“Jeddah Treaty 2000 Did Injustice to Yemen”: MP [Archives:2000/29/Law & Diplomacy]

Reactions and echoes on Jedda Borders Treaty between Yemen and Saudi Arabia are still reverberating inside political, parliamentary and social dignitaries. One of these personalities presenting his remarks about the treaty is Mr Tahir Ali Seif, Member of the Parliament in Yemen. Following are his remarks and comments.
Remarks on the Committee’s Report
Of the 12-page report, 10 pages carried texts from the treaty and the remaining two pages were rather a comment, not really a technical analysis of the treaty’s content and its economic and social implications. The commission did not even hold any comparison between the 1934 Taif Treaty and the new one.
The commission should have submitted its report to the Parliament in a way answering queries of its members as well as many historians, intellectuals, politicians. The main objective of that move is not to obtain the members, support for this treaty but rather to clarify its far reaching gains as well as its economic, social and political impact.
For instance, the Taif treaty was a stillborn Treaty and Saudi Arabia did not abide by it. One would wonder what will make Saudi Arabia committed to the Jeddah Treaty.
The second article of the treaty indicated “Identification of the villages situated on course of this part of the borderline as stipulated in Taif Treaty and its appendices including their tribal affiliation. In the event that any of the coordinates falls on the position or positions or villages of either party, the reference point for establishing the affiliation of this village, or these villages, will be its relationship to one of the two parties, and the course of the line will be amended according to that when the border marker is set.”
In this regard, the commission ought to have asked the government on the number of villages on both sides on which this part of the treaty would apply, the extent of the area and the particular areas those villages are situated. Would this text, mentioned in the Taif Treaty, apply to the villages from “al-Thar” mountain ending at the geographical point of intersection between the line of latitude 19 north and the line of longitude 52 east?
Article 2 of the treaty adopted two basic principles for defining identity of the villages. The first is the tribal affiliation as stipulated in the Taif Treaty; but at that time (in 1934) construction of civilian settlement was not existent. The second principle is their relationship to one of the two parties. This looks like an issue of “self-determination” in order to provide a cover and ensure ownership of those new settlements which Saudi Arabia captured during the war. The inhabitant there were issued with Saudi Arabian citizenship despite their tribal affiliation.
The commission ought to have asked the government and itself too, why Parliament’s approval is sought on a presumptive line whereas in real application this border line is subject to alterations.
The nature of negotiation with the Saudi side resembles that followed with the Sultanate of Oman. They had agreed on the borderline first and then tackled the issue related to the citizens residing on both sides of the borderline. The Yemeni and Omani sides agreed that inhabitants residing on either side should retain their nationalities and properties. That should not mean re-demarcation of borders or expulsion or compensation to those citizens subjected to expulsion or grant of the nationality of the country of their residence. What has been mentioned in the Jeddah Treaty is opposite to what has been agreed with Oman. With the KSA, the Yemeni side agreed on coordinates which were not final and subjected to alteration, that is to say, the borderline could be changed and that the area of such coordinates shall fall 20km inside Yemen’s territories.
The government is supposed to have known well in advance through satellites whether these coordinates, or some of them, involve population settlements or not.
A clause should have been added stipulating that neither party should create any new residential area after the treaty was signed. Marking these coordinates may take a long time, may be more than ten years. Such being the case, any settlement could be in the form of tents, shepherds, water resources etc. Such an act is enough to witness further Yemeni territories going to the Saudi Arabian side. Here a very serious question crops up. Has the Parliament the right to authorize the government to carry out alterations on the border? I think, this is never constitutional. The treaty should be signed after a final agreement was reached with the other party and should be unconditional. Therefore, the authority bestowed to the government to effect changes, alterations on borders, after the Parliament’s approval, is void.
The Yemeni side has abandoned Yemeni land in sea area only because a certain island may intercept navigation in the direction of a Saudi Arabian port in Jizzan area. Was there no better solution? Why the Yemeni side failed to give a pledge against any such obstruction or threat to navigation. By doing so the Yemeni side could have retained a land which, according to technicians’ explanations in the Parliament, is rich with natural wealth.
Although the 1934 Taif Treaty was ineffective, and renewed only once, the Saudi Arabian side never gave any weight to it; yet the Yemeni government never protested even on one single occasion against the repeated Saudi Arabian violations and neither did it take the issue to the Arab League or the United Nations. Lands captured by Saudi Arabia after the signing of the Taif Treaty through deception have now, according to Jeddah Treaty, become legitimized as its land and we are reckoned the aggressors until the signing of this new treaty!!
The commission ought to have explained to the Parliament why the Taif Treaty specifically defined evacuation of military posts situated within the range of 5km on the demarcated borderline. This is because Jeddah Treaty has specified the area within 20km from “al-Thar” mountain to the borders of the Sultanate of Oman.
As such, the act of authorizing the government to finally sign the treaty is null and void. This is so in terms of Article 3, item 2:
“A specialized international company will undertake preparation of global company shall prepare detailed maps of the line of the land border between the two countries. These maps, when signed by representatives of the Republic of Yemen and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, will be depended upon as official maps demarcating the border between the two countries and will become an integral part of this treaty.”
This means that the treaty sanctioned by the Parliament is not final. The Parliament had no right to vote on a treaty which is not final and ambiguous. On the completion of demarcation of the borders only the Parliament shall have the right to ratify or reject these borders. We do not know by then how the situation would be in the parliament, would majority continue to be of the ruling Congress party or would it change into a minority.?
The first article of Appendix 4 provides:
a- ” The pastoral area on both sides of the second part of the border line indicated in this treaty is limited to 20kms. 
b-“Shepherds from both countries may use the pastoral area and water resources on both sides of this part of borderline according to tribal traditions and prevailing customs for a distance not exceeding20kms. 
Article 5 of appendix 4 says:
” It is not permitted to either of the contracting parties to position armed forces at a distance of less than 20kms on either side of the second part of borderline indicated in this treaty, and the activity of any party is limited to movement of mobile security patrols with customary weapons.”
Article 6 of Appendix states:
” In the event of the discovery of shared natural wealth suitable for extraction and investment along the line of the border between the two countries, beginning precisely from the quay of Ra’s al-Ma’uj Shami, Radif Qarad outlet, to the point of intersection of the line of longitude 19 east with the line of latitude 52 north, the two contracting parties will undertake the necessary negotiations between them for the joint exploitation of that wealth.”
There are some remarks and queries on this appendix. The pastoral area on both sides of the second part of the border line was limited to 20 kilometers, one should wonder why. The other question is why the area permitted for shepherds is of the same area where armed forces are not allowed to be positioned. Also there is no mention of building police stations. There is another question about why Article 4 of the Taif Treaty was not implemented. The said article stipulates evacuation of any military position of less that 5 kilometers from the borders instead of 20 kms.
If there are residential areas on both sides of the borders does this mean that building public services facilities and police stations, are not permitted according to Jeddah treaty?
Why joint exploitation in the sea areas were excluded from the treaty despite government’s expectations that natural wealth does exist in them?
Finally, Jeddah Treaty represents violation of justice to Yemen. It never realizes any of the national aspirations. It never promotes relations with KSA to a partnership level. It does not hinder KSA from expansion as it did after Taif Treaty. It has plundered Yemen’s right to the submerged area.
It has taken away thousands of kilometers of Yemen land rendering the area along the 20kms from “al-Thar” mountain to the borders with the Sultanate of Oman under indirect control of Saudi Arabia. We can no more invest in this land but with the KSA. We cannot build services facilities or residential areas or even a police post.

——
[archive-e:29-v:2000-y:2000-d:2000-07-17-p:./2000/iss29/l&d.htm]