What Do Reduced Airstrikes Mean For Peace Prospects in Yemen?
In 2015, following unrest and grievances from a failed transition of power during the Arab Spring uprisings, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels seized control of much of Yemen. Fearing Shiite-Iranian influence, Saudi Arabia, a Sunni country fighting to remain the region’s dominant power, led a coalition to defeat the Houthis and restore the government of President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi.
Four and a half years since the start of the Saudi intervention, Yemen has become the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis. Even those who know little of the war have likely still seen images of emaciated Yemeni children with protruding rib cages. Today, roughly 8 million Yemenis are on the brink of starvation, while more than 85,000 children have already died. Twenty-two million people need humanitarian assistance. However, many are in hard-to-reach areas, making delivering aid impossible. An October 2018 statistic claims that one airstrike has occurred every 99 minutes since 2015. The resultant economic collapse –– and subsequent disappearance of jobs eroded any remaining semblance of normal life. Even when food does arrive at ports, two-thirds of the population cannot afford it.
Last week, United Nations special envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths announced to the UN Security Council that there has been an 80% reduction in airstrikes over the past two weeks. Griffiths also mentioned that there have been 48-hour periods with no airstrikes at all –– an unprecedented hiatus in four and a half years of war. Griffiths referred to these instances as forms of de-escalation, or a “reduction in the tempo of the war,” indicative of steps toward a ceasefire. These developments are likely a result of informal talks that have taken place between the Saudis and the Houthi rebels since September; Saudi Arabia expedited its efforts to end the war following Houthi attacks on Saudi oil fields that same month.
These have been perhaps the only remotely promising developments in a perpetual humanitarian crisis that otherwise shows no signs of abating. Griffiths expressed hope that the first months of 2020 would bring a lasting solution to the conflict.
As promising as news of reduced airstrikes is, it is hard to imagine how peace could emerge. Can these recent developments culminate in a watershed moment? While a continued reduction of airstrikes will ultimately facilitate the delivery of more aid into Yemeni ports –– alleviating some of the worst effects of uninterrupted bombardment –– a long-term solution seems inconceivable. Even if Saudi Arabia and Iran choose to wrap up their proxy war, who will pick up the rubble?
In September, Griffiths published a New York Times article titled “The Secret of Yemen’s War? We Can End It” in which he details seven ways to end Yemen’s war. Griffiths outlines a solution: a realization on the part of leaders that military presence cannot possibly ensure either stability or security, but instead necessitates cooperation. In light of recent news, perhaps Saudi Arabia is finally coming to terms with the fact that there can be no military solution to the conflict.
Yet what underpins Griffith’s seven elements is a heavy emphasis on the duty of the international community to act. This is important: no reduction in the number of airstrikes will absolve the international community of their near-half decade of passivity. They have sat on the sidelines as Yemeni children have starved and grown habituated to endless bombing. Like Iran and Saudi Arabia, the international community must come to terms with the fact that fighting fire with fire will not bring peace––only then can we begin to envision a definitive end to the prolonged brutality of war.