Wednesday, November 01, 2006

President Saleh’s re-election is bad news for struggling Yemen

M.S. Ahmed

That Yemen is in the grip of poverty, drought, political mismanagement and corruption is not in doubt. Nor is there any doubt that Yemen is steeped in tribal and regional tension and, at times, confrontation that might again split the country into South Yemen (a former British colony) and North Yemen.

President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who has been in office for 28 years, is mainly responsible for the persistence of these problems. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) evenblames his regime (in a report issued on October 13) for exacerbating the drought by its failure to finance anti-drought projects. That Saleh has now been re-elected for another seven-year term can only bode ill for a country with such serious problems. But opposition parties and politicians must share some of the responsibility, not only because of their failure to stage an effective challenge to Saleh but also for their cooperation with the corrupt system, mostly behind the scenes but sometimes publicly. Their ready acceptance of his re-election – to the extent that some of those in exile returned almost immediately – is only one result of their capitulation to him.

One of the opposition leaders returning him after a bitter 12-year opposition to Saleh in exile is Abdulrahman al-Jaffari and his party colleagues. He returned to Sana, the capital, in mid-September after a telephone conversation with the president, who sent them his presidential aeroplane to return home in. In an interview with al-Sharq al-Awsat on October 10, he said that what persuaded him to return to Yemen after a 12-year absence “is the president’s determination to carry out extensive reforms in all areas of political, economic and social life, given the fact that he is the most capable person to carry them out and lead Yemen.”

Jaffari and his colleagues must have guessed that Saleh would win; they returned home a few days before the presidential election, which was held on September 20. They must also have agreed to vote for him, as their return was brought forward by the despatch of the presidential aircraft. Moreover, Saleh was expected to win, although his opponent, Faisal bin Shamlan of the Islah party (seen generally as Islamic in Yemen), was expected to do well and lose only by a small margin. But the final results, published on September 23, claimed that Saleh won 77.2 percent and Shalman 21.8 percent of the votes cast by six million people. At first the opposition parties protested loudly, accusing Saleh of rigging the poll and therefore rejecting the results altogether. They also promised their supporters that they would organise the expression of popular opposition by means of nationwide marches. But on September 26 they announced their acceptance of the election’s official results and their recognition of Saleh as the country’s president. In fact, Shamlan told journalists that the “announced results are accurate and that the opposition alliance will abide by them”. The reason for this change of heart was explained in a statement published by the alliance, which argued that there was “a strong need to avoid any confrontation or clashes with the authorities.”

But this did not diminish the discussion of public affairs and criticism of the president or the regime – partly because of the presence of a large number of foreign journalists in the country to cover the election. In particular, the discussion centred on Saleh’s plan to pass power to his son when he leaves in seven years, as the constitution requires. His son, 35-year-old Ahmed, already holds the post of commander of the Republican Guard and of the special forces, and plays a prominent role in Yemen’s political life. Saleh has also appointed several other members of his own family to senior public posts, thereby giving the impression that his rule is somewhat hereditary.

For instance, Saleh appointed his brother, Ali Muhsin al-Ahmar, as military commander of two provinces, while appointing another brother, Muhammad Saleh al-Ahmar, as commander of the air force, and his nephew Yahya Muhammad Abdullahi as commander of the security forces. Saleh, himself a lieutenant-general who seized power in 1978, must know the high value of military and security commanders to the ruler of a country that is not prone to military coups. He must also know the protection that succession by a relative can offer to a corrupt ruler who has been in office for a long time. The son or other close relative of an outgoing despot will be unlikely to order an investigation into his kinsman’s rule, let alone put him on trial, after succeeding him. Saleh is also aware that many Yemenis consider the appointment of a son as successor normal practice in Arab countries. After all, Hafez al-Asad of Syria not long ago arranged to be succeeded by his son Bashshar, and Egypt’s president, Husni Mubarak, is openly setting the stage for his son Gamal to succeed him.

Most Yemenis are certainly aware of Saleh’s resort to corrupt economic and political practices to stay in power, but many of them also know that it is difficult to govern a country that is divided into tribal and political groups that are hostile to each other. As a Yemeni proverb famously says, ruling Yemen is like trying to dance on the head of a snake. He is given credit by many for holding together North Yemen and Southern Yemen, a former British colony, which united in 1990. Since then, the south has not only tried to secede but frequent clashes between the tribal groups of both regions have taken place. Moreover, the fact that the potential for violence is never far from the surface is underlined by the prevalence of firearms in the country, whose 20 million citizens are estimated to own some 60 million firearms between them.

In fact, last year the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace placed Yemen eighth in its index of countries most likely to disintegrate, following such countries as Somalia andAfghanistan. The fear of violence breaking out may explain the sudden decision of the five-party opposition alliance, led by the leader of Islah, Faisal bin Shalman, who is from South Yemen, to accept the election results and recognise Saleh, who is from the north, as president. Earlier, the alliance had promised to stage a strong campaign against the re-election of the president and to expose the methods he had used to rig the poll.

The ruling General People’s Congress (GPC), which had collected huge sums of money from businessmen and companies to finance its campaign, put up millions of posters across the country that praised the president and maligned his opponents. The GPC also unleashed a “whispering campaign”, as media reports described it, which hinted that Shalman was “a Trojan horse for an Islamist coup, or southern secession”. But even more outrageously “a conservative Sheikh” appeared on state television, saying that “to vote against the president was forbidden in Islam”. Clearly Saleh also uses corrupt “Islamic leaders”, although he is widely known to be completely secular and very hostile to Islamic movements.

The president’s hostility towards Islam and Islamic movements obviously disqualifies him to rule a Muslim country. But his transparent failure to solve Yemen’s economic problems and reduce the widespread poverty that is blighting the lives of many Yemenis is another good reason why he should quit now. The World Bank estimates that 42 percent of Yemenis live below the poverty line, while economic growth in recent years has not matched population growth. Moreover oil-exports, which at present supply 70 percent of state revenues, are set to decline as reserves dwindle, and may in fact run out altogether by 2012.

But as state revenues continue to dwindle, Saleh will be forced to apply public funds to protect his family, friends and principal supporters against the escalating poverty, leaving most Yemenis to face it unaided. This may lead in the end to overwhelming public resentment and anger that might rid Yemen of a corrupt and anti-Islamic despot who should not have been able to seize power in the first place.

Ali Abdullah SalehYemen

Friday, September 01, 2006

Hizbullah shocks the world by defeating the military power of the West’s regional proxy

By Nasr Salem



With their zeal, courage and discipline, Hizbullah's intrepid fighters stood off Israel's military juggernaut in the hilly, forested landscape of southernLebanon. Ensconced in villages and towns throughout southern Lebanon, Hizbullah's fighters weathered 33 days of intense Israeli air-strikes and a series of tank-led ground incursions, and emerged victorious. Not only did Hizbullah's steadfastness deprive Israel of its declared battlefield objectives; it also pushed the Israeli establishment into a political snakepit and a cacophony of mutual recriminations.
The ostensible trigger for the fighting came on July 12, when Hizbullah fighters carried out a daring cross-border raid which resulted in the capture of two Israeli soldiers and the killing of eight others. The purpose of the operation was to capture Israeli soldiers to use in a prisoner-exchange aimed to free Lebanese (and possibly other Arab) prisoners and captives held in Israeli jails. In a press conference immediately after the operation, Hizbullah secretary-general Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah told reporters: "No military operation will return the two soldiers. The prisoners will not be returned except through one way: indirect negotiations and an exchange." In 2004 Hizbullah won the release of 420 Lebanese and other Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, in exchange for the remains of three dead Israeli soldiers and one reserve Israeli army colonel.
By ordering Israel's largest military operation against Lebanon since the invasion in 1982, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert relied on Israel's overwhelmingly superior airpower to destroy Hizbullah, while at the same time avoid the kind of protracted low-intensity war of attrition that markedIsrael's 22-year occupation of southern Lebanon. However, the air campaign failed to achieve any of its declared objectives, such as wiping out Hizbullah's missile capability, decapitating its leadership and establishing a buffer zone as far north from the border as the Litani River; it succeeded only in exacting a high toll from Lebanese civilians by killing or maiming them, blasting bridges, destroying infrastructure, and shutting down Beirut's international airport.
Hizbullah's resilience on the battlefield stems partly from the fact that it was fighting on its own territory. The strong support it enjoys among the local population fits in well with Mao Tse-tung's classic analogy that likens an effective guerrilla force, fighting amid a civilian population that largely subscribes to its goals, to a fish in the sea. The nature of Hizbullah's fight against Israel as a kind of revolutionary warfare was underlined repeatedly during the fighting in a number of televised speeches by Sayyid Nasrallah, who emphasized again and again that Hizbullah does not fight like a regular army, does not aim to hold on to territory, and engages the enemy using guerrilla tactics.

Guerrilla tactics cannot be successful without painstaking military and operational planning. Since Israel retreated from most of southern Lebanon in May 2000, Hizbullah has worked secretly to construct an extensive network of underground bunkers and tunnels along Lebanon's borders with Occupied Palestine and elsewhere in southern Lebanon. The utility of these fortifications goes beyond providing the fighters with safe shelter. It has also helped them ambush and trap advancing Israeli soldiers. On numerous occasions Israeli officials announced that their forces had seized a certain territory, only to find themselves engaged in more intense fighting in that area. During the many incursions they launched, Israeli forces were surrounded by Hizbullah fighters, armed with rifles, grenades and guided missiles, and lying in ambush in houses, alleys and tunnels.
Moreover, in close-quarter combat, Hizbullah fighters made effective use of wire-guided and laser-guided anti-tank missiles, thus turning the hills and valleys of southern Lebanon into graveyards for Israel's much-touted Mirkava battle tank, with its advanced armour plating. Computerized weapons-systems have also reportedly been used by Hizbullah fighters to feed coordinates of targets to the missiles. The use of short-range anti-aircraft missiles and guns has also limited the battlefield utility of Israeli gunships. Hi-tech listening equipment enabled Hizbullah to eavesdrop on Israeli military communications.
By its calculated use of an arsenal composed of thousands of ground-to-ground missiles and rockets, Hizbullah managed to establish a balance of terror with Israel's far more powerful military machine. It is clear that the essence of Hizbullah's missile deterrence strategy is a low-intensity variation of the notion of "mutual assured destruction." Israeli air strikes against roads, bridges and residential areas in Lebanon were met with retaliatory rocket strikes against northern Israeli cities, towns and settlements. Hizbullah's retaliatory rocket attacks were conducted within the framework of a ‘graduated response' strategy which allows varying levels of engagement and requires a highly disciplined operational and organizational structure. Retaliatory attacks struck deeper into Israel in tandem with the intensity of Israel's attacks. At one point, Shaikh Nasrallah warned that if Israel were to expand its bombing campaign against areas in the suburbs of Beirut to include the Lebanese capital itself, then Hizbullah would launch rockets against the capital of the "usurping entity," i.e. Tel Aviv.
By drawing on long-range missiles to strike targets deep inside Occupied Palestine, Hizbullah presented Israel with an unprecedented challenge. The use of missiles not only dented Israel's superiority in the sky, which it owes mainly to the unlimited supply of US-made fighter-jets and attack-helicopters, but also rendered less relevant the notion of large-scale ground operations that the Israeli army resorted to in the past under the rubric of establishing secure strategic depth. During the fighting, Hizbullah's missiles hit as far as Hadera, some 30 miles north of Tel Aviv. So even if Israel's forces were able to capture and hold a 10- or 20-mile deep security zone, Hizbullah would still be able to hit targets deep inside Occupied Palestine. Ballistic warfare, therefore, is poised to have far-reaching tactical and strategic implications that could redefine the military aspect of the fight against Israel. As Palestinian fighters in Ghazzah show increasing improvement in their use of missiles against Israeli settlements and other targets, more areas under Israeli occupation will become vulnerable to rocket strikes.
So Israel finds itself impaled on the horns of a dilemma. Five months ago, Olmert's Kadima party won a general election with a campaign-platform that included a promise to draw Israel's final borders by means of a partial withdrawal from the West Bank and the annexation of major Jewish settlement blocs. Kadima argued that Israel's frontiers would be protected by the recently-constructed concrete-and-steel separation barrier. Short-range missiles render this desire simply a pipe-dream. On the other hand, Hizbullah's recent use of medium-range missiles has punctured the notion of territorial depth that guided zionist expansionism.
Hizbullah's careful preparations went beyond the military domain. One example of this is Hizbullah's television-channel, al-Manar. The station stayed on air, from unidentified locations and hidden studios, throughout the fighting, despite the air-strikes that destroyed its headquarters in the early days of the war, and despite repeated bombardment of its relay towers and masts across the country.
But Hizbullah's staying power on the battlefield has as much to do with the effective use of military science as with the extraordinarily high morale of its fighters. Deep faith among Hizbullah's rank and file helped to nurture an unusual operational and battlefield discipline, instilled a culture of secrecy, and reduced the fear of death during close-combat operations and air-strikes. There were numerous reports of close-combat confrontations where, in the face of Hizbullah's deeply religious, highly-motivated and well-trained fighters, Israeli soldiers found themselves pinned down and unable even to return fire.
Strong faith also protected Hizbullah from penetration by Israel's intelligence services. The war has shown up how little detailed information Israel's famed intelligence services had on Hizbullah's forces, tactics, equipment and weaponry. Israeli military planners had no adequate knowledge of Hizbullah's military resources, of the organisational structure of its fighting force, or of what it was capable of. This reality was underlined repeatedly during the fighting, with such remarkable achievements as when Hizbullah deployed surface-to-sea missiles to cripple two Israeli warships, shot down two Israeli helicopters, and sent up drones on reconnaissance missions over Occupied Palestine.
That combination of faith, discipline, preparedness and tactical skills increased Hizbullah's characteristic advantage as a guerrilla force fighting on its home ground. But Hizbullah's victory has not only humiliated the zionists. The Arab regimes, who have long been convinced that there is no point in going to war with Israel, have been embarrassed by Hizbullah's battlefield success. In the Arab world the main question on most people's minds now is: If Hizbullah's small militia can hold their own against Israeli soldiers on the ground, even with Israeli control of the air, why are the Arab armies incapable of pulling off a similar feat, despite the vast military and other resources at their disposal?