The Yemen Dilemma

Much of the current violence in the Arab World is a mixture of a societal frustration with seemingly outdated governmental structures and the never ending struggle for dominance between factions, whether they be political or religious. The Arab World as a whole is now being faced with a situation that their forefathers might never have anticipated: an aware populace. Authoritarian regimes are best applied in close knit communities with little influence from outside set constructs; the modern Arab World is no such thing. The most recent government to show signs of resistance to change is that of Yemen. The people seem to want everything but the current regime, and rightfully so. The Saleh government has been in place since the 1970s (as head of Northern Yemen until 1990 and then the head of a unified Yemen after 1990) and seems to be making decisions that affect the current populace with the same mindset as they did then. As the world changes, it behooves regimes to lend an ear to those with whose care they are entrusted and make changes to benefit the people, rather then only the rulers. The intense violence in Yemen is another reminder of why very little if any inevitably comes from authoritarian rule. People will become disillusioned with the glass ceilings of the Arab World, and if governments are not willing to adapt, that ceiling will shatter and the likelihood that it will be replaced with a more sustainable option is low. A highly volatile Arab World is a hazard to the international community at large, as much as it is to itself. The positive thing the current governments have to offer is experience, meaning they have been through the process of setting up a government and know basic procedures for creating a positive social and economic environment, because at one time, these were the individuals the people liked and supported. So what went wrong?? All things have a shelf life, and it seems that the governments of Arab World are showing their age. Reticence to let go of power yields high levels of violence in which everyone loses.



The role of the tribal system, long the staple of Middle Eastern politics, is new to western states which have a clear hierarchy of power and governance. The conflict in Yemen started as a democratic protest but, with the involvement of the Hashid Tribal Federation in recent weeks, it has escalated into a power struggle between the government and one of the largest tribal networks in the country (the other being the Bakil tribe). This conflict is unique because in most Middle Eastern countries, tribal affiliation trumps all except for Islamic Law, and most tribes have their own justice system to interpret Islamic Law, but in this case Saleh is part of the very Hashid tribe which is fighting against him. The outcome of this conflict may not have the implications that the west has hoped for. If Saleh retains power he will have given a blow to the entire tribal system by showing it is not above the state, but if the Hashid tribe comes out on top it would have solidified the role of the tribe as a major authority in the Middle East. The initial role of the hope of democracy has diminished into the shadows of a conflict that will have repercussions throughout the cultural heritage throughout the region.

MENA Revolutions and US Foreign Policy

Being adaptable to an evolving international system has never been incumbent upon the United States until now. The modern age of international relations began with the rise of the non-state actor, now more than just IOs, NGOs, or MNCs, and it has now taken on the mantle of a rise in democratic movements. The events in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya show an empowered generation, looking for a chance to establish themselves in a changing world. As the governments of the international community seem to be more likely to embody the mindset of a younger generation, it behoves the United States to do the same. There are about a million reasons as to why the United States continues to pursue the same sort of foreign policy exhibited since the Cold War, but perhaps that policy is not the most productive. Defining productivity begins with a clear understanding of the position the United States has. Its not a widely touted fact, but the US just isn't what it used to be and that is more due to the changing needs of the international system than a potshot at the US. The Cold War necessitated a US that was well established and could serve as a counterbalance for a rising Russia, but the modern system would be better served by a team player. Coalitions, those that are more ideological rather than militarily based, provide a firm foundation and allow states to create a more cohesive system. Non-state actors, such as terrorist organizations, flourish in systems where every man is an island. The United States should transition from a place of military leadership to a more ideological one. The freedom and democracy that has made this country great should not be the excuse that we make to create regional militarily based counterbalances, but rather it should create a space for the free exchange of ideas that current events in the Middle East and North Africa are demanding.

One issue to look at with the current revolutions that are occurring in the Middle East and North Africa is the changing notion of security.  During the Cold War security meant keeping communism from spreading in a domino effect, as well as preventing a nuclear war through deterrence.  During the 90’s security meant ensuring stability in a post-Soviet world with the new states that were emerging out of the former Soviet Union.  Security concerns in the present day encompass the various threats of terrorism.  This creates a dilemma in our support for the current MENA revolutions.  For example in Libya we are helping “pro-democratic” rebels replace an autocratic government.  This could lead to many security issues in the near future due to the instability that could come out of a new and weak government.  Terrorist elements could take root in Libya where previously there was no valid threat.  There are already reports that a former Afghan Mujahadeen, Abdel-Moneim Mokhtar, was killed by Ghadafi’s forces.  Mokhtar was a commander in the Libyan Islamic Fighters Group which had supposedly allied itself with al-Qaeda a few years ago.  This is only the most recent example in which elements of terror groups could be seen as gaining a foothold in a post-Ghadafi Libya.

The emergence of new threats to the security of the United States could be circumvented would be to add to our Revolutionary Aid Packages the services of knowledgeable people to help newly freed states establish governments that will do exactly what governments as supposed to do, work for the people.  It also might go a long way for the United States to better understand who exactly we are supporting.  While it is impossible to clearly understand every nuance of every individual to whom we give aid, we can theorize based on past experiences.  In regards to the current situation, the involvement of the international community at large is, and should, extend farther than providing military cover.  Nation building is an extremely delicate process that needs an amount of attention to detail that necessitates a level of experience in state craft that many of the modern revolutionaries lack.  The vision and the drive and the thirst for freedom is a great starting point, but it is a short distance between a desire for a true democracy and the devolution to a religiously run state, especially for MENA countries.  Security threats emerge in situations where the focus of a country is to not to serve its people but rather to further the goals of the religion, as put forth by the major leaders within the country itself.

As Libya goes through its shift in power, it would be remiss not to comment on the issues facing other MENA countries, specifically Yemen. While so many of the countries in the Middle East are seeing their citizens take part in the Arab Spring, Yemen is a complete paradigm shifter when it comes to a concerted effort on the part of Middle Eastern countries. The Arab League, in the same manner as the African Union, has sought to step in a create a way to end the violence in the country.  While in previous instances, the countries that make up the Arab League would choose to stand back and allow the country in question to deal with its issues on its own, it is now abundantly clear that the demands of the people in one country are not isolated incidents.  The surge for democracy is spreading through out the MENA region and is posing an imminent threat to many of the long standing regional regimes. Involvement on the part of the Arab League in Yemen could be attributed to many things.  The might of the military in Yemen is far more than what is seen in Bahrain or surrounding states, and this could possibly create an escalation to the violence that is detrimental to the citizens at large.  Perhaps the most profound reason for involvement in Yemen as opposed to Bahrain would be sectarian implications.  There is no way to be completely sure that if the government of Bahrain is allowed to be overthrown, the replacement government would not be hard line anti-Shi’a and create an opening for the expansion of the power of Iran in the region.