As the Yemeni president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, cracks down with increasing violence against peaceful protesters, his regime and al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) both repeat the same mantra: political unrest in Yemen is good for al-Qaida.
The US has also suggested that this reading of events is warranted. Defence secretary Robert Gates stated: "We've had counter-terrorism co-operation with President Saleh and the Yemeni security services ... So if that government collapses, or is replaced by one that is dramatically more weak, then I think we'd face some additional challenges out of Yemen, there's no question about it."
But Yemeni politics is anything but a zero-sum game. First, President Saleh has not been a particularly reliable ally on counterterrorism matters, and neither is he the only force standing between Yemen as it is now and Yemen as a jihadi state. In fact, many Yemenis believe that the AQAP organisation is little more than a myth or, at least, part of a cynical plot by the regime to maintain power.
While this understates the level of threat that AQAP does pose, the scepticism is based on at least a kernel of truth. For instance, local security sources have confirmed that President Saleh released about 70 al-Qaida suspects from a prison in Sana'a on 8 March – just 10 days before the most violent crackdown against the protesters began.
This release was not an isolated incident; it is part of a pattern of releases, suspicious escapes and pardons that Saleh has presided over.
One of the most prominent of these was in 2007 when Jamal al-Badawi, the convicted architect of the USS Cole bombing, was released to house arrest after he surrendered to Saleh. He had escaped from prison the previous year with 22 other members of al-Qaida, two of whom now lead AQAP.
Also in 2007, Saleh pardoned Fahd al-Quso for his role in the Cole attack. In 2010, al-Quso re-emerged in an AQAP video, apparently unrepentant, and threatening to attack US interests.
One might reasonably argue that releasing members of AQAP is counter-intuitive; after all, the group actively threatens Saleh's leadership, and kills members of his security services. Saleh has even risked his credibility by permitting the US to conduct airstrikes against them on Yemeni territory. Under what circumstances could releasing members of AQAP be to his advantage?
President Saleh has always ruled by creating confusion, crisis and sometimes fear among those who might challenge him. Releasing people who can who can create these feelings suggests that he was right all along: Yemeni politics is confusing, chaotic, frightening and best left to those used to handling it.
But what Saleh's system was not built to withstand is the collective perception that crisis is not necessary, or that crisis is not an unavoidable part of the political process, or that maybe there is another way to conduct the political process. This is precisely what the protesters are saying, and on this basis they pose an extraordinary threat.
While AQAP has a slick propaganda machine, its propaganda does not change basic realities. In the latest edition of AQAP's English language magazine, Anwar al-Awlaki writes: "Any weakness in [Yemen's] central government would undoubtedly bring with it more strength for the mujahidin in this blessed land."
Days before this was released, a radio station in the governorate of Abyan announced the proclamation of an Islamic emirate and said that under the rules of the new emirate women were not to leave their homes without a male relative and a form of identification.
While the announcement was seized on by the Yemeni regime and western commentators alike, a mere declaration does not an Islamic emirate make.
The declaration overlooks the complexities of Abyan's local landscape, particularly the fact that much of its farming economy relies upon the labour of women. If women are really to remain in their homes the local modes of production will have to shift radically. It is one thing to say that Abyan is an Islamic emirate, but another matter entirely to administer it accordingly without attracting local hostility.
Western policymakers should take neither the Yemeni regime nor AQAP at their word. Doing so gives oxygen to sentiments that are abhorred by most Yemenis and constricts the options of those who are committed to genuine change. Real change will be slow, unstable, and non-linear, but it is inevitable.
I see pictures on Facebook of my young Yemeni friends demonstrating peacefully but assertively. Some of them are carrying gruesome pictures of those killed by the regime's snipers to bolster their argument that the president has lost his legitimacy to rule and must leave.
These heady days will remain with them on the difficult road ahead as biographical hooks in their political consciousness. The networks of trust and solidarity that are being consolidated are likely to endure. As such, they are likely to remember how external actors viewed their nascent project.
As leaderless, amorphous and uninstitutionalised as they may seem, some of these people will emerge as leaders in the future, and western policymakers would be wise to take a longer term view of the changes under way. Yemeni politics – any state's politics – is not a zero-sum game, and here is a group of young people that wants reform and wants a seat at the table.
While the old guard may maintain power for a while longer, the current generation of Yemeni leaders has, essentially, had its day, and it is prudent policy to forge good relations with the next generation.
From Gulf Stream Blues
Comments in chronological order (Total 42 comments)
10 April 2011 11:14AM
The western policy makers are his chums, he can kill as many protestors as he likes. He is playing ball, he gets to kill them and gets massive handouts of Washington Dirty War money and weapons to do it with. He dosn't have to talk them round by saying these things, he is probably doing it with their colusion. The people of Yemen can't be allowed freedom if Washington, London and Brussels have anything to do with it.
10 April 2011 11:18AM
An insightful article, Sarah Phillips - many thanks.
And the very best of luck to the people of Yemen - they sure do need it...
Ma' a salama.
10 April 2011 11:29AM
Interesting article, thank you.
You would have thought so, especially when change is happening at such great speed but unfortunately all leaders as they grow old prefer to cling to the past and what they think they can control.
10 April 2011 11:32AM
In politics, one must contextualise everything (yes I know it's an ugly Americanism, but at least I didn't use the z). When a Malaysian politician says, for example, "our people don't want western democracy", he simply knows that it would be bad for those - like him - in charge. When Saleh says that change would benefit Al Qaida he is being equally disingenuous; he knows that to the west Al Qaida is bad, so by association he wants to imply that change is bad.
So easy to spot when Johnny foreigner tries it on, yet with our own politicians and (even worse) those in the States, people fall for these simple tricks time after time.
10 April 2011 11:44AM
Spot on !
10 April 2011 11:50AM
By the way, another point i'd like to make is that what the youth have successfully demonstrated is that they can achieve far higher results and gain the moral upper ground by following Peaceful protest. AlQaeda is absolutely against anything about peace. So in fact, its not just untrue that change will be good for AlQaeda, the truth is that change is devastating to AlQaeda principles.
10 April 2011 11:50AM
Can anyone tell me in material terms just what socio-political system the rebels/freedom fighters/mujahadeen seek to introduce ?
(please don't bother if the only answer is some utopian fantasy)
10 April 2011 11:52AM
This is a very informative and articulate article, thank you, and there are some useful links too. My sentiment here is one of sadness that the interests of those who want no more than to live their lives in peace are being swept aside by power games.
10 April 2011 11:54AM
The West is terrified that the Arab dictators will collapse, and that Arabs will unite into a Middle Eastern super-state.
After all, why not? They all speak the same language. They are all Muslims, and overwhelmingly Sunni ones. They all hail from the same ethnic group. Compare this to India, which speaks 1,000 languages, has a dozen religions, and numerous ethnicities. An Arab super-state is a much easier proposition.
So al-Qaeda is held up as a bogeyman. This excuses the West in continuing to support 'reliable' oil-producing dictatorships on the Arabian peninsula. Poor old Gaddafi just wasn't reliable enough.
10 April 2011 12:01PM
Novocastrian13:
The ppl would like mainly freedom, end corruption, enforce accountability, civil state with a parliamentary system, strong education, health system.. I think you can google it if u want more details
10 April 2011 12:34PM
UnevenSurface (10 April 2011 11:32AM);
It isn't that straightforward actually; the OED claims the '-ize' form as more correct, based on Greek rather than French derivation. Americans do tend to use '-ize' whereas the British use '-ise', but it isn't wrong to use one rather than the other.
10 April 2011 12:48PM
Excellent article Ms. Phillips. I think that our own governments and every dictator and repressive regime around, those our governments back/backed and those they did but don't now as expedient - not just in the MENA either - has used the Al Qaeda-brand bogeyman or just generic Radical Islamists to justify massive and murderous repression for a decade now. This is not saying they don't exist, but that they've been built up far, far beyond their actual size or capabilities to represent a handy justification for lethal oppression.
beebeecee: I realise it wasn't you that wrote it originally, but Al Qaeda means 'the base' - as in any sort of base. It's not Arabic for 'database' specifically (I think YemenFirst1980 would probably be a lot better on Arabic than me, so s/he'd probably be able to explain better).
10 April 2011 1:18PM
beebeecee: Yes, I knew that, thanks. And he was a great man. I'm just saying that Al Qaeda doesn't specifically mean 'the database,' but 'the base' generally.
10 April 2011 2:44PM
This article describes the situation in Yemen precisely.As a Yemeni national and anti-Ali Saleh young , I view that he is the reason behind all the dilemmas and crisis of Yemen as he couldn't rule without that. All Alqaida members in Yemen have a monthly salary from the president and he uses them as a scaremonger to get subsidies from neighboring countries, Europeans and USA in addition to killing
his opponents.
Thank you to MS Sarah and everyone side with us.
10 April 2011 2:56PM
Cairncross
In your dreams. If Arabs can't unite within the borders of one of their main countries they are hardly likely to be able to do it across the entire region. What for example have the population heavy but resource light larger nations have to offer the smaller population light but resource heavy countries such as the Gulf states? Why would they wish to spread their wealth around.
It was tried before with the UAR and that didn't last long.
10 April 2011 3:08PM
To support Saleh to thwart Al-Quaida is short-sighted. As outlined in this excellent piece, Saleh plays fast and loose with AQ for his own political survival. A democratic society in the hands of the people of Yemen, who mostly reject AQ's ambitions, would be much more effective and willing to eradicate AQ for good, and counter-terrorism efforts would be helped by a friendly populace.
However, Robert Gates makes a good point; a weak government will only help AQ destabilize the region and consolidate their forces in Yemen (most likely by exploiting North-South tensions as well as sectarian differences). As such, it is important that any democracy be strong and united and representative of all the people of Yemen. This will not be easy and, indeed, is part of the reason why the West and Saudi Arabia are loath to let go of Saleh, who brings short-term stability to the detriment of the long-term objective.
10 April 2011 4:07PM
I find the article rather naive.
The British Foriegn office will do what it always does - what it always has done - it will act in what it regards as being best for British interests...
...where 'British Interests' means 'British commercial interests' and influence.
This is a complex formula that involves pleasing existing and potential allies but rarely if ever involves human rights or other ethical considerations.
I doubt if equivalent bodies in many other nations are all that different.
The threat of terrorism or the promise of democracy is just PR window dressing for the consumption of fools via rolling news broadcasts.
I wouldn't worry - our government will follow the money and the oil - as in Iraq - as in Libya - as always.
10 April 2011 4:27PM
That is true. However, facing an Arab population and diaspora that is increasingly well-educated and connected to the internet, intervention by the British, Americans and Israelis, is increasingly difficult and covert.
In days past, the travesty that is the military transitional regime in Egypt would have been enough to quell the anger in the streets of Cairo. however, that has not proved to be the case. Despite the media's attention being elsewhere, protests in Cairo and Tunis are still going strong as the people are increasingly dissatisfied with what they see as new regimes as corrupt as the old ones under a new motus operandi.
It is going to be much harder in years to come for the Arabs to be distracted by empty promises as they start really looking for results. However, I have no doubt that MI6, the CIA and Mossad will be hard at work to destabilize the regions in order to scare the Arabs into going back to repressive police states in the name of security and stability. It will be up to them to be brave and united in shaping their destinies and defeating external interests.
10 April 2011 4:30PM
We should not accept Saleh's spin unless he and his oppressing comrades have an account in British banks very much like Egyptian Junta or other dictators.
10 April 2011 4:33PM
Is Libya more of a 'problem'.
"Time Magazine dug up a US Army report that Libya provided the highest number of anti-US foreign fighters in Iraq per capita based on their home country. They virtually all came from the impoverished and neglected environs of Benghazi, Darnah, Ajdabiyah, and Misrata - the heartland of the current rebellion.“
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MC26Ad01.html
10 April 2011 4:49PM
nhoj10 April 2011 4:33PM
"Time Magazine dug up a US Army report that Libya provided the highest number of anti-US foreign fighters in Iraq per capita based on their home country. They virtually all came from the impoverished and neglected environs of Benghazi, Darnah, Ajdabiyah, and Misrata - the heartland of the current rebellion.“
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MC26Ad01.html
This was confirmed by someone very high up the American political establishment.....Hillary Clinton
So now we have a glimpse of who these rebels really are
Al-Jazeera pitching their news propagande at the same level as Fox News call them pro-democracy forces.Really...
10 April 2011 4:53PM
"So now we have a glimpse of who these rebels really are"
And why the US withdrew from the alliance?
10 April 2011 5:14PM
@nhoj, matrixloaded: Is it any surprise that most of the AQ fighters came from economically and politically neglected portions of Libya? Raised on Muammar Gaddhafi's Green Book doctrine (which is fervently anti-imperialist) and with many tensions (mostly tribal) to exploit, Eastern Libyans are a prime demographic for AQ recruiting operations. does that mean that there are fighters with AQ affiliations in the rebel forces? Of course! And they are a great asset at that since unlike most of the youth they know how to handle their weapons.
AQ has interests in Libya and it should be no surprise that some agents would be there trying to shape the post-Gaddhafi landscape in their favour. That does not mean, however, that the simplistic explanation that the rebels are merely extremists looking to take power is any more valid. They are but one of many groups with interests in the rebellion alongside Western intelligence services and regime defectors who decided that switching sides was a safer bet for political survival and influence.
10 April 2011 5:25PM
Well that may be true - but the article was tasking 'western policy makers' (a glib and clumsy term) not to be taken in by Saleh's spin.
I am 100% certain those who draw up western foreign policy are not deceived for a millisecond - and not being able to sort out our foriegn policy needs by despatching a few gunboats is hardly a new problem.
As ever we will back the winning side in the end - we may be in the twilight days of manipulating the outcome and reigeme change but that won't add an ethical dimension to our foreign policy.
Dictatorships are much easier to deal with than democracies so 'western polcy makers' will be rather cool on the idea I suspect.
10 April 2011 6:15PM
I couldn't agree more. I also suspect that it's not so much a question of picking a side, as some overeager liberal interventionists have argued; the side is picked for all parties in these conflicts through shared economic interests.
No matter how the West responds to these revolutions, if it can keep it's economic relevance to the region as a major client, the new regimes will support them. As a result, there is no rush for any of the Western policy makers to pick the winning side early (for fear of post-revolution hostility) because these new regimes will ultimately have to rely on us for internal security training and equipment and we rely on them for oil and other resources.
This is partly why I am not optimistic about Saleh being deposed. With Western eyes set on Libya, Western politicians have very little to gain from abandoning their good friend in Yemen and lots to lose.
10 April 2011 8:22PM
Quite.
With that in mind - do you not find the breathless naivety of the article rather - daft.
I hate being a cynic, I really do - but real progress never comes from a deluded starting point.
10 April 2011 8:27PM
I had a good look at Yemen in the intro to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (COD 4).
It is a pretty grim place, and I wouldn't fancy being there for real.
They shoot people in the streets, you know.
10 April 2011 8:43PM
I see where you're coming from; it is indeed rather naive for a journalist to think that an editorial letter somehow gives policy-makers additional information they didn't already know and dismiss. After all, they are privy to a lot more information than journalists or the public, and, regardless of what's written in the editorials, government policies will develop independently. I'm sure Western policy-makers are well aware of Mr. Saleh's duplicity but accept it as a necessary evil since his use of Al-Qaida for his own ends indirectly benefit them, since Saleh graciously allows drone strikes and aggressive counter-terror efforts that a government accountable to public opinion might not allow at the same price or at all.
However, there is much truth in the article and it is a good article for the civilian reader who is, in general, being starved of any accurate information about Yemen. It is precisely for these readers that I think the article was intended for and it is refreshing to see a reasonable position on Al-Qaida (where far-right-wingers have irrational, reactionary views and far-left-wingers allege it's all a CIA plot).
So, yes, maybe the article is a bit naively optimistic about Western policy-makers being influence by what is frankly quite common knowledge for anyone following the Middle East closely, but it is a welcome stance and a voice of reason among the fear-mongering about Al-Qaida.
10 April 2011 9:28PM
Achilles0200
Odd that you can remember the UAR, but not the Ottomans...
10 April 2011 11:35PM
Thank you Sarah Phillips for your article and I am looking forward to read your book on Yemen.
As you quite rightly say, Yemen politics is not a ‘zero-sum’ game, and so is the way the so called Western policymakers think. I am sure they are not naive to take Saleh at his word. They certainly know more than us that Saleh has been overplaying the al-Qaeda card. There is an excellent piece that has been written recently by Alasnag, a former Yemeni Foreign Minister, that eloquently highlights the most significant events in how Saleh dealt with al-Qaeda since 2000 when the USS Cole was bombed in the Gulf of Aden.
The Western policymakers know all this and still lent support to Saleh until recently, despite the killing of the protestors. Why would they do that? Are they stupid? Are they that immoral to lend support to a criminal who is massacring his people? In my opinion, they are not stupid but immoral. They know for certain that Saleh has been very valuable for them. No one other than Saleh would accept the killing of innocent civilians by a drone attack. They know for certain that no patriotic leader would tell General David Petraeus, when discussing American military strikes in Yemen: “We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours,”. So why would they support the people's choice in getting rid of Saleh and choosing their own leader?
I can confirm that Yemen post Saleh will see a very little or no activity of al-Qaeda, but also will witness a more decent and loyal government that will never do whatever the Americans want. Decency and patriotism are not welcomed or promoted by the Americans in the Arab world- they think we don’t deserve them. The situation in Yemen now is beyond any external intervention. It is in the hand of the people who are sacrificing their blood for a better future. The people whom Saleh is making the peaceful revolution impossible for them. As the Egyptians and Tunisians humiliated Hosni and Ben Ali, Saleh will be humiliated. And also as the Egyptians and Tunisians look with disdain on the Americans and their roles in their revolutions, we will do the same.
11 April 2011 12:30AM
As long as the youth in Yemen continue to spit in Al-Qaida's face and in the face of everything they represent, then all the power to them.
11 April 2011 1:30AM
Bear in mind also that the majority of the AQAP personnel are actually Saudi Arabians as most terrorists in most countries of the world. In late 2009, some two hundred "escaped from Saudi Arabia and crossed over through the Yemeni border", ironically undetected by the secuirty authorities of both countries, as the Saudi press referred to these AQ members among the ""most wanted terrorists by Saudi authorities." The Sauid role in AQAP should not be ignored even if the Saudi Government swears on 10 Qurans that they are allies in the War against Terror! Saudi Arabia has been the place of origin of almost all forms of Islamic terrorism for the last two hundred years!
11 April 2011 1:39AM
It is far more naive to judge an article by its tagline.
While policy makers may indeed be aware of some of Saleh's games, they make policy on how it will benefit them at home. At the moment that is to be seen to be supporting stability in the middle east and doing something about al-Qa’ida. Saleh aims to capitalise on this by helping to create a perception that by supporting him they are seen to be doing just that.
I feel this article does a great job of exposing this falsehood and hope that it goes some way to making the continued support of Saleh and his regime by the west a less comfortable position for self interested policy makers.
11 April 2011 4:54AM
Washington, London, Tel Aviv. House of Saud Saleh, AQAP. All factions of the same beast I'm afraid.
You're being played by the empire. Yemen is on a major choke point for Chinese and Japanese oil shipments.
You connect the dots.
My puzzle keeps coming out "full spectrum dominance".
11 April 2011 5:44AM
11 April 2011 6:40AM
This article appears to be the latest installment in the never-ending stream of naive threads about the Arab Revolution that have appeared on CiF. When reading this article one should keep in mind the current developments in Egypt and compare them to the gushing rose-coloured rhetoric that flooded these pages. Or better yet - chew on some Ghat.
11 April 2011 7:19AM
To make such claims you must have evidence, as this article does.
Is it naive to point out that Saleh is releasing al-Qa’ida members to foster chaos? Or that Saleh is ordering snipers to shoot protestors? Or do you claim that it is naive to think that the majority of Yemenis are not actually radicalised militants?
11 April 2011 8:53AM
Look at the pic. All these people can do is shout "Go out, go out!"
I'm getting very tired of all these anti-government writings. These protesters have the right to ask for reforms (in a peaceful manner indeed), but they have no right to demand the President to leave right now.
11 April 2011 3:43PM
Interesting article, but as is so often the case, the elephant in the room - the potentially lethal combination of a large, young population with a poor, waterless country - is ignored.
11 April 2011 11:04PM
I have to post my comment on and on, it is not about arrogance but ignorance, what someone may expect from an half-illiterate 65 years old man, who is the doll of the usa, we write the 21st century, saleh did not get it, he is out-date, his narrow minded thinking may impress his qat-chewing tribal warriors, what a shame, he did the same as imam ahmad did in 1948 meaning bringing the tribes into sana'a city, "I will give the powers only to "safe hands" ... this sucks, either he is mentally sick or really a bad man, yemen is ready to apply the goals of the failed revolutions in 1948 and '62 ... the establishment of civil society, always saleh's system has excuses, 1st the imam card, then the religious extremist card, then the secessionist card, then the islahi card, then the houthi card, finally the qaedah card, this is not poker, what he did, he spoiled our identity, dignity and nationality, nobody does respect us and the world does think that we are extremists, but the new generation wants to approve the opposite, saleh has not only to understand this, he and his clique has to be judged and punished, how many times they did brought unrest for yemen, stop it!!! ... get it folks saleh is incapable to retreat, first because he is afraid of punishment second because he is covered by greedy corrupt people.
we do not want interference, we just need liberty and equality, it is not only the question that saleh has to go, the whole system is corrupt, saleh did rule like the mafiosi "the godfather", he created new sheikhs, judges and intellectuals loyal to him, becaused they did receive millions of dollar, since when the new villa compounds do exist, after yemen did export oil, the system is so perfidious and corrupt after the 32 year rule of saleh, a kind of fascist system, own party, 2 own militias armee-like sized, own banks, own institutions, in general he made people worse than him in order to rule them, they have to leave power but and completely meaning to be judged: 2 main questions do arise: from where they got all this wealth? what did they did exactly for the yemen nation? people are ignorant especially in the tribal areas, what saleh's system did for sana'a? do not forget that sana'a is the capital of yemen, the infrastructure is almost from the days saleh got the power 1979, what we got: some bridges and a mosque, the complete infrastructure eg. the streets, sanitary system, electricity and hospitals need an urgent repair, now we write the 21st century: no water, no gas, no electricity, lame internet connection, bad education and health system, people shout slogans for saleh and his system meaning they want changes but sticking to corruption, what we can change when saleh will stay in power, nothing - it will get only worse, it is easy to leave but what is about responsibility, saleh's system wasted the national resources, spoiled our identity and nationality, killed thousands of people by fighting resistance movements and "now just leave - no way!"
12 April 2011 3:25AM
It is the interest of these tyrants to keep the fear of terrorism alive, so that they can keep milking the cow. The more they scare USA and the West the more money they can get to enrich themselves. If they were serious about eliminating they could have done by now. This scenerio is surely applicable to Yemen. This guy is addicted to power, and every one know how hard it is to kick the habit.
12 April 2011 5:08AM
Last week the excellent Tawakkol Karman, and now Sarah Phillips, the message is clear; it is time to put aside misplaced cynicism about the future of Yemen. It is time to see this change as a force for good, to appreciate its uniqueness as well as its complexities, to realise that the road will be long, of course there are no guarantees, of course there is no so-called concrete vision or truth or a singular leadership. But what there is, is potentially far more important than any focused future plan, there is hope, and hope has finally set the Yemenis free; the road map will surely come, so let’s have some political and moral will not to undermine the rare commodity of hope or its followers; freedom and democracy.