The last few weeks have raised new hopes for a solution to the guerra in Yemenafter the rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran and the dialogue, facilitated by OmanBetween Saudi Arabia and Houthi. Many have thought about it humanitarian dimension of the crisis, on the recalibration of policies domestic and foreign regional actors and on role of the great powers.
However, while great emphasis has been placed on the steps taken by the Gulf monarchies towards their reconciliation and with theirs regional opponentsa critical reflection on the role played by western actors it is necessary to better understand the international dimension of the conflict and question the foresight of the positions taken from 2011 onwards.
From conflict to the beginning of transition
In Yemen, the United States and their allies have long agreed not to follow the internal developments of the country, leaving to theSaudi Arabia the possibility of influence internal affairs of the country on the basis of the actual Saudi perception of the main threats and opportunities of the moment.
From 2011 onwards, attention towards Yemen has increased within the wider media frame of the so-called “Arab Spring”, with a particular US concern towards the expansion of non-state actors in the insurgency, often inserting in the same cauldron Al Qaeda, the Houthis and secessionist movements. In this context, the UN Security Council and the European Union have agreed fully aligned to the initiatives of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
As a result of internal and external pressure, the president of Yemen Saleh he left power to his deputy, Hadi, to applause from the international community for the prospects of a political transition peace through the creation of a Conference on National Dialogue (CDN) in 2013-2014, promoted by the GCC countries and supported by the UN, EU and USA. The European Union praised the initiative as a example of inclusiveness for the region. Yet, the federal solution proposed by the CDN was rejected by both the Houthis and the secessionist movements of the South, showing a clear lag between the contents of the initiative and the evolution of the situation on ground.
Ryiadh’s role
The capture of Sana’a by the Houthi in September 2014 provided to the new Saudi king Salman bin Abdulaziz and his son Mohammed (MBS) the opportunity of power projection, prestige and internal legitimacy they were seeking. Meanwhile, the UAE could advance undisturbed its strategic and commercial interests in the south of the country both during the military operation and after its official withdrawal in 2019.
Despite many experts raised doubts already in 2015 on the military intervention of the Saudi-led coalition, the international community has strongly supported it within of the UN regulatory frameworklegally justified from the request of intervention by the internationally recognized government. Furthermore, despite considerable internal changes, the EU and the UN continued to consider the results of the CDN as preconditions to any solution peace of the conflict in Yemen, excluding both the Houthis and the secessionists of the South from the negotiating tables and effectively blocking any effective development. The full support of the Trump Administration to Saudi operations, coupled with the inclusion of the Houthis in the list of terrorist organizations, has further the flaw in form and substance of the negotiations was exacerbated.
Over the years, the European Union has begun to distance itself from the US positions on this point. Since 2017, the European Parliament has stopped mentioning the GCC Initiative and the CDN, but he called for negotiations that included all parties involved without preconditions. Furthermore, already since 2016il European Parliament it had begun to condemn arms sales to actors who violate humanitarian law in Yemen, albeit to little effect.
Only in 2018, the murder of journalist Khashoggi reminded the world that theSaudi Arabia era one of the worst world examples in terms of protection of human and civil rights. Timely, many countries have become increasingly aware of the humanitarian disaster and their role in financing a war led by the controversial Mohammed bin Salman.
In 2021, in correspondence with the change of approach of the Biden administration, the European Parliament has increased their own convictions for arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The ambivalence between the positions of the EU Parliament and of the Member States has led to schizophrenic behavior regarding compliance with the ban. Italy, for example, he revoked aircraft bomb licenses to UAE and Saudi Arabia on January 29, 2021, just 19 days later a meeting between Di Maio and MBS to discuss a MoU for a strategic dialogue. Furthermore, a few months later, the United Arab Emirates reacted with a ban on overflights of Italian military aircraft bound for Afghanistan. In July 2021, the Italian government promptly responded with a new one easing of restrictions to exports.
Pragmatism lessons from the Gulf
Meanwhile, as attention swung between who to define as a terrorist, who to sell weapons to, how much to blame Iran, and whether MBS was an executioner or a visionary, regional actors further modified their positions. the pandemic, the evolution the socio-economic conditions of the various countries involved, and the new opportunities trade towards East Asia, have contributed to favoring policies aimed at greater internal and regional stability.
In this context, Western countries have, after decades of delay, finally understood that the relations of the Persian Gulf countries with regional and international actors have always been based on pragmatic reasons rather than ideological. Thus, it is no surprise that the Saudis have begun to speak directly with the Houthis, outside and in parallel to the UN negotiations. Nor that they have (re) begun to dialogue with the Iranians, with Assad in Syria or with the Israelis.
What it is appropriate to reflect on, however, is that at the time of the launch of the operation Decisive Storm in 2015, and then in the following years, the narration of a legally legitimate intervention against a terrorist organization was re-proposed for the umpteenth time in Europe, and above all in the United States, thus masking the imperialist nature and the interests intertwined with it of an invasion that has exacerbated the most serious humanitarian crisis in the world.
Copertina EPA/YAHYA ARHAB’s photo