The last American troops have been pulled out of Yemen after al-Qaeda fighters stormed a city near their base last Friday. Houthi rebels who had already overrun most of the country have now entered Aden, the last stronghold of President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi. And on Wednesday Hadi boarded a helicopter and departed for parts unknown.
The US State Department spokesman put the best possible face on the withdrawal of American troops, saying that “due to the deteriorating security situation in Yemen, the US government has temporarily relocated its remaining personnel out of Yemen.” He even said that the US continued to support the “political transition” in Yemen. But there is no “political transition.” There is a four-sided civil war (although one side is about to collapse).
Why would anybody be surprised? There has been no 25-year period since the 7th century AD when there was not a civil war of one sort or another in Yemen. (They are often many-sided wars, and the impression that it was less turbulent before the 7th century may just be due to poor record-keeping.) But this time it’s actually frightening the neighbours.
Yemen’s current turmoil started in 2011, when the dictator who had ruled the country for 33 years, President Ali Abdullah Saleh, was forced out by non-violent democratic protesters (and some tribal militias who backed them). Saleh’s deputy, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, took over and even won an election in 2012, but he never managed to establish his authority over the deeply divided country.
Hadi had the backing of the United States and most of the Arab Gulf states (including Yemen’s big northern neighbour, Saudi Arabia) because he was willing to fight the Islamist extremists who had seized much of southern and eastern Yemen. But his main preoccupation was actually the Houthis, a tribal militia based in largely Shia northern Yemen.
Angry at the status that the north was being offered in a proposed new federal constitution, the Houthis came south in force and seized Sanaa last September. In February, after months of house arrest, Hadi fled to the southern port of Aden, his home town and Yemen’s second city, and declared that the capital instead. So the Houthis came south after him.
Meanwhile Saleh, the former president, returned from exile and made an alliance with the Houthis – despite the fact that he had launched six major offensives against them back when he was president. That’s what radicalised the Houthis in the first place, but they needed some national figure on their side as they moved deeper into the south, and Saleh is at least a Shia. He will have to do. Clear so far? Good.
The third contender for power is al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), whose forces are only a half-hour’s drive from Aden. As its fighters closed in on Aden last week, AQAP seized the town next to the airbase where the American forces were living, and Washington ordered its troops out. But the Houthis got into the city of Aden first, and it is not yet clear whether AQAP will try to take it from them.
Finally, we mustn’t forget the fighters of ISIS (Islamic State), who announced their presence in the country last month. Their sole operation of note so far has been suicide attacks on two Shia mosques in Sanaa on Sunday that killed 137 people. But as Sunni fanatics in a country that is currently being overrun by its Shia minority, ISIS will not lack for recruits. So the war will continue with three sides: Hadi goes out, and ISIS comes in.
In conventional terms, Yemen doesn’t matter much. It has a lot of people (25 million), but it is the poorest country in the Arab world. Its oil has almost run out, and its water is going fast. You could argue that its geographical position is “strategic” – at the entrance to the Red Sea, commanding the approach to the Suez Canal – but it’s hard to see any Yemeni government getting the kind of military forces it would need to close that waterway.
What worries people is the possibility that the jihadis (either al-Qaeda or ISIS) could come out of this on top. They are certainly not there yet, but many Sunnis will see them as the best chance to break the hold of the Shias who, despite their internal quarrels, have collectively dominated the country for so long. In fact, al-Qaeda and ISIS are now the last organised Sunni forces facing the Houthis.
Shias are only one-third of Yemen’s population and the resentment runs deep. The Houthi troops now occupy almost three-quarters of the country’s densely populated areas, but it would be an exaggeration to say that they actually control all that territory. They are spread very thinly, and if they start to lose they could be rolled up very quickly by the jihadis.
That could turn Yemen into a terrorist-ruled “Islamic State” with five times the population of the one that sprang into existence last July on both sides of the Syrian-Iraqi border. The odds are against it, but after that “July surprise” nobody is ruling it out.
To shorten to 700 words, omit paragraphs 3, 7 and 11. (“Why…neighbours”; “Meanwhile…good”; and “In conventional…waterway”)
Midway through the election campaign Israel’s leading satirical TV show, Eretz Nehederet, came up with a new take on the man who has dominated the country’s politics for the past twenty years. Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, it suggested, was cursed as a child to be Israel’s prime minister for eternity. His only chance to break the spell was to become its worst-ever leader.
Well, if that was his strategy, he has failed again. Despite having run a government that delivered too few jobs, stagnant wages, a rapidly rising cost of living, and a full-blown housing crisis – it now costs the average Israeli 148 months’ salary to buy a home, compared to 66 months for the average American – Israelis voted him back into power in Tuesday’s election.
Only a week ago, he was running behind in the polls, but a massive last-minute scare campaign turned it around. On polling day, Netanyahu even put a video clip on his Facebook page in which he warned that “the rule of the right is in danger. The (Israeli) Arabs are moving in droves to the polling stations. Left-wing organisations are bringing them there in buses.” And who was paying for those buses? “American money,” explained Bibi’s campaign team.
Israel’s voting system of strict proportional representation has never given a single party a majority of the Knesset’s 120 seats in any election in the state’s 67-year history. Netanyahu’s Likud Party won 30 seats, while its nearest rival, the centre-left Zionist Union, got only 24. But that gives Likud the first chance to form a coalition with the required 61 seats, and there are enough smaller right-wing parties to make up the numbers.
Bibi is back for up to five more years, which would make him the longest-serving prime minister in Israeli history. But turning the tide had a price, and Israel has not yet begun to pay it.
Netanyahu won mainly by cannibalising the vote of the parties to Likud’s right, but that strategy required him to say some things out loud that he had previously conveyed to his hard-right admirers only by nods and winks. The most dramatic shift came just one day before the election, when he finally said plainly that he would never allow the creation of a Palestinian state.
“I think that anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state and evacuate (Israeli-occupied Palestinian) territory gives territory away to radical Islamist attacks against Israel,” he said. Does that mean that a Palestinian state would not be permitted if he were re-elected, asked the interviewer. “Indeed,” Netanyahu replied.
This will come as a vast surprise to practically nobody. Netanyahu’s entire political career has been dedicated to sabotaging the 1993 Oslo Accords (which envisaged Israeli and Palestinian states living side-by-side in peace) and planting so many Jewish settlers on the Israeli-occupied territories that a separate Palestinian state becomes physically impossible.
He largely destroyed the Oslo agreement in his first term as prime minister in 1996-99 (the creation of a Palestinian state was scheduled for 1998). Almost 10 percent of Israel’s Jews now live in the occupied Palestinian territories (east Jerusalem and the West Bank) that would make up a Palestinian state. But to keep his American allies and his European supporters happy, he never actually said he would not allow an independent Palestine.
Netanyahu finally spoke the truth on Monday because that’s what the settlers and their supporters wanted to hear, and he needed those votes in order to survive politically. But it destroyed the myth, useful to the United States and the European Union, that there is some surviving “peace process” that must be protected by keeping the Israelis happy. The “peace process” is dead, dead, dead. Has been for years. There is no “two-state solution” on the table.
This makes it a lot harder for the US to veto resolutions critical of Israel at the United Nations, as it has done 51 times since 1972. Without the cover of peace talks, these vetoes become votes for perpetual Israeli rule over the Palestinian people. And it will accelerate the broader erosion of the old pro-Israel reflexes of people in Europe and the US who needed the reassurance that some day, somehow, there would be a just peace settlement.
Netanyahu made matters considerably worse during the campaign by openly showing his contempt for President Barack Obama. His panic-mongering speech to the US Congress, painting Obama’s quest for a nuclear deal with Iran as a naive surrender to Iran’s alleged desire for nuclear weapons, was an unprecedented foreign intervention in the US political process. It will not be forgiven or forgotten by Obama.
His election promise to speed up Jewish settlement in the Palestinian territories (which is illegal under international law) was another nail in the coffin of peace negotiations. Still, it did help to get Netanyahu re-elected, and for him that’s all that counts.
He still truly believes that only he understands the real and existential dangers facing Israel, and has the will to do something about them. Except that all he ever really does is kick those dangers down the road a bit. Unable to believe that a peaceful settlement is possible or even desirable, he condemns his country to perpetual conflict and growing isolation.
To shorten to 725 words, omit paragraphs 4 and 12. (“Israel’s…numbers”; and “Netanyahu…Obama”)
Here are four reasons why President Barack Obama’s decision last week to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba was a good idea.
1) The US attempt to bring down the Castro regime by isolating the country economically and diplomatically is now 54 years old, and it still hasn’t worked. To go on doing the same thing and expect a different result next time is a clear indication of stupidity, and possibly of insanity.
2) President Obama, as a “lame duck” president with only two years to go, has nothing to lose by re-opening the American embassy in Havana and loosening travel restrictions on American citizens. He gets credit for being both bold and sensible, and he can do it by executive decision without having to go through Congress.
3) A quarter-century after the end of the Cold War, there is ample popular support in the United States for ending the long and absurd anti-Communist crusade against Cuba. According to an Atlantic Council poll early this year, 56 percent of Americans now back a more direct US engagement with the Castro regime, or even full normalisation of relations. Among Hispanic-Americans, the number rises to 63 percent.
4) Even in Florida, where the Cuban-American population is concentrated, the heat has gone out of the issue. The aging leaders of the community, who arrived as refugees from Cuba half a century ago, still resist closer US relations with Cuba, but the US-born generation wants to end the war. The same Atlantic Council poll showed that 79 percent of voters of Cuban descent in Florida supported increased engagement or normalisation.
Unfortunately, there are also two powerful reasons why Obama’s good idea is not really going to change things much.
1) The Republican Party now controls both Houses of Congress, and the embargo cannot be ended except by Congressional consent. That will not be forthcoming.
2) The brothers Castro are still in control of Cuba, and even if they were both swept away by some random illness, the only slightly younger Communist Party leadership will not make the kind of concessions that could force the Republican leadership to change its position. In terms of maintaining the status quo, the US Republicans and the Cuban Communists are “objective allies”.
It makes political sense for Republicans to oppose Obama’s initiative: they have no interest in allowing him a victory that they have it within their power to thwart. Republican Senator Marco Rubio of Florida vowed that he would do “everything in my power” to keep the embargo in place – and also threatened to block the confirmation of a US ambassador to Cuba and prevent funding for construction of a US embassy in Havana.
If this sounds petty, well, yes it is. But considering the attitude of Congressional Republicans towards the Obama administration over the past six years, massive obstructionism towards any future policy of Obama’s seems virtually guaranteed. The embargo will remain.
As for President Raul Castro – elder brother Fidel, now officially retired, seems largely out of play – he has no intention of presiding over the end of Communism in Cuba.
Cuba’s economy is in terrible shape, and it has recently been made much worse by the steep decline of the Venezuelan economy due to the collapse of the oil price. Given how dependent Cuba has become on the generosity of the leftist Venezuelan regime, you might think that Castro would now be seeking economic salvation in the form of an improvement in US-Cuban relations. You would be wrong.
I have visited Cuba about every five years for the past three decades, usually as a journalist, but once, in the early 90s, I took my entire family, including a baby and my elderly parents-in-law, so they could see what the last remaining Communist regime outside Asia looked like. The Soviet Union had just collapsed, ending the generous Soviet subsidies that had kept the Cuban regime afloat for decades.
The place was a terrible mess, and people were truly desperate. There were early teen-age prostitutes of both sexes working the streets, and my parents-in-law got mugged twice in one week in central Havana. On the second occasion, the senior officer at the local police station held my father-in-law (the victim) hostage, allegedly as a “witness” in need of medical attention, until I bribed him $100 to let him go.
Cuba has been through worse economic crises than the current difficulties, and the regime survived. It did so because, unlike the European Communist regimes that fell in similar circumstances, nationalism works for the Cuban regime, not against it. Maybe some serious change will eventually come out of this initiative, but certainly not before the end of 2016.
To shorten to 725 words, omit paragraphs 9. (“It makes…Havana”)
When somebody says it is time to move on, it means there is something deeply embarrassing that they don’t want to discuss in public. President Barack Obama said that about the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, published on Tuesday, about the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of torture in the years after 9/11.
He put the best face on it after Senator Dianne Feinstein’s committee released the 528-page report anyway, talking about how “part of what sets us (Americans) apart is that when we do something wrong, we acknowledge it.” But as recently as Friday US Secretary of State John Kerry urged Feinstein not to release the report now on the grounds that the “timing” was wrong. When would it be right, then?
Feinstein ignored him because she knew (as did he) that if the report was not put out now, it never would be. Next month a new Congress will take office, and the majority on the new Senate Intelligence Committee will be Republicans. They would certainly make sure that it never sees the light of day.
But there is one Republican Senator, at least, who thinks differently. John McCain, who ran against Obama in the 2008 presidential election, said bluntly that torture “rarely yields credible information….What might come as a surprise, not just to our enemies, but to many Americans, is how little these practices did to aid our efforts to bring 9/11 culprits to justice and to find and prevent terrorist attacks today and tomorrow.”
McCain was severely tortured himself while a prisoner-of-war in North Vietnam in 1968, and eventually made an anti-American propaganda “confession”. As he later said: “I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine.” But then, he knows more about this subject than any other American politician, and probably more than any CIA torturer. They were never at the receiving end.
Even McCain, however, confined himself to saying that torture was not a useful instrument of American policy. He avoided talking about the more important fact that it is also a grave crime under international law, because that would mean admitting that senior officials in former president George W Bush’s Republican administrations who authorised the torture in 2002-06 – possibly even including Bush himself – should face prosecution.
Almost every senior American politician will avoid talking about that. The debate in the United States will be between those who insist that the waterboarding, regular beatings, “stress positions”, ice baths, sleep deprivation, “rectal feeding”, and other torture techniques used on captives in the CIA’s “black sites” yielded useful information and saved American lives, and those who say that it was all pointless and useless.
The Senate committee’s report provides fuel for this debate, examining twenty cases of counterterrorism “successes” achieved by torture that the CIA has used to justify its actions. Even now, CIA Director John Brennan defends the torture, claiming that “the intelligence gained from the programme was critical to our understanding of al-Qaeda.” But the committee concludes that not one case produced unique or otherwise unavailable intelligence.
But this is all beside the point. The law doesn’t say that torture is a crime unless it produces useful intelligence, any more than it says that murder is a crime unless it is profitable. It simply says that torture is a crime, always and in any circumstances. As it should.
The American Civil Liberties Union, to its credit, says that the attorney general should appoint a special prosecutor to conduct “an independent and complete investigation of Bush administration officials who created, approved, carried out and covered up the torture programme….In our system, no one should be above the law, yet only a handful of mainly low-level personnel have been criminally prosecuted for abuse. That is a scandal.”
But the discussion about punishing the people who committed these crimes will mostly be conducted outside the United States, and it won’t be conducted by governments. The several dozen American allies that were accomplices in the CIA’s “Rendition, Detention and Interrogation” programme, have all exercised their right to have information about their collaboration removed from the report.
The debate will therefore have to take place in the media and in the international organisations. United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism Ben Emmerson, for example, said in Geneva that senior officials from the Bush administration who planned and sanctioned these crimes must be prosecuted, as well as CIA and US government officials responsible for torture such as waterboarding.
“As a matter of international law,” Emmerson said, “the US is legally obliged to bring those responsible to justice.” Well, yes, but you would be wise not to hold your breath while waiting for this to happen. So far, only one former CIA official, John Kyriakou, has been jailed in connection with the torture programme – and he was prosecuted for confirming to reporters that the CIA was waterboarding prisoners.
To shorten to 725 words, omit paragraphs 8 and 10. (“The Senate…intelligence”; and “The American…scandal”)