Yemen and the national crisis [Archives:2005/857/Opinion]

By Qadiri Ahmed Haidar
No doubt that the regime of the Arab Yemen Republic, which was reproduced in post war era in 1994, was dreaming of enjoying the monopoly of wealth and power, of gas, petroleum and every thing. This is ofcourse on the expense of their partner in unity making. They achieved this by starting the war, which cost tens of milliards, let alone the lives it claimed. Added to this is the interruption of the course of national unity. It resulted in internal and regional demands. The internal demands are represented by the demands of the radical religious groups on one hand and the armed tribal forces that took part in the war on the other hand. The regional demands are represented by the Eritrean occupation of Yemeni Islands, and the continuous aggression on Yemeni fishermen. The Saudi boarders demand is another example. It is worth while to also to point out to the great power demands that are threatening national sovereignty, where no one knows its limits. What bothers the regime now are the international decisions that stopped the war and which issued Security Council resolutions number 924 and 931, together with the Secretary General's report on the Security Council's resolutions. These resolutions considered the problem as a political issue that should not be resolved through war. The terms of national unity in those resolutions were quite famous, especially after the asylum requests of a number of Southern and Eastern ambassadors who were, in some way or another involved in the 1994 war. The southern, security, army and other personnel in state establishments were dismissed. There was also a destruction of the economical, administrative, and infra structures of the former Southern state. They were privatized for the new lobby, besides the deprivation of the people of the south of power and decision making. The northern deputies and general managers have power over all ministers, whoever these ministers might be as long as they are from the southern governorates. These are true for all state institutions. This deprived the regime of its stability and political coherence. Conditions have reached crisis level, especially that there are now some movements in the UN corridors and the Security Council to reconsider the 1994 war's file, or the so called south unity question. The regime can't present a political solution for this problem. The regime lacks a strategic political vision. This vision would certainly be on the expense of the present political equilibrium, and the interests of those who are in power. One doubts if the government could do that now. There are some reports that the regime has received a message speaking of its failure to carry out the Security Council resolutions concerning the national unity. This matter had upset the regime and made it consider the initiatives and political opinions that speak of national unity, as treasons posing a threat to the country. They are also considered to be secessionists and agents of foreign powers. A good example is that of Mp Sultan Alsmee , and the call to lift his parliamentary immunity, because of the political opinions that he has published on the four territories, and the supreme council issue.

This regime actually divides the country into four military territories, directed by a military commander who really controls four or five governorates. The Governors are no more than formal officials affiliated to the military commander. If this is the case; why was this row on Alsmee's affair? Isn't local Governance one of the regime's logos? In the same connection the call of Mr. Abdul Salaam Alhokaimi was considered to be a cession call and against the country's constants.

It is quite certain that the present regime is not capable of doing any reforms however limited they might be. It is curbed by the lobbies and power centers. It is now contented with the frame work of democracy as an annunciation for the outside world. It executes all foreign bullies on the expense of political and economical reform.

There are reports that the summit that was held in sharm alshaikh between Ali Abdullah Saleh and Mubarak was an effort to sacrifice all internal reforms, in return of recognition and naturalization with Israel. This is in addition to the security nature of the visit in which the extradition of Abdullah Sallam Naji and others was tackled, because of his writings in “Ilaf site”. Egypt is considered to be the mediator for naturalization with Israel, because of its historical relations with Israel. Others think that, the visit of the Mauritanian president to Sana'a is a step in the same direction of that of Sharm Alshaikh. One thinks that these are all futile measures that won't resolve the country's problem; and could lead to more crises, which will endanger the continuation of the regime itself.
——
[archive-e:857-v:13-y:2005-d:2005-07-07-p:opinion]