Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1673317843-scaled

For durable peace in Yemen, inclusion must mean more than simply a voice for civil actors

Negotiations to end the fighting in Yemen must include nongovernmental and grassroots actors in order to achieve a sustainable peace.

Analysis | Middle East

Peace agreements are necessarily made between the elites of the warring factions, but there is international agreement that sustainable peace in divided societies can only be achieved if peace negotiations reach out to other actors beyond the elites.

Recent efforts by Martin Griffiths and his U.N. Office of the Special Envoy to Yemen (OSESGY) to include nongovernmental, or Track 2, participants in a more coordinated fashion and to also reach out to grassroots voices (Track 3) are welcome, but significant gaps and inconsistencies in Track 3 inclusion endure.

While it is harder to broker peace when there are more voices at the table, there is also clear cross-national evidence that more inclusive peace agreements are more durable. Yet inclusivity itself is not sufficient if inclusion means simply data-gathering or project implementation.

Up to this point, most inclusion of Track 3 non-combatant Yemeni actors has been as providers of data. Local NGOs and networks have been recognized as increasingly important in the collection of data relevant to needs assessments and the effective provision of aid, amongst others. While this form of inclusion is unquestionably a good thing, it falls short of including Yemenis in the participatory forms of governance that will give them ownership over the peace process and encourage their full engagement with post-conflict reconstruction.

Many of the drivers of conflict in Yemen are already being addressed — albeit often in an ad hoc fashion — through forms of civil action in local communities. Such action demonstrates that there is much knowledge and potential among local, often hyperlocal, Yemeni civil society that could be “scaled up” to the national political stage but which currently functions outside of recognized local governance frameworks.

As a distinctive form of local political engagement, civil action is not the same as non-violent resistance (though it is also non-violent). It is premised on forms of principled engagement among community members with deep, often seemingly intractable, disagreements and objectives. It is important to identify civil action in Yemen and include those who engage in it in post-war planning for two core reasons: first, they are already doing essential reconciliation work in local communities even without calling it that. Second, research on civil action in other contexts shows that it is strongly tied to more durable and more democratic post-conflict outcomes. Civil action matters, in other words, not only for the mechanics of post-conflict reconstruction, but for its character.

A recent collaborative, five team research project on peacebuilding in Yemen implemented by the German think tank CARPO on behalf of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, and by commission of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), has demonstrated the extent to which civil action of this sort is undertaken by different sectors of society in Yemen and is already transforming the potential for peace by addressing drivers of conflict on the local level.

This research demonstrated, for example, that the everyday actions of women in bridging the ideological divides that now run through families and communities as well as in the psycho-social support to their family members and others around them are of extreme importance to the creation of stability on the local level.

Women activists and local civil society organizations focusing on these matters thus have a lot to share about not only how the divisions in society could be overcome and what would be required from the national (Track 1 and 2) level to support such a process, but also they would be best placed to assess how provisions in a possible peace agreement, for example, plans for demobilization, might impact on communities on the local level.

Civil action undertaken by youth across Yemen also demonstrates the potential among the next generation, both female and male, to contribute to state-building from below: Yemeni youth are active to various degrees — depending on the political and security situation in the areas — in environmental efforts, supporting schools and access to education, working with local security forces to decrease violence in their areas, and providing as citizen journalists more information on the situation of communities on the ground than the heavily politicized traditional media of Yemen have been doing.

Most importantly, through their active engagement in cultural activities throughout the country, youth demonstrate the will to “cultivate a community that embraces differences” and thus to promote the values of inclusivity and equal participation that will be essential for a sustainable peace in Yemen to take hold.

Also the private sector, which is often overlooked as a source of civil action, has demonstrated a decree of social responsibility without which the country’s humanitarian situation would very likely be even more dire. Despite an extremely counter-productive economic and fiscal environment, private sector actors have contributed to the humanitarian effort, supported civil society activities on the local level, and have also engaged in efforts to address the almost unhampered and therefore devastating spread of COVID-19 in the country.

A recent publication by the Rethinking Yemen’s Economy initiative, in which private sector actors have an important role, demonstrates that any peace agreement in Yemen will likely not be sustainable if economic provisions are not addressed. Incorporating the voices of private sector actors in designing a way forward for post-conflict Yemen is thus essential.

Taken collectively, then, this research shows that unexpected and under-recognized actors have been making essential contributions to their communities and are both capable of and eager to continue this work in a post-conflict setting. But they articulated needs that the researchers did not always anticipate.

A broader negotiation framework that integrates the knowledge and experiences of Track 3 actors is more likely to surface these needs, build upon the capacities of civil actors and create an overall political environment that will allow for inclusivity, local ownership, and participatory forms of governance. It would also dilute the overrepresentation of Yemen’s armed factions, who have determined Yemeni futures for too long.

International donors as well as the OSESGY would thus do well to invest more systematically in multitrack peace mediation and to ensure that Track 3 experiences and contributions of civil action are reflected in a peace agreement that lays out the post-conflict order.


A child from Taiz City in Yemen sits on the ruins of his home, August 2016 (Photo credit: akramalrasny / Shutterstock.com)
Analysis | Middle East
American Special Operations
Top image credit: (shutterstock/FabrikaSimf)

American cult: Why our special ops need a reset

Military Industrial Complex

This article is the latest installment in our Quincy Institute/Responsible Statecraft project series highlighting the writing and reporting of U.S. military veterans. Click here for more information.

America’s post-9/11 conflicts have left indelible imprints on our society and our military. In some cases, these changes were so gradual that few noticed the change, except as snapshots in time.

keep readingShow less
Recep Tayyip Erdogan Benjamin Netanyahu
Top photo credit: President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Shutterstock/ Mustafa Kirazli) and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Salty View/Shutterstock)
Is Turkey's big break with Israel for real?

Why Israel is now turning its sights on Turkey

Middle East

As the distribution of power shifts in the region, with Iran losing relative power and Israel and Turkey emerging on top, an intensified rivalry between Tel Aviv and Ankara is not a question of if, but how. It is not a question of whether they choose the rivalry, but how they choose to react to it: through confrontation or peaceful management.

As I describe in Treacherous Alliance, a similar situation emerged after the end of the Cold War: The collapse of the Soviet Union dramatically changed the global distribution of power, and the defeat of Saddam's Iraq in the Persian Gulf War reshuffled the regional geopolitical deck. A nascent bipolar regional structure took shape with Iran and Israel emerging as the two main powers with no effective buffer between them (since Iraq had been defeated). The Israelis acted on this first, inverting the strategy that had guided them for the previous decades: The Doctrine of the Periphery. According to this doctrine, Israel would build alliances with the non-Arab states in its periphery (Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia) to balance the Arab powers in its vicinity (Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, respectively).

keep readingShow less
Havana, Cuba
Top Image Credit: Havana, Cuba, 2019. (CLWphoto/Shutterstock)

Trump lifted sanctions on Syria. Now do Cuba.

North America

President Trump’s new National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) on Cuba, announced on June 30, reaffirms the policy of sanctions and hostility he articulated at the start of his first term in office. In fact, the new NSPM is almost identical to the old one.

The policy’s stated purpose is to “improve human rights, encourage the rule of law, foster free markets and free enterprise, and promote democracy” by restricting financial flows to the Cuban government. It reaffirms Trump’s support for the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, which explicitly requires regime change — that Cuba become a multiparty democracy with a free market economy (among other conditions) before the U.S. embargo will be lifted.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.