Yemen’s revolutionary uprisings in 2011 soon evolved into a complicated crisis that involved many regional and international actors. As in the case of Syria and Libya, the political uncertainty and instability in the country deepened as the intervention of external actors increased. The following process caused a spill-over in the conflict. Today, Yemen is witnessing a struggle between the Saudi-led coalition and the United Arab Emirates, and the Houthis supported by Iran.

The most damaging consequences of the political disagreement and power struggle in the country are on the civilians. The Saudi-led Operation Decisive Storm, which began in 2015, caused the death of a significant number of civilians. Despite the fact that Saudi Arabia had supposedly changed the nature of the operation into a political process by replacing Decisive Storm with Restoring Hope, Riyadh and its allies continued to use disproportionate attacks on civilians. According to international observes, the number of civilian casualties exceeded ten thousand, including children that constitute around 20% of these losses.

Although Saudi Arabia replaced the Operation Decisive Storm with the Operation Restoring Hope with an emphasis on the diplomatic process, Riyadh and its allies still attack on civilians disproportionally.

Increasing intensity of violence and the blockade that has been imposed on the Houthi-led areas in Yemen has created dire conditions for civilians. It has been reported that due to the blockade, at least 5 million people are in risk of losing their lives due to famine and shortage of medical support. This has been closely monitored by international organizations, as well as media channels that have shared heart-breaking images of children who are struggling to survive due to starvation. This has forced the international community to make calls for the termination of the humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

It can be argued that the global public opinion believes that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are the main actors responsible for the humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen. Although the Iran-backed Houthis also play a role in the deepening of the conflict, the use of disproportionate force by the Saudi-led coalition on civilians has caused humanitarian problems on the ground. Both regional and international actors have criticized the coalition due to its targeting of civilians and causing the death of thousands of Yemeni children and women.

A recent UN report states that the coalition forces led by Saudi Arabia bombed civilian settlements, market places, funeral ceremonies, weddings, fishing boats, and health clinics, all in the scope of war crimes.

In a report published by the United Nations in August, it was noted that the coalition forces led by Saudi Arabia undermined serious human rights violations in Yemen. The report also stated that coalition forces bombed civilian settlements, market places, funeral ceremonies, weddings, fishing boats, and health clinics, and that these situations could be evaluated within the scope of war crimes.

On the other hand, another significant development in this sense is the fact that some Western countries have decided to stop their arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE due to their human rights violations in Yemen. Most recently, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that Germany would no longer approve future arms deals to Saudi Arabia. A similar decision was taken by Spain and Norway. In addition, many influential groups in the U.S., U.K., and Canada have been putting serious pressure on their respective governments in order to cancel their arms deals with these two countries in the Gulf.

To end the suffering of the Yemeni people, the international community must put pressure on Saudi Arabia and Iran and their local proxies to come to the table.

It is therefore clear that the international community is uncomfortable with the war in Yemen. However, the humanitarian crisis in the country still does not play an important role in the agenda pursued by global actors in regards to the Middle East. Issues such as the Syrian Civil War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Daesh, and the migration of Syrian refugees to Europe are considered to be more serious issues than the Yemen crisis. At this point, it is of great importance for countries like Turkey, who can play a game changer role in the Middle East, to act responsibly and put pressure on the warring parties in order to stop their activities.

The international community ought to take a stance and help to end the suffering of the Yemeni people. The international community must put pressure on particularly Saudi Arabia and Iran as well as their local proxies to come to the table in order to find a peaceful solution to the years-long crisis in Yemen. Otherwise, civilians will continue to pay the price of a regional power struggle between rival ideologies.

The proxy wars that began in the Middle East have had dramatic impacts on many countries. With the involvement of global actors such as the United States and Russia, the ongoing struggle for power in the region paved the way for chaos. As these wars are fought in a third country through proxies, very unlike conventional wars, conflicts inevitably transform into a civil war. In this respect, conflicts in the Middle East share similarities – the situation of Iraq following the 2003 invasion and the status of Syria, Yemen and Libya after the 2011 riots are all reminiscent of each other. This situation has brought Yemen to such a point that the country is unable to deal with the humanitarian crises. While Yemen has simply become territory contested between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the interventions made by the US over al-Qaeda serve as a catalyst in this situation.

The cost of civil war

Having suffered civil wars between 1962-1968 and 1990-1994, Yemen is facing similar conditions today. The Saudi-led operations, aiming to thwart the Iran-backed Houthis’ ambitious politics to control the country, has come at a very high cost. According to figures published by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the civil war has left over 5,000 dead and around 40,000 injured. Approximately over a million people were forced to migrate and leave their homes. Over 90 percent of Sudanese migrants in Yemen, who had originally arrived to find employment, have had to leave the country. Moreover, at least 10,000 Yemenis have immigrated to Djibouti. Stating that virtually no family had been left untouched by the civil war, ICRC Chair Peter Maurer described the situation in Yemen as a “man-made humanitarian catastrophe,” adding that the situation is worsening day-by-day.

Further, in Yemen today the education and health institutions have lost a great deal of functionality. According to a report published by the United Nations and other observers, two-thirds of the 24 million population in Yemen are on the edge of starvation and do not have access to clean water, while 3.3 million people are living in famine. According to the report, 2 million children are suffering from malnutrition. At least 160 health institutions and buildings have been attacked. The interruption of public services in cities across the country have led to heaps of garbage and overflowing sewage, which inevitably affects the health of locals. These circumstances gave birth to the cholera outbreak, which has affected approximately 60,000 people, and killed 2,000 in the last six months. Despite this situation, institutions such as the World Health Organization (WHO) have expressed that they are unable to provide adequate aid due to security risks. Despite the fact that Saudi Arabia announced the removal of the blockade (which Riyadh applied), neither the UN nor any other humanitarian agency have been able to deliver aid to the country.

It is crucial to recognize that this situation was not created by some sort of natural disaster or by a conventional war. The humanitarian crises in Yemen is a direct outcome of the proxy war fought between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Recognizing exactly this point will be the first step in resolving the crisis.

How did the situation get here?

Following the uprisings in early 2011, the resignation of Ali Abdullah Saleh raised hopes that there would be a smooth transition in Yemen. Saleh’s resignation and the commencement of transition was realized under the influence of Saudi Arabia. The role Saudi Arabia played in this transition had both positive and negative impacts. While the advantage of this was that the transition process would be realized under the patronage of a powerful actor, the risks included the possibility of an Iranian intervention – Riyadh’s historical rival. Indeed, the position of Saudi Arabia in respect to changing dynamics in the region, including the securitization of the Muslim Brotherhood and the lack of focus on Yemen led to Iran’s mobilization in the country, which resulted in the worst-case scenario.

Under the supervision of the UN, almost all parties were represented at the National Dialogue Conference (NDC) – the negotiation platform of the transition process in Yemen. Saleh’s General People’s Congress was also present at this platform. The main goal here was to render the transition process inclusive and prevent the marginalization of any actor. The presence of groups, which had 34 years of administrative experience in the new government, had the possibility of damaging the transition period. In fact, this became reality as the General People’s Congress, which has been under Saleh’s control, neglected its duties when conflicts with the Houthi rebels heightened. This enabled the Houthis to gain ground in various places and, after a while, the General People’s Congress chose to cooperate with the Houthis.

The National Dialogue Conference, the main mechanism of the transition period, has been identified as a platform that represents all political parties, women and young people. After yearlong negotiations, a pronouncement was declared to implement the NDC’s decision on January 21, 2014. The pronouncement included an extension of President Hadi’s term by one year, holding parliamentary elections, reformation of the advisory council to have thirty members each from the North and South and the designation of a new frame to create a new constitution which incorporated the NDC decision. However, the Houthis refused to recognize the arrangement and conflicts resumed. Leading a Hezbollah-like structure with the participation of various tribes and sects, the Houthis formed the “Ansarullah.” Thus, while attempting to thwart the accusations of sectarianism, the Houthis were able to form a broad-based military structure. The Houthi/Ansarullah began to advance to the south in January 2014, and with the cooperation of the former regime forces, captured Yemen’s capital Sana’a within a year. Shortly thereafter, the group rested on the borders of Aden.

Trying to maintain the administration by going to Aden, Hadi wrote a letter to the UN on March 25, demanding the UN Security Council to take a decision which allowed the military intervention of “volunteer countries” to halt the march of Houthis in Yemen. Concerned about its former ally being controlled by Iran, Saudi Arabia commenced an operation in Yemen together with Gulf countries and Egypt.

While the “Operation Decisive Storm” was expected to conclude within a couple of months of its beginning, the operation was unable to yield any substantial outcomes besides re-capturing various Houthi-controlled regions. In addition to the failure to capture Sana’a, the Houthis now possess missiles that could hit Riyadh. Although there are rumors that Saleh’s forces have switched sides in line with the Saud, this has not yet been confirmed. Even if this was correct however, it should not be expected to cause a significant change. In short, the struggle for power over Yemen did not only endure the civil war, but led to mass hunger and famine at the same time.

From a proxy war to a humanitarian crisis

Sharing borders with the narrow Gulf of Aden, large ocean waters and with a border completely overlooking Saudi Arabia, Yemen has transformed into a battleground where the struggle for power in the region is staged. With the mobilization of their armed wing Ansarullah, while the Houthis were just about to seize Aden, which would mean obtaining complete control of North Yemen, Saudi Arabia interpreted this situation as Iranian expansionism and responded with a military intervention.

It is no exaggeration to assert that the civil war in Yemen has gone from the most likely scenario to the worst.  In order for the conflict to come to an end, one of the following three possibilities must be realized: first, either one side prevails and imposes conditions on the other party, second, the cost of the war becomes unbearable for both parties, and third, an external actor acts as a mediating force between the two sides. Neither of these three scenarios have occurred: There is no indication of an overwhelming superiority one party has over the other, the cost of war is manageable for both parties and in addition, it’s clear that neither the UN nor the US has taken enough initiative to solve the problem. The prolongation of the war, the humanitarian crises that have arisen out of it, and the emerging presence of Daesh in Yemen is a result of this stalemate.

What’s next in Yemen?

About a month ago, ousted leader Ali Abdullah Saleh once again changed sides and started to fight against the Houthis, leading to conflict in the vicinity of Sana’a. The local population in Sana’a attempted to seize various public institutions. This image created a perception that Saleh could be effective against the Houthis. Yet, it is difficult to claim that Saleh had the power to shift the balance in the field by himself. In such a scenario, he would have needed arms and soldiers from Saudi Arabia and its allies.

The assassination of Saleh taking place at a time when he changed sides is significant, especially considering that this shift was yet to influence the balance in the field. Although revenge may increase motivation for a short while, for the time being, it remains a mystery as to whether followers of Saleh would be effective without their leader. Therefore, the future of the conflict depends on what actions the Saudis and their allies will take.

After the assassination of Saleh, it is undoubted that Saudi Arabia will intensify its military activity in Yemen. In order to gain successful results, the Saudis need land force. While the Saudis will organize and arm followers of Saleh, it is going to prove difficult to yield results in the short-term. Neither the Saudis nor the United Arab Emirates (UAE) will use their own military.

Another scenario that is spoken about is that the UAE will consider the division of Yemen – yet they will fail in persuading the Riyadh administration to accept this. Such a division would mean the foundation of a Houthi state right on the south of Saudi Arabia. Besides, the international community will also reject the political division of the country.

The conflict in Yemen is a proxy war that is yet to reach its climax and neither the local nor the major actors involved are at a point to end this war. Yemen has fallen into a chaotic situation. Issues exacerbating each other have created a two-tiered problem at the basic level: a military/political crisis and a humanitarian crisis. While the military crisis is a hard case to resolve due to the aforementioned parameters, an intervention to end the humanitarian crises should remain a priority, as all parties are responsible for its resolution.

It is rumored that the Syrian Civil War is almost at its end. Both sides no longer have as many moves on the battle field and the country’s future is said to be determined by diplomacy. Only time will show whether or not this is correct. However, the fact that any serious disagreement at the discussion table will result in the sides taking military steps on the field in order to secure their positions is an undeniable truth.

With the aim of being as cooperative as possible during the Geneva Talks, Turkey, Russia and Iran first came together in Astana and then in Sochi, bringing their positions closer together. Parallel to this and in preparation for the Geneva meetings, Saudi Arabia brought together groups of the Syrian opposition, which are politically aligned with the Kingdom, in Riyadh. Likewise it is known that the US and Israel are in close contact with the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD)/Syrian Democratic Forces (SDG) with plans to include them on the negotiations table.

So, who are the winners and losers of the civil war, which is in its seventh year, and which parties are preparing to end through the Geneva process? Of course, the answer to this question varies according to an individual’s political perspective. When observed from a humanitarian point of view, however, there has been no real winner of the Syrian civil war.

Who could have won in a war which left over 500 thousand people dead, over 5 million Syrians forced to leave their home country and to live in misery in other countries and which left 7 million Syrians displaced at home? More, baby Aylan, who lost his life in the waters of the Aegean, representing the loss of thousands of refugees on the way to Europe, who could have won a war in which children died under barrel bombs, and finally, who could be described as the victor of a war which has ingrained itself in the memories of children.

Who can possibly explain to the children that were victims of chemical weapon attacks in East Ghouta and Han Sheikh, children that couldn’t anticipate why all of a sudden they stopped breathing, that there could be some sort of victory in this war? Is there need to discuss the defeated of this war with parents that saw their children die in this way?

The real convicts of the Syrian Civil War are those who did nothing, although they could, to end this war, those that looked down on refugees that sought refuge in their countries, and those that did not make an effort to prevent the chemical attacks by the Assad regime. These are individuals and states that allowed for Syrian cities to be taken under blockade, who allowed for the demolition of cities and who not only supported terrorist organizations such as Daesh but did nothing to prevent their terror.

To add to this list, in order to maximize their profits, those that sold desperate refugees fake life jackets, causing them to drown, those that utilized anti-refugee political sentiment in their countries, leading to the closure of borders, and those that tried to revert the crisis into an opportunity by making refugees work for very little pay are the real losers of the Syrian Civil War.

In contrast, those that felt sorrow for the death of babies like Aylan, and for the deaths of the children, women and men, who in turn tried all they could to end the crisis, are the real victors of this war. Those who opened their doors to refugees instead of turning their helplessness into an opportunity, and those that perceived them through the eyes of Ali as “brothers in Islam or equals in humanity,” are those that passed this “Syrian test.”

Those who protested against the massacre of people by chemical weapons, the demolition of cities with barrel bombs and the slaughter of people by burning them in cages are the victors of this war as they displayed the right attitude.

There may be some who consider this perspective a benign humanitarian one and would be willing to look at the issue from a realistic point of view. The only reality of the Syrian Civil War, however, is the massive cost of human lives and tragedies. The losses of countries such as the US, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the Assad regime, Jordan, Qatar and others, when assessed within their own frameworks of profit maximization, is another issue.

The crimes committed against the Rohingya Muslims by Myanmar state security personnel and Buddhist mobs have re-emerged on the political agenda as an estimated 400,000 refugees escape violence and seek asylum in Bangladesh.

Crimes against the Rohingya include murder, looting homes and torture. According to Bangladeshi Foreign Minister Abul Hasan Mahmood Ali, around 3,000 Rohingya have been killed in the crackdown.

Latest developments pushed the UN into suggesting that the Myanmar treatment of Rohingya looks like “textbook ethnic cleansing.”

Speaking at the launch of the Burma Human Rights Network’s report on persecution of Rohingya Muslims, executive director Kyaw Yin suggested that the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar should be perceived as a humanitarian issue rather than a religious one.

Yin warned that the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Myanmar could possibly trigger greater influence of extremism among victims.

He told the forum that “the actions by the Rohingya people by joining extremist groups could undo all the work that the international community has put in to advocate for their plight.”

In addition to Kyaw Yin, speaking at the same forum, Association of Southeast Nations (ASEAN) Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights’ Malaysian Chairman Edmund Bon told the audience that the international community was still hopeful about the ASEAN in resolving the crisis in Myanmar.

He mentioned that the “Malaysian and international community still have hope on the ASEAN to step in and resolve the crisis. ASEAN has used its dialogue and diplomatic ties to ease many tensions around the world, and it would be unjust for them not to step in a crisis which happens at home.”

The Chairman also added that the government of Malaysia had engaged with Myanmar on multiple occasions before the crisis emerged on the international platform, adding that however, bilateral diplomacy had “certain limits.”

Myanmar to face UN court

While hosting up to 400,000 Rohingya refugees, the Bangladesh National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) called on the international community to take the government of Myanmar to the UN Court of Justice for committing crimes against humanity in Rakhine state.

Speaking at the International Ombudsman Conference in Istanbul, head of the NHRC, Kazi Reazul Hoque said “we urged the OIC and the ASEAN member states and UN organs to consider referring the matter [or persecution of Rohingya Muslims] to the International Court of Justice or the International Human Court.”

He also urged for the UN Human Rights Commission and the international community to “mobilize political pressure on Myanmar’s government to find a durable solution” to the Rohingya crisis.

“The durable solution must include the right to return to their homelands in a safe, secure and dignified way,” Hoque added.

“All fundamental rights of the Rohingya should be respected in the process of resolving the current crisis.”

Hoque led a four-member delegation on an emergency fact-finding mission between September 9 and 11 and interviewed several Rohingya refugees currently in Bangladesh. The statements of the refugees, including stories of torture, rape and murder account to “extreme violation of human rights” and are “crimes against humanity” he mentioned.

Turkey continues to aid the Rohingya

Whilst the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TIKA) has maintained the lead in providing humanitarian assistance to the Rohingya living on camps in Bangladesh, Turkey-based Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) said on Tuesday that it has delivered emergency food aid to 3,125 Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine State.

A press release by IHH informed that the aid was distributed on Monday and Tuesday to the villages of Depaing Thingying Bali, Dapaing South Bali IDP and camps near the Sittwe Township of southern Rakhine State.

The emergency food aid consisted of rice, oil, chickpeas, salt and pepper, and reportedly should be enough for one month.

IHH also plans to deliver basic life supplies to 125,000 Rohingya within the following days.

It has been six years since the uprising in Syria has begun. When protests met with a brutal response from the regime, the process quickly became a full-fledged civil war. From 2011 onwards there has been many twists and turns in the conflict and many atrocities were committed. Civilians were killed on a mass scale, millions of homes were destroyed, war crimes have been committed on more occasions than one can count. Year after year, Syrians hoped that the world would hear them and come to their help. Yet, nothing would encourage ‘the world’ to step in decisively and put an end to the injustice. The help never came. Quite the contrary, some nations opted to weigh in on the side of the regime and the gains of the opposition were reversed quickly.

It is very hard to perceive how we got here in Syria and, why does not this brutal war end despite widespread repulsion by the international community and endless outcries of the Syrian people. It makes one think that the world is increasingly becoming a place where criminals, be they individuals or states, get away with their wrongdoings. Yet, the world has always been this sort of a place. John Mearsheimer, an American professor of political science, says “The sad fact is that international politics has always been a ruthless and dangerous business, and it is likely to remain that way”.

The History of the Peloponnesian War, the seminal work of Thucydides which is considered to be one of the first and best examples of both history and international relations might help us understand the basic principles of the world we live in better. The Melian Dialogue in the book is a part of the negotiations between the representatives of Athens and Melos. The piece is among the very first realist writings. Faced with the Athenian siege, the representatives of Melos make pleas of justice and morality. In response, Athenians say “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”. Granted it is a morally unacceptable statement, the world still operates that way.

The anarchical nature of international politics makes states behave in a selfish way. They make their decisions to increase their security and further their interests. Helping out to other nations without an obvious interest can either be called an anomaly in the system which probably could be explained with ulterior motives or a luxury that is not perceived to be too risky. Power politics necessitates states to be excessively simple in their analysis. States consider the consequences of their actions in terms of their relative positions at the end. Seemingly, delivering real help to Syrians by putting in real effort would not further states’ interests. Since we presume that we are live in a ‘civilized world’, in which leaders do not abstain from issuing condemnations but, there is no help from the world beyond the lip service.

We spend too much of our time and energy to invoke other states or international institutions to pity and hopefully take action. Yet, international politics does not work that way. Endless efforts to raise awareness about the plight of Palestinians bore no fruit. Conversely, the Zionist appeals to the power base with promise of financial support to war efforts of Allied powers ended up in the Balfour Declaration. Without offering an interest in return, no help will come from the world.

The preservation of the balance of power would be the interest that would incite the world powers, primarily the US, to help Syrians. However, the Obama administration failed to recognize the US interest in the balance of power when it signaled that the Russian entry to the war in Syria would go without a response. The Russian decision to intervene in 2015 is one of the biggest reasons for the prolongation of the Syrian civil war. Under the pretext of the regime’s demand for help against ‘the terrorists’, Russia brought big guns into the conflict. Its aerial support for the Assad regime caused the downfall of the opposition. Under the protection of the Russian shelling, the regime advanced as far as Aleppo.

International systems are secure the most when actors understand the rules and consequences of their actions. It requires principal actors to show that they are serious in upholding the international order.
The perceived justice in the international system and the reason of the adherence to the rules is the fear of a backlash from the principal actors. If it is revealed that proponents of the current order do not have the stomach to stand up against the violations of the spoken or unspoken rules, revisionists understand that they can go unpunished and start to disrupt the order where they can. After World War I, the unwillingness of the Allies to tackle the Japanese and German aggression in its early phases, ended up in the collapse of the international order in the worst way possible.

The war in Ukraine was a terrible test for the US in that sense. The US inaction and lack of resolve resulted in the annexation of Crimea. When Russia started bombing Syria in 2015, it clearly expected little reaction from the rest of the world aside from verbal protests. It happened exactly that way. Russia gained more ground in the Middle East, expanded its bases in the Eastern Mediterranean and became a significant military actor there.

Rules of international politics are often heartbreaking. The Syrian civil war has been an instance where the world has witnessed the ruthlessness of the game once again. The notion of justice is often disregarded and millions are left in resentment. Syrian people received no serious help while the regime was staunchly supported by revisionists and saved from utter collapse. The US and other adherents of international order gave a free hand to Russia in Syria at the expense of the status quo for stepping in was not in their immediate interest. Had they observed history more closely, they would know the irreversible results of taking the easy way out in the long term. The pillars of international order have already begun to crack.