By Eleanor Beevor
America, along with its partner the UK, has continued to back the Saudi-led coalition's disastrous and bloody intervention in Yemen. Yet those trying to justify the support have still failed to come up with a half-convincing reason why. President Obama didn’t seem entirely sure what he wanted to get out of the war when he initiated support for it in 2015, other than re-affirming “American friendship” with King Salman.
But Obama’s appalling decision seems to be one of his few policies that the Trump administration is - surprisingly - happy to carry on with. Trump railed against American blood and money being spent abroad on the campaign trail. He could easily have convinced his support base that this intervention was a waste of their tax dollars.
Still he has continued American support for the war, which begs the question of why. It’s certainly not because his aides have found better arguments in favour of the intervention. Vague talk of "strategy" and a need to "curb Iranian influence" in Yemen are the best lines they have come up with so far.
To call backing the coalition a "strategic" decision is frankly embarrassing, given that the coalition’s own partners cannot agree what Yemen's political future should look like. The UAE has backed southern separatists in Yemen, has co-opted Al Qaeda fighters into its ground forces, all the while running internationally illegal torture prisons.
The Saudis still back the return to power of the internationally recognised President Hadi over a united Yemen, but are apparently incapable of reining in their Emirati allies. The only thing the coalition seems able to agree on is that they are happy to annihilate the Yemeni population for any modest gains against Houthi rebels.
All of this is going to hurt, not help western security interests. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) - the Al Qaeda branch that has coordinated the most terrorist attacks against the west since Bin Laden's death - is empowered by broken governance, poverty and instability. Left broken, Yemen will be ripe ground for global jihadist organisations after the coalition leaves.
The ongoing support for the war has earned America further scorn and loathing in the Middle East. Iranian influence in Yemen was negligible in the first place - if anything it was exacerbated in the course of the conflict. So much bad press, and an incomprehensible level of human suffering, for such pitiful gains.
But despite the staggering amount of evidence that the coalition had absolutely no regard for Yemeni lives or for international law, this month Secretary of State Mike Pompeo extended Washington’s mandate of support for the coalition.
His certification ensures that America will continue to provide the coalition with mid-air refueling for their airstrike campaign. He would not have had to extend it at all had it not been for a bipartisan challenge by legislators, who had demanded Pompeo either certify that the coalition are making serious efforts to reduce civilian deaths, or to end support for the war.
A two-year-old Yemeni boy suffering from malnutrition is weighed at a hospital on September 19, 2018 (AFP)
Pompeo’s “evidence” that the coalition are making efforts to reduce casualties consists of some pithy statements from a Saudi spokesperson, conceding that “mistakes were made” when a coalition killed a bus full of schoolchildren. But the real reason he extended the certification came to light soon afterwards. And predictably, it had nothing to do with strategy, or with faith that the coalition was going to change its ways.
The Wall Street Journal has reported that Pompeo ignored the concerns of the State Department specialists on Yemen, including military specialists, after his legislative affairs team warned that suspending assistance to the coalition would damage the prospects of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, worth in upwards of $2 billion. Specifically, the legislative team feared that the sale of 120,000 precision guided missiles would be cancelled if American support was discontinued.
The Wall Street Journal cited a leaked memo and anonymous sources. According to the memo, Pompeo was advised by regional and military specialists to reject the certification due to "a lack of progress on mitigating civilian casualties", the risk of having their human rights messaging to the coalition undermined, and the reputational damage that the State Department would suffer for rolling over. But Pompeo was convinced to extend when his team wrote that "failure to certify may also negatively impact future foreign military sales and direct commercial sales to the region".
True, it's not unreasonable for Pompeo to fear backlash from the Saudis. But it goes to show that Washington has become deeply afraid of Saudi Arabia under Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. Prince Mohammed's relationships with his international allies are not "alliances" in the typical sense. He does not want cooperation and trade as and when possible. He wants total deference to his wishes from world powers, on matters both great and extremely small.
Germany was the first to find out just how fragile the Prince's pride is. Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said last November that Germany could not tolerate the “adventurism” that had grown in the Middle East. This was soon after the shock resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, which was apparently forced by Saudi Arabia. Prince Mohammed was reportedly “deeply offended” and responded by recalling the Saudi Ambassador to Berlin (who has still not returned) and severing masses of business ties with Germany.
Lest anyone think this was an isolated incident, Riyadh kicked off an extraordinary spat with Canada last month over a pro-human rights tweet by the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland. Freeland urged Saudi Arabia to release detained women’s rights activists. Her tweet – hardly unusual – would probably have passed unnoticed if it had been left alone. Instead, an epic tantrum followed.
Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador, suspended all trade deals with Ottowa, pulled thousands of Saudi students and patients out of Canadian universities and hospitals and forced them to come home, sold off all Canadian assets, and even seemingly threatened Canada with a 9/11 style attack. Yet Canada’s western allies, who would be expected to come to Ottowa’s defence, responded with a deafening silence.
More recently, Spain tried to halt the sale of 400 laser guided bombs to Saudi Arabia over concerns that they would be used in Yemen. But the decision was overturned after fears that the Saudis would cancel a $1.8 billion deal to buy warships from Spain as well if the bomb sale was halted. This fear was probably well founded. Riyadh no longer sees arms sales as just a transaction, but as a litmus test of whether a country is with or against it.
The grim truth is that this international bullying seems to be working for the moment. Washington’s major foreign policy decisions are now being swayed by fears of retaliation from Riyadh. Given current Saudi willingness to blow up otherwise functional alliances over anything from arms sales to trivial swipes, it’s not surprising that the US is anticipating backlash. No question there would be plenty if Washington suspended support to the coalition.
But if Saudi Arabia’s most powerful ally is too scared to stand up to it, it’s hard to see who else will. One shouldn’t expect to see some backbone from the Trump cabinet towards Riyadh anytime soon. Trump and Jared Kushner’s Middle East “peace” “plan” depends on Saudi support. Nor will they want to threaten arms and energy sales. One can only hope that Washingtonians secretly realise the dangers of submission to the mood swings of a proud and inexperienced young Prince. At the very least, perhaps we might be spared the pretence that there is anything “strategic” about this horrifying war.
