Michael Karadjis Criticizes UNAC Statement about Yemen



The truth about Yemen:

the United National Anti-War Coalition et al., in their statement announcing their participation in a "relief" mission sponsored by the regime in Iran, wrote: ""The Ansarullah organization, commonly called the "Houthis" in US media, is at the center of a broad coalition of forces that is writing a new constitution. Popular Committees have sprung up all across the country.'"

Michael Karadjis explains the real deal:

"That is a pack of lies. There are indeed Popular Resistance Committees all over the south, especially in Aden and Taiz, that are precisely those who are resisting the invasion of the south by the Houthi/Saleh forces, and they were resisting before the Saudi bombing began and indicate they will continue to regardless of Saudi ceasefires. That's because it is a life and death struggle for them.

The southern resistance is usually called "Hadi supporters" by the media. This reflects the fact that some of them are the wing of the formerly ruling General People's Congress that supports Hadi (who replaced the detested tyrant Saleh in the Arab Spring Yemeni revolution) and the wing of the military they control. However, the forces supporting the resistance in the south are the traditional southern left - the Yemeni Socialist Party, the Nasserites, the Southern independence movement (the mvt to revive South Yemen) - as well as the Muslim Brotherhood-aligned Islah party, and the tribal confederations of the south. In addition, significant sections of the Saleh-controled armed forces have defected in the south since the opnme war began, to the "Hadi" side (ie, the side of the government recognised as legitimate by the UNSC and the Arab League).

I know it may be difficult, but we need to recognise that this movement has its own existence regardless of the fact that the neighbouring reactionary absolute monarchy has committed its own aggression, for its own reasons, against Yemen, ostensibly on the side of the southern resistance. But for people who find it difficult to see Saudi Arabia on the side of the very forces that it fought against in the 1960s, I'll say two things. First, facts are important, regardless of how uncomforatbale they make us feel. We just need to deal with them and analyse them. Second, leftists need to stop analysing Middle east politics through the prisms of how things were 50 years ago (1960s Nasserism before 1967, the yemeni civil war etc). Quite simply, when sectarian Shiite invaders from the far north of the country, allied to the tyrant they thought they overthrew, are bombing you with warplanes, firing rockets and using tanks against your cities in the opposite end of the country in order to militarily crush you, you are likely to resist (even if some funny leftists in the US like to refer to the military invasion and crushing of people under mountains of blood as being the actions of "a broad coalition of forces that is writing a new constitution."

Further, we need to stop just talking about the Houthis. The Houthi forces are, no doubt, reactionary, sectarian and allied with and armed by Iran. However, no one really thinks they have received such a decisive level of Iranian arms as to allow them to take over nearly the whole of Yemen. In other words, in itself, no amount of Iranian support can put Iran at the same level as Saudi Arabia in terms of outside intervention. But in that case, how could a militia which only has a base among the Shia (Zaydi) of the far north take over all the way to Aden (almost)? It also wasn't due to popular support (anti-Houthio demonstratiosn of hundreds of thousands erupted in the capital Sanaa and other cities when they launched their coup there in January, and you don't need to bomb and shell cities if you have popular support).

No, the absolutely decisive factor has been the opportunist alliance between the Houthi and Saleh (even if, when in power, a then Saudi-backed Saleh launched 7 wars against the Houthi in their own stronghold in the north!). Saleh, who stole $60 billion dollars from poverty-stricken Yemen still controls a large section fo the military (as a result of the half-baked 'Yemeni solution' whereby he was shiunted aside to be replaced by Hadi and a broader coalition to save the regime overall). Not satisfied with $60 billion and continued control of armed forces and not being arrested and imprisoned for tyranny and theft, the megalomaniac Saleh has used his control of the Yemeni armed forces, his links to the pro-Saleh high command, to mobilise the whole arsenal of warplanes, tanks, missiles and armed forces under his command to join the Houthi aggression. He aims to put his son in power. Whether the Saleh and Houthi forces eventually fight themselves remains to be seen, but for the moment, he decided that an aliance with Iran and the Houthis would be a useful vehicle to use for his attempted counterrevolution.

If these Saleh armed forces were not the decisive factor every step of the way, the Houthis would stil be in the far north. They had legitimate grievances up there, but it would not have been possible to "express their grievances" via conqueringt he entire Sunni, anti-Houthi centre and south of Yemen without Saleh.

So unless we talk about the Saleh/Houthi forces, we are simply not describing the situation at all correctly, indeed one would have to wonder why the Saudis believed they needed an entire outside coalition to be thrown against some local militia which only has support in a small part of the country.

Naturally, the Saudis don't fight the Saleh counterrevolution because they oppose counterrevolution. But the counterrevolutioanry Yemeni Solution was their baby more than anyone else's; they were the guarantors of it. And that is, after all, what they want for Syria. It's undermining challenges their power deeply; and the fact that it is undermined with Iranian assistance is even a bigger reason for them to want to reassert control. As for why that means they are effectively allied with forces that they would otherwise oppose - leftists, Nasserites, southern separatists, and also the MB - this simply underlines the same point I have continually made about Syria: the narrow Saudi regime may have plenty of military power but politically it is extremely weak and has virtually no natural allies."