-expected recovery in 2021, says...

Environment15 hours ago

UNESCO ‘eDNA’ initiative to ‘unlock’ knowledge for biodiversity protection

To understand the richness of biodiversity across World Heritage marine sites, the UN scientific organization launched on Monday a project to protect...

Americas17 hours ago

America’s Two-Tiered Justice System

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived...

Trending