Adam L. Silverman
I wanted to add a few thoughts to our ongoing discussion of the Saudi/Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) intervention in Yemen. While it is always good when regional intergovernmental organizations actually work, and the countries that belong to them work together, While only time will tell if this intervention is actually a good strategic move by the GCC and its member states, what is clear is that the intervention in Yemen is Saudi driven. By placing the GCC within Saudi Arabia's strategic vision for the region, the GCC and its member states may find that they can never get out from under that vision, let alone what it will require of them. This includes the need to spend Kuwaiti, Emirati, Bahraini, and Qatari blood and treasure on behalf of Saudi strategic objectives. Among those objectives is advancing their push for regional hegemony throughout the Middle East against both the Iranians and the Turks. This push has different dynamics - against the Iranians it is, at its core, a move for the Saudis to become the guarantor of Sunni Islam in the region against the major Shi'a power of Iran. In regards to the Turks it is much more about which Islam, the Wahabiyya of Saudi Arabia or the less fundamentalist, but equally politicized Sunni Islam of Erdogan and his religio-political movement. Given that Yemen's Shi'a, as COL Lang and other's have repeatedly stated, are not the Twelvers of Iran, do not fall under the authority of any of the Iranian religious authorities (or any non Zaidi Shi'a authority), regionalizing the ongoing conflict in Yemen within the Saudi/Iranian proxy war for hegemony can only make things worse.
Yemen is currently facing the same problem that many of the 20th century states - the states that emerged from colonialism or were specifically created by the colonial powers - a crisis of who is actually a member of the state and society; what should the actual boundaries be**; and what system of governance is going to be enacted and who's behalf will it govern. This is the core of the crisis in Iraq and Syria, Somalia and Nigeria, as well as Yemen and to a certain extent Ukraine. The borders and boundaries of all of these countries were drawn by more powerful states, they often bundled together groups that had previously been separate or separated groups that had been together. All of these violent crises, civil wars, and sectarian conflicts are really about state and societal formation: who is and who is not a Yemeni or Iraqi or Syrian or Somali or Nigerian; where should the boundaries between states or even different societal groups be drawn; and what form of government - secular, tribal, religious, or some combination - should be established.
* Yemeni tribal map from the University of Texas Library.
** If you pull up a tribal or ethnic map for Nigeria and West Africa, you can clearly see that the borders between Nigeria and its neighbors were drawn that subdivided tribal areas. This is also the case in many other places and is the result of attempting to impose the Westphalian state, which is a European/Western concept of the state on non-European/non-Western societies. It ignored the reality of what had to occur before the Westphalian system could actually be tried: a couple of thousands of years of European tribal and ethnic conflict; capped off by a series of serious inter-Christian disputes (Reformation, Counter-Reformation); violent dynastic disputes and civil wars. It also ignored a lot of the equivalent history among the colonized populations.
Thanks Dr. Silverman as always for excellent analysis!
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 04 April 2015 at 10:22 AM
Dr. Silverman,
I agree wholeheartedly that the problems of the Middle East and Ukraine are at their root due to misplaced borders. Indeed, the borders were drawn by Western Colonists in order to divide and rule. Yet, there are other causes as well. Overpopulation and declining resources, most importantly potable water, also cause chaos. Not to forget capitalism; war for profit. These could be addressed if mankind could care about others as they care for themselves. But, “us versus them” is built into our genes. Tribal conflict is real throughout our evolution; especially since mankind migrated out of Africa. The Clash of Civilizations is real; not fiction. It saw it in person in Vietnam and along the Malay Thai border.
The saddest thing about old age is to see one’s country jump voluntarily into the blood and mud of war for no good reason except to make money for the few and because Western Rulers believe they are exceptional; the Chosen Ones. The people matter only as long as they keep working at slave wages to pay off the personal and sovereign debt owed to the Elite. The post WWII System of regulated capitalism and the rule of law that brought prosperity to the West has fallen apart.
Posted by: VietnamVet | 04 April 2015 at 05:52 PM
Adam L. Silverman:
I cannot see the manner in which Saudis are supposed to "guarantee Sunni Islam" against the Shia Iran.
Are the Iranian naval vessels harassing Indonesian and Malaysian merchant fleet?
Or are they going up and down the costs of Turkey or Bangladesh with their Rob-Cop boats saying: "I will kill you, I will kill you, I will kill you."?
Or are there thousands of Iranian tanks massed on the borders of Turkmenistan or Jordan or Pakistan, ready to pounce?
Or is the Supreme Jurisprudent of Iran issuing an ultimatum to all Sunni powers to convert or else?
I must state that is a Saud canard.
They just hate the Shia and Iran; just like in Malaysia or Indonesia they hate Chinese.
I also think that the words Saudi Arabia and Hegemony are incompatible.
Erdogan and his party are Ikhwan which showed that when it came to dealing with international politics, it was as Realpolitik an as Sectarian as the next guy. No Islamic charity there.
Neither Iran nor Turkey have the wherewithal or the inclination to dominate the Middle East; in my opinion. These are, in my opinion, Saudi lies to get US to so something, anything.
I think the only "Good Strategic" move open to GCC is to change its name to Persian Gulf Cooperation Council and invite both Iran and Iraq to join; those Gulfie oil-wells-with-flags are no match for their northern neighbors'; have never been so in historical times.
I agree with your foot note that the colonial powers created many of these countries. But take the case of the Fulani; they would always be spread over so many countries.
In my opinion, the colonial powers did not cause these countries to malfunction or collapse.
If I were an Englishman, I would argue thus:
"We did the best we could to give you guys the structures of a state as well as self-government. In the Levant, we cobbled together disparate peoples into some sort of structure since the Turks had washed their hands off the Levant in any case.
Yes, we made our money off the oil while we were there but when we left after World War II - under US pressure - in Egypt, in Iraq, in Nigeria, in Uganda we left behind functioning countries.
And what did you do; overthrow the government, murder the king and his entire family, murder the prime minister and his family, parade their bodies on the street to cheering crowds while broadcasting it on national television - which we had introduced
And afterwards, for more than 60 years, nothing that you did brought as much security and prosperity and stability than when we were helping you run those countries.
You cannot blame us for everything."
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 04 April 2015 at 06:27 PM
Hi, I really like the map showing the tribal groups versus country border for west africa. I am making a unit on Mali and west African history to be used for 5th grade students, who can I seek permission from to use this map?
Posted by: Willow Neilson | 08 September 2016 at 05:45 PM