Schwerpunkte / Key aspects
Vorbemerkung / Preliminary note (German only)
Am wichtigsten / Most important
Allgemein / General
Humanitäre Lage / Humanitarian situation
Houthis
Südjemen und Hadi-Kämpfer / Southern Yemen and fighters of President Hadi
UNO / UN
Saudi-Arabien und Iran / Saudi Arabia and Iran
Saudi-Arabien / Saudi Arabia
USA
Saudische Verbündete / Saudi allies
Deutschland / Germany
Waffenhandel / Arms trade
Medien / Media
Terrorismus / Terrorism
Propaganda
Saudische Luftangriffe / Saudi air raids
Kriegsereignisse / Theater of War
Vorbemerkung / Preliminary Note
Erst einmal muss ich mich für die Überlänge dieses Yemen Press Reader entschuldigen. Zu viele relevante Themen; zu viele interessante Artikel standen an! Dieses Mal steht der Konflikt zwischen Saudi-Arabien und dem Iran im Mittelpunkt, auch die als „Am wichtigsten“ ausgewählten Artikel stehen unter diesem Thema. Dieser Konflikt wird sich für die Region sehr nachteilhaft auswirken und auch die möglichen Friedensaussichten für den Jemen schmälern. Aber die Verbindungen mit dem Jemen und dem Jemenkrieg sind natürlich noch weit zahlreicher.
Der Konflikt ist vor allem ein Kampf um die Vorherrschaft in der Region. Saudi-Arabien spielt dabei ohne Bedenken die Karte aus, den konfessionellen Konflikt zwischen Sunniten und Schiiten zu schüren. Der Kampf gegen die Schiiten ist dabei für die Saudis nichts Neues: Er ist Bestandteil ihres wahabitischen Islam. Auch im Jemen haben die Saudis schon seit langem diesen Konflikt geschürt und die (zu den Schiiten gerechneten) Zaiditen durch massive wahabitische Propaganda wie auch militärisch bedrängt. Der wachsende sunnitisch-schiitische Konflikt und die Parteinahme der Saudis gegen die Zaiditen (die heute von den Huthis verkörpert werden) hat damit auch im Jemen die konfessionellen Konflikte gewaltig angeheizt.
Und, es kann nicht oft genug gesagt werden, der „Westen“ hat durch seine eindeutige Parteinahme für Saudi-Arabien (politisch, durch Waffenlieferungen und aktive Militärhilfe auch im Jemenkrieg) sich mit einem Regime gemein gemacht, das durch diesen Krieg wie durch seinen Umgang mit Frauen, mit Andersdenkenden und mit Forderungen nach Demokratie und Meinungsfreiheit im eigenen Land diametral im Gegensatz steht zu allen Werten, die der „Westen“ als seine ureigenen Werte proklamiert. Das passt nicht zusammen.
Am wichtigsten / Most important
5.1.2016 – Nachdenkseiten
Titel: Saudi-Arabien – der große Brandstifter am Golf
Saudi-Arabien bricht vermeintlich grundlos einen Konflikt mit Iran vom Zaun. Wie so oft geht es dabei vor allem um Ablenkung. Sowohl nach außen (Syrien, Jemen) als auch nach innen (Massenhinrichtungen) schlägt Saudi-Arabien seit ein paar Monaten wild um sich. Die Wüstenmonarchie ist sicherlich der rückständigste und von so etwas wie Freiheit und Menschenrechten am weitesten entfernteste Staat der Welt – eine lupenreine Despotie, die geistig im Mittelalter steckengeblieben ist und um die sich kein Mensch scheren würde, wäre Saudi-Arabien nicht zugleich größter Erdölförderer und damit steinreich. Doch eben diese vermeintliche Stärke droht das Land und seinen brüchigen inneren Frieden durcheinander zu bringen. Die Zeiten der hohen Ölpreise sind nämlich erst einmal vorbei und das steinreiche Saudi-Arabien kann es sich plötzlich nicht mehr leisten, Stabilität zu kaufen. Der ehemalige Stabilitätsanker der Region ist in äußerste Instabilität geraten und droht schon bald zu kollabieren. Es könnte zum Jahresbeginn wohl kaum eine schlechtere Nachricht geben. Jens Berger.
Früher war zwar auch am Persischen Golf nicht alles besser, aber doch vieles deutlich einfacher. Zu Zeiten der saudischen Könige Faisal, Chālid und Fahd war Saudi-Arabien dem Klischee nach die Tankstelle der Welt, die sich – wenn überhaupt – vor allem mittels Scheckbuch-Diplomatie international engagierte. Oberflächlich gesehen mag das zwar sogar zutreffen, wer jedoch an liebgewonnenen Klischees festhält, wird die aktuellen Ereignisse auf der arabischen Halbinsel und darüber hinaus nicht verstehen.
Schutzgeld für den Islam
Streng genommen erblickte das „moderne“ Saudi-Arabien im Jahre 1973 das Licht der Welt. Als Reaktion auf die US-Unterstützung für Israel im Yom-Kippur-Krieg verstaatlichte die Dynastie der al-Sauds zwischen 1973 und 1980 den ehemals amerikanischen Öl-Monopolisten Aramco – und da Saudi-Arabien eine der letzten absolutistischen Monarchien ist, heißt dies nichts anderes, als dass die al-Sauds sich das Ölreichtum des Landes selbst unter die Nägel rissen. Von diesem Zeitpunkt an betreibt das saudische Königshaus eine äußerst interessante Scheckbuch-Politik, mit der die offensichtlichen Widersprüche zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit der Herrscherfamilie gekittet werden sollen. Auf der einen Seite feiern saudische Prinzen mit Alkohol, Drogen und europäischen Callgirls ausgelassene Orgien am Cap d´Antibes oder in Marbella. Auf der anderen Seite sieht sich die Dynastie der al-Sauds jedoch auch als oberste klerikale Instanz der wohl extremsten ultrakonservativen Form des Islam – des Wahabismus. Auf der einen Seite unterstützt Saudi-Arabien die USA in ihrem Kampf gegen den Terror und kämpft auch selbst gegen den IS und die Muslimbrüderschaft an. Auf der anderen Seite gilt Saudi-Arabien jedoch auch als größter und bedeutendster Sponsor des religiösen Extremismus, des Islamismus und des islamitischen Terrorismus. Wie passt das Alles zusammen?
Saudi-Arabien ist – wenn man einmal die Frage der Geschlechter herauslässt – eine Drei-Klassen-Gesellschaft. An erster Stelle stehen die rund 7.000 Prinzen der al-Saud-Dynastie, die von Jahr zu Jahr mehr werden, da jeder Prinz im Laufe seines Lebens – die Vielweiberei macht´s möglich – eine ganze Fußballmannschaft an männlichen Nachkommen zeugt. All diese Prinzen werden vom Staat je nach Rang in der Geburtsfolge sehr großzügig alimentiert, nehmen sämtliche wichtige Posten im engeren und erweiterten Staatsapparat wie auch der einheimischen Wirtschaft ein und stehen de facto über dem Gesetz.
Als zweite Klasse gelten die mittlerweile rund 23 Millionen „normalen“ Saudis im Lande, die mehr als vorbildliche staatliche Leistungen, wie ein kostenloses Gesundheits- und Bildungssystem und massiv subventionierte Preise für Energie und Wasser genießen und sich dafür mit einer international seinen Vergleich suchenden Geburtenrate bedanken. 1950 hatte das Land gerade einmal ein Zehntel der heutigen Bevölkerung. Ganz unten im saudischen Klassensystem stehen die schätzungsweise 10 Millionen (die genaue Zahl ist nicht bekannt) Ausländer, die für die Saudis die körperlichen Arbeiten entrichten und streng genommen Sklaven sind, obgleich die Sklaverei offiziell 1963 im Lande verboten wurde.
Exportgut Nummer Zwei: Ideologie und Terror
Wer denkt, dass das ultrakonservative Königshaus ein freiheitsliebendes, demokratiesüchtiges und liberales Volk unterdrückt, täuscht sich jedoch massiv. Die saudische Gesellschaft ist – und das ist gar nicht mal einfach – in der Masse noch reaktionärer und religiös verschrobener als das eigene Königshaus. Spätestens seit 1980 hat das Königshaus daher seine eigene Form des angewandten Ablasshandels eingeführt. Um sich die Zustimmung des radikalen Klerus zu erhalten und nicht weggeputscht zu werden, „spendet“ man einen großen Teil der Erdöleinnahmen für mal mehr mal weniger klerikale Projekte der Wahabiten. Ein frühes Beispiel dafür war das US-Unternehmen „Operation Cyclone“ bei dem mit saudischem Geld und amerikanischer operativer Unterstützung radikale Islamisten in Afghanistan gegen die Sowjetunion instrumentalisiert wurden. Aus den Widerstandskämpfer (Mudschaheddin) wurden Terroristen (Taliban). Beinahe jede heute bekannte sunnitische islamistische Terrorgruppe wurde anfangs – und teils noch heute – mehr oder weniger massiv von der Familie al-Saud finanziert.
Neben dem Öl ist ein reaktionärer und revolutionärer Islam das zweite große Exportgut der Saudis. Dieser Ideologieexport geht dabei nicht nur vom Staat selbst aus. 7.000 teils mehrere Millionen Dollar schwere Prinzen bilden ein nur schwer durchschaubares Netz mit kaum aufzuschlüsselnden Finanzströmen. Da ist es durchaus plausibel, dass es – wie zum Beispiel in Syrien – auch schon mal vorkommen kann, dass unterschiedliche saudische Prinzen in bestimmten Konflikten gleich mehrere Konfliktparteien, die sich untereinander bekämpfen, unterstützen.
Was in den 1980ern in Afghanistan begann, setzte sich vor allem dort nahtlos fort, wo die amerikanischen außenpolitischen Interessen sich mit dem wahabitischen Expansionsdrang trafen. So in den Jugoslawien-Kriegen oder etwas später in den Kaukasusrepubliken Russlands, in denen Washington Putin mit tatkräftiger wahabitischer Hilfe in die „Djihad-Falle“ laufen lassen wollte. Des Einen Freiheitskämpfer waren halt schon immer des Anderen Terroristen. Daran hat sich bis heute nichts geändert, nur dass sich das System mittlerweile verselbstständigt hat. Von Nigeria und Tansania über den Maghreb, Frankreich und Deutschland (hier meist als „Salafismus“), den Nahen und Mittleren Osten bis in die muslimische Südflanke Russlands und das westliche China werden mit saudischem Geld wahabitische Moscheen samt radikalisiertem Personal exportiert. Als der dahinsiechende saudische König Salman Deutschland vor wenigen Monat „großzügig“ anbot, Deutschland lieber 200 Moscheen zu schenken als selbst syrische Flüchtlinge aufzunehmen, meinte der Mann dies sicher durchaus nicht ironisch. Vollkommen unverständlich ist indes, warum der Westen dieses zynische Spiel so lange mitmacht. Nur an den Waffenexporten kann es doch eigentlich nicht liegen. Oder? Hätte die Bundesregierung Cojones, hätte sie Salmans Angebot mit einem freundlichen Gegengeschenk gekontert – 200 Kirchen in Saudi-Arabien; alleine die Vorstellung daran hätte dem saudischen König wohl die Gesichtszüge entgleiten lassen.
Es läuft nicht alles rund bei den al-Sauds
Saudi-Arabien hat in den letzten Jahren ziemlich viel Pech gehabt und mit den Freunden und Verbündeten läuft es auch nicht mehr so rund. […]
Ganz dick kommt es für die Saudis jedoch aus einer vollkommen unerwarteten Richtung. Nicht nur die gesamte saudische Volkswirtschaft, sondern auch das überaus teure staatliche Sozial-, Bildungs- und Subventionssystem stehen auf den tönernen Füßen eines hohen Ölpreises. […]
Wie jede schwäbische Hausfrau bei der die Einnahmen nicht mehr die Ausgaben decken, werden auch die al-Sauds wohl stattdessen ihre Ausgaben reduzieren müssen. Der IWF spricht von Einsparungen in der Höhe von 20% des Bruttoinlandsprodukts. […] Die an diesem Wochenende durchgeführte Massenhinrichtung von 47 Gefangenen war wohl nur ein Vorgeschmack, mit welchen politischen Mitteln die al-Sauds nun ihre Macht sichern wollen. Das Zuckerbrot können sie sich nicht mehr leisten, da wird die Peitsche ausgepackt.
[…]
Viele Probleme, keine Lösungen
[…]
Die beste Methode von den Problemen im Inneren abzulenken und die Interessen der Radikalen in eine andere Richtung zu kanalisieren, ist es natürlich, mittels Interventionspolitik neue Kriegsschauplätze zu eröffnen, um die selbst radikalisierte Generation junger Wirrköpfe sich dort gegenseitig abschlachten zu lassen. Eben diese Methode scheint Saudi-Arabien gewählt zu haben und zynisch betrachtet ist dies sicher auch eine probate Lösung, um den Kollaps des eigenen Landes erst einmal abwenden zu können. Der Preis dafür ist jedoch, dass der Bürgerkrieg in Syrien noch sehr lange toben wird und auch andere Regionen in die Kriegsspirale hineingezogen werden könnten.
Ob Saudi-Arabien seine fragile Stabilität mit dieser Strategie wird sichern können, ist jedoch ungewiss. Aber was ist die Alternative? Wir sollten die Geschichte nicht durch Naivität beleidigen. Würde die blutrünstige Monarchie der al-Sauds zusammenbrechen, käme kein zweiter „arabischer Frühling“ sondern ein neuer „arabischer Winter“. – von Jens Berger
Kürzungen mit […] bezeichnet. Dieser Text steht unter der Creative Commons Lizenz 2.0 Non-Commercial.
http://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=29894
4.1.2016 – BBC
Iran and Saudi Arabia's great rivalry explained
Iran and Saudi Arabia's status as leading exponents of Shia and Sunni Islam respectively have informed their foreign policies, with both sides forming alliances with countries who share their theologies - and backing militant groups in those that don't.
The recent rift between Iran and Saudi Arabia can be traced to the Iranian revolution of 1979, which saw a pro-Western leader toppled and Shia religious authorities taking over.
Tehran began backing Shia militias and parties abroad, and Riyadh - concerned at the growing influence of a newly-strident Iran - strengthened links to other Sunni governments, including the formation of the Gulf Co-operation Council.
The 1980s saw tensions between Saudi and Iran escalate - Saudi Arabia backed Iraq's Saddam Hussein, and after clashes at the hajj in 1987 killed hundreds of Iranian pilgrims, Saudi Arabia suspended diplomatic ties for three years.
Another key milestone was the US-led 2003 invasion of Iraq, when the overthrow of Saddam Hussein saw a Shia-led government come to power in Riyadh's neighbour.
Saudi Arabia felt threatened by last year's Iranian nuclear deal, fearing the easing of sanctions would allow Tehran to further support Shia groups in the Middle East.
If you add to this the Iranian fury over a deadly stampede during last year's Hajj pilgrimage and a more assertive Saudi foreign policy since the new king took charge, then the row over the execution of Sheikh Nimr becomes just the latest in a long-running struggle.
Today there are two ongoing major flashpoints - Syria and Yemen. Perhaps the only thing we can be certain about is that hostile Iranian-Saudi relations will only prolong the misery of Yemen and Syria, with a diplomatic solution unlikely and both sides keen to prevent the other gaining influence – by Thom Poole
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35221569
4.1.2016 – Vox World
The cold war between Saudi Arabia and Iran that's tearing apart the Middle East, explained
The supposedly ancient Sunni-Shia divide is in fact very modern — and it's not really about religion.
In fact, it seems more likely that this execution is meant to promote sectarianism within Saudi Arabia. Vali Nasr, a scholar and former State Department senior adviser, tweeted that the "sectarian narrative helps Saudi rulers at tough times: rally Sunnis at home and in region against Shia challenge."
"The execution, both its timing and that it happened at all, was very calculated," says Toby C. Jones, a Middle East scholar at Rutgers who often writes on Saudi-Iran issues.
He especially pointed to Saudi Arabia's now months-long war in Yemen, where Saudi and allied forced are bombing a Shia insurgency that has taken over the government. Saudi Arabia — which views Yemen as its backyard, sort of how Russia views Ukraine — is convinced the insurgents are Iranian puppets.
"It's no secret that the war there is going terribly," Jones says, adding that dropping oil prices have hurt the economy. "One way to deflect attention away ... is to find a way to sustain ideological commitment to the campaign. The Saudis have never really developed a coherent kind of nationalism, but they sure have gotten traction out of anti-Shiism."
Jones called Nimr's execution "red meat to the sectarian radicals," including the Saudi clerical establishment, hard-line religious scholars, and the judiciary. By promoting "anti-Shiism, anti-Iranian fervor, anti-Houthi passions, and so on," Saudi Arabia likely hopes to promote its official narrative of the Yemen war and "help diminish any pressure to stop the war."
"Sectarianism is really no longer a radical project. Probably better to call it a mainstream one," Jones told me. "It used to be for the crazies. No longer."
Sure enough, the same day that Saudi Arabia announced it had executed Nimr, it also announced it was formally ending the latest ceasefire in Yemen. To be clear, Jones isn't saying this is all about Yemen. Rather, it's that Saudi Arabia's foreign policy priorities happen to line up with sectarianism, and today that priority is Yemen.
One of the biggest drivers of conflict in the Middle East today is the enormous tension and violence between Sunni and Shia. The wars in Syria and in Yemen split largely between Sunni and Shia. In Iraq, the country and its politics are divided between Sunni and Shia, which is part of what allowed ISIS to rise among the Sunni minority there.
But that conflict isn't really about religion, even if it's expressed along religious lines. Rather, it's driven by the cold war struggle for influence between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Because both are theocracies, and Iran claims to represent the world's Shia and Saudi Arabia claims to represent its Sunnis, they have sought to fight one another on Sunni-Shia lines — thus making that religious division much more violent and fraught.
[Headlines of following chapters:]
The Sunni-Shia conflict isn't about religion. It's about the Iran-Saudi cold war.
If the Sunni-Shia conflict isn't about religion, how did it get that way?
Why do Saudi Arabia and Iran hate each other?
This week's escalation poses a tremendous danger to the Middle East
Saudi Arabia's sectarian strategy puts even Saudi Arabia at risk
This is all to say that Saudi Arabia's execution of Nimr al-Nimr shows an escalation of its already-disastrous strategy of exploiting sectarianism for political ends at home and abroad. It's a strategy that is not just cynical and short-termist — it's a real contributor to extremism and violence in the wider Middle East and in Saudi Arabia itself, ultimately putting even the House of Saud royals who ordered Nimr's death at risk. – by Max Fisher
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/4/10708682/sunni-shia-iran-saudi-arabia-war
Comment: This profound analysis is worth to be read in full at the original site as well. There are much more aspects and subjects than presented in the excerpts here.
Mehr Artikel zum Thema unter: Saudi-Arabien und Iran sowie unter Saudi-Arabien
More articles at the subject see “Saudi-Arabia and Iran“ and „Saudi Arabia“
Allgemein / General
5.1.2016 – Beforeitsnews
Yemen update 1/5/2016..Why is US Media Ignoring Yemen War?
Links to Films, overiew on the article listed below
5.1.2016 – Defense One
Yemen’s War Is Nearly Lost in the Din of Surrounding Conflicts
Overview on the Yemen war. For special attention this here:
Iran’s view [on Yemen] is less clear [than the view of Saudi Arabia]. It has given the Houthis some backing, but is not nearly as invested in the country as it is in Syria, Lebanon, or Iraq. As Iranian proxies go, the Houthis are hardly in the league of Lebanon’s Hezbollah or Palestine’s Hamas. Indeed, late last fall, some analysts reading the tea-leaves in Tehran were convinced Iran was looking for a way to disengage from Yemen.
But with Saudi-Iranian tensions now escalating rapidly—Riyadh is pressing other Sunni-led states to join a diplomatic boycott of Tehran—Iran will likely reassess its role in Yemen. In Tehran last month, well-connected military analysts told me the regime regarded Yemen as a low-cost way for Iran to keep Saudi Arabia pinned down in its own backyard, draining its military resources, and damaging the ruling family’s credibility, at home and abroad. Many Western analysts agree that Yemen has become a quagmire for the Saudis. – by Bobby Ghosh
http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2016/01/yemens-war-nearly-lost-din-surrounding-conflicts/124872/
5.1.2016 – Iran German Radio (bezieht sich auf UN-Erklärung, die hier darauf folgt)
Laut der Erklärung des UN-Menschenrechtsbüros am Dienstag habe man Berichte über Angriffe der arabischen Koalition mit Streubomben im Jemen erhalten.
Einem AP-Bericht aus Berlin zufolge hat die entsandte UN-Delegation im Dorf al-Adir 29 Teile von Streubomben entdeckt.
Streubombenangriffe hinterlassen aufgrund der ziellosen Ausbreitung ihrer Teile, zahlreiche zivile Opfer.
98 Staaten haben 2008 die Dublin- Konvention zur Ächtung von Streubomben unterzeichnet.
Seit dem 26. März 2015 sind laut einer Erklärung des UN-Menschenrechtsbüros 2.795 jemenitische Zivilisten Opfer von Angriffen der arabischen Koalition unter der Führung Saudi-Arabiens geworden.
Dieser Erklärung zufolge wurden bei den Auseinandersetzungen im Jemen im Dezember 81 Zivilisten getötet und 109 weitere verletzt.
5.1.2016 – UN Human Rights
Press briefing notes on Yemen
Spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights: Rupert Colville in Geneva, 5 January 2016
The on-going armed conflict in Yemen continues to take a terrible toll on civilians, with at least 81 civilians reportedly killed and 109 injured in December. This raises the number of civilian casualties recorded between 26 March and 31 December, 2015 to 8,119 people, including 2,795 killed and 5,324 wounded.
During the month of December, at least 62 civilians were reported to have been killed by airstrikes attributed to the coalition forces. This is more than twice the number of civilians reported killed in November (29). On 18 December, for example, 18 civilians were allegedly killed when two airstrikes hit a civilian house in Wadi Kena, in Sa’ada. Our team on the ground also received information indicating that on 20 December, six civilians -- including three children -- were killed and eight others, including four children, were injured when airstrikes hit a residential neighbourhood in Al Hudaydah City, completely or partially destroying some 14 houses.
Airstrikes have continued into the New Year, with around 11 strikes taking place in the capital Sana’a on Sunday and Monday (3 and 4 January), and further airstrikes are reported to have been carried out in the early hours of this morning. We have not yet been able to confirm whether or not these latest strikes have resulted in more civilian casualties, although initial reports indicate several private and public civilian buildings have been hit since Sunday, some of them located in densely populated areas of Sana’a.
We have also received alarming information on the alleged use of cluster bombs by coalition forces in Hajjah Governorate. During a field visit to the village of Al-Odair, in Haradh District, an OHCHR team found remnants of 29 cluster submunitions near banana plantations. According to witnesses, several other villages in the same area have also been affected. Our team also documented the use of cluster submunitions in several other districts, including Hairan and Bakel Al-Meer, and interviewed two patients who had reportedly been wounded, in separate incidents, after stepping on unexploded submunitions.
During December, at least 11 civilians were allegedly killed as a result of shelling attributed to members of the Popular Committees Affiliated with the Houthis, a significant decrease compared to the 32 civilians who were reported killed by them in November.
We remain particularly concerned at the humanitarian situation in Taizz. The city has been the scene of violent clashes for more than eight months, virtually without interruption. Strict control of all entry points into the city by the Popular Committees Affiliated with the Houthis has resulted in limited access to essential items, including food, and made conditions extremely difficult for the civilian population. The health situation in the governorate has also continued to deteriorate, with the Al-Rawdha Hospital, one of the largest hospitals still operating, forced to turn patients away.
The Yemeni prison system has also been heavily impacted by the conflict. Since 26 March, over 40 prisoners have reportedly been killed and some 10 others injured as a result of airstrikes or indiscriminate shelling. More than 4,300 prisoners have reportedly escaped from detention facilities across the country, including ones in Sa’ada, Al Dhale’e and Aden, after they were hit by airstrikes or breached as a result of armed clashes.
Prisoners are increasingly vulnerable. Food, electricity, water and fuel shortages have been reported in many detention facilities as well as the spread of contagious diseases, such as scabies. Many detention facilities are also severely overcrowded.
As most courts are not functioning because of the conflict, there have been delays in the review of detainees’ cases -- and, in some cases, in their release -- and many detainees have been unable to receive visits from their lawyers and relatives.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16923&LangID=E and http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=52938#.VoydP_nhCUl and by NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/world/middleeast/civilian-deaths-in-yemen-spike-despite-cease-fire-un-says.html?_r=0
Comment: All these figures certainly are much too low, see https://www.freitag.de/autoren/dklose/krieg-im-jemen-neue-artikel-zum-nachlesen-77 (German).
4.1.2016 – Fars News
Prof. Matthew Crosston: Yemen War is Largely Absent from the Main Media Sources
A professor of political science tells Fars News Agency that the problem with the media coverage of the Yemeni war is not the level of bias in news stories, commentaries and video footage being released, but the overall absence of the conflict from the media reports.
“The problem is not how biased the media is here in the West, trying to portray it in a one-sided and unfair fashion and engendering a misinformed public perception. No. The problem is how absent the conflict largely is from the main media sources,” said Prof. Matthew Crosston.
“This of course means the population simply does not have an opinion one way or another, because it simply does not know. There is no real awareness of the Yemen conflict. I fear it is in the shadow of such ignorance and indifference that the worst of human nature comes out,” he added.
Prof. Matthew Crosston is the Miller Chair for Industrial and International Security and Director of the International Security and Intelligence Studies (ISIS) program at Bellevue University in Nebraska. He has authored two well-received books, several book chapters and nearly two dozen peer-reviewed articles in venues like the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, Journal of Strategic Security, International Politics, Journal of Military and Strategic Affairs, and Journal of Global Analysis. Prof. Crosston has received his Ph.D. from the Brown University. He looks at the war on Yemen from a strategic perspective. In the following interview, he shared his viewpoints with FNA about the different dimensions of the Saudi military campaign in Yemen, which started in March 2015 and has claimed more than 6,000 lives so far.
Q: The Saudi Arabian forces have been leading a military invasion of Yemen for the past ten months. They continue carrying out airstrikes on the different parts of Yemen on a daily basis. Legally speaking, the attacks have not been endorsed and authorized by the UN Security Council. Do you think Saudi Arabia is violating the international law by spearheading airstrikes on Yemeni cities, regardless of the political justification for their attacks?
A: This conflict provides a perfect case study for those of us in the school of skepticism when it comes to international law. We skeptics have raged for years that, perhaps unfortunately, international law acts more like ‘international guidelines’ rather than actual law. What this means in real terms is that power balances and dominant control over conflict narratives often determine just which conflicts will come up on the global stage for judgment by the international community.
What Assad does to his own people in Syria clearly passes the threshold and therefore becomes international news – in the West, at least – for months on end. But what Saudi Arabia may or may not be doing to the Houthi rebellion within Yemen with either the implicit or explicit support and backing of the United States, Great Britain, and Israel, remains relatively unfocused and ambiguous across global Western media. So, the real issue is not so much whether or not Saudi Arabia is violating international law, but rather why is international law being violated in this case with little fanfare or outrage while it can be violated in other instances to great attention? The second half of this question leads to the more poignant and perhaps sad fact of global affairs: political justification is more important than international law. I do not say this to say I support this fact, but rather admit that this fact must be acknowledged by all. Because if global affairs in the modern age has shown us anything, with increased and instantaneous media communication all over the world, it is that how a state is able to argue its behavior is actually more relevant and impactful than what the actual behavior is. And if this supposition is in fact true, then it consequently shows international law to be nothing more than window-dressing to make states feel better about themselves.
International law matters when we are following it. If we are not following it, then it does not matter and we can give other reasons as to why you should not care either. This flippant retort is an accurate paraphrase of just about every nation on earth when it comes to its individual contemporary global affairs.
Q: The Saudis, their Arab partners and the United States have been giving their backing to Yemen’s fugitive President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi and showed their commitment to keep him in power. Now, he has returned from exile, and delivered a speech before the UN General Assembly. However, some observers of the Yemen politics maintain that the February 2012 election in which he was elected president cannot be truly called a representation of democracy, as he was the only one candidate, and won the elections with 99.80% of the votes, which is not really a democratic transition. Meantime, he was to have a two-year term that ended last year. What’s your idea on that?
A: Not to be flippant with the question, but the reality is there are very few truly open, transparent, and fair democratic elections around the world. This is because such elections can only happen when the institutions of society [including] media, press, civil liberties, judicial independence, legal redress, etc. are not only well-founded but well-executed in the everyday life of said society. In other words, there has never been a ‘fair democratic’ election where 99% of the votes went to a single candidate even when that candidate was the only one running! It simply violates the common sense laws of statistical anomaly. So, of course the election in February 2012 was not free or fair. But, perhaps most importantly, there was no one in the region or beyond that ever expected that to be the case anyway. The problem we have today is that everyone in the world has ‘buy in’ when it concerns democratic language, but not democratic reality. Every country, even the most tyrannical and dictatorial, always couches its activities and policies today in democratic posturing. In one way that is a victory, because it means people all over the world are at least becoming acquainted with the principles of real democratic governance. In another way, however, that only drives up cynicism and resentment around the world as more and more people realize this knowledge is not going to be met with real-time democratic transition and consolidation. Perhaps worse still, riding along the tone of the previous question, global affairs today seem to show a disturbing habit, that the world always gives proper lip-service to democratic ideals strengthening and the desire to see the cradle of democracy enlarge its numbers, but that same lip-service is then compromised if not directly undermined by other mature democracies if it behooves their individual foreign policies and national interests. This reality should sound very familiar to all readers in the Middle East and [Persian] Gulf, as this has literally been the political play across the region for decades.
Q: So, the humanitarian situation in Yemen seems quite alarming. Unofficial figures show that more than 6,100 Yemenis have been killed so far. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and its partners estimate that about 80% of the country’s population – 21.1 million people – require some form of humanitarian protection and assistance and about 20.4 million people lack access to safe water and adequate sanitation. The international aid seems to be insufficient. What should be done for the improvement of the dire living conditions of the Yemeni people, and especially the traumatized children? Who is responsible?
A: Before I can answer that question I must remind your readers that they are interacting right now not with a professor of religion, or ethics, or even law, but with a Professor of Intelligence Studies. This means my raison d’etre is to ascertain the interests, motivations, passions, and subjective desires of states. It is about learning the stimuli that push them to act or not act, to understand their perceptions and misperceptions and determine how those might incur certain actions or reactions. It is a fascinatingly Machiavellian discipline, which is to say it is amoral in its considerations. For these reasons, questions about moral responsibility are incredibly difficult to answer. Because in the world of intelligence, we know quite literally that every conflict has multiple interlocking layers that cannot be easily untangled; that every human catastrophe should not be painted in caricatures of ‘good guy vs. bad guy’ but must be accurately shown as a perfect storm of factors that made the catastrophe gain an almost unstoppable momentum. There is no doubt that any conflict that involves an inept local government, impassioned insurgency, and opposing international players with an interest in the outcome will also inevitably create a human disaster in the conflict’s wake. Who is responsible? Everyone above. What can be done about it? International aid and assistance is a wonderful note and gesture, but if there are not local organizations at the local society level able to process and protect that aid and see that it gets used effectively and fairly, then aid simply tends to make a situation worse. I fear that Yemen was never a well-governed state even before the conflict erupted. Therefore, expecting something good to come of the human catastrophe right now, with the conflict still so undecided and disbalanced, is really nothing but wishful thinking. Justified and needed wishful thinking, of course, but not likely to be something that creates a real plan to deliver the innocent people of Yemen from their suffering.
Q: Is the US government interested in the continuation of Saudis’ airstrikes on Yemen, or does it want a lasting truce to take place? According to the Los Angeles Times, there are currently about 45 US military advisors working with the Saudis to give them guidelines on how to conduct the airstrikes. What would be the ultimate goal of this elongated military involvement in Yemen?
A: The US government will remain interested in the continuation of the conflict in Yemen as long as an outcome in line with its foreign policy remains undetermined. What I mean by that is that the clear foreign policy interest of the United States, rightly or wrongly depending on your own foreign policy perspectives and priorities, is to make sure Yemen does not end up under the control of a group that is sympathetic to or directly aligned with Iran. This is because at the moment the United States still sees Iran as an adversary with no track record of trust between them. This is why the new JCPOA accord could prove to be a watershed moment in history. There is at least an outside chance that the accord creates opportunities, if both Iran and the United States know what is good for them and do not wish to simply parrot-like mimic the status quo of the past 3-4 decades, where both sides learn to accept some begrudging trust of the other. There are opportunities to collaborate and build relationships where there have been none for so long. That would ultimately be a great thing not just for Yemen but for the whole of the Middle East. But that is how the wildly swinging pendulum of global affairs never allows us to stop to take a breath; if the Yemen conflict erupted, say, 10 years from now, after Iran had responsibly acted under the JCPOA and even undertook certain joint exercises of trust with the United States, then we all could have seen a decidedly different look and feel to the current problem. So, in all honesty, if Iran is interested in seeing a United States that does not just ‘knee-jerk’ react in opposition to everything Iran does or has an interest in, then it needs to begin strategic engagement that fosters not just its own national objectives but also cultivates international respect and trust, even if at first this is only in a begrudging form. Without that paradigm shift in reality, then any discord that is thinly veiled as a Saudi-Iranian tet-a-tet will see the United States staunchly support the Saudi side. I for one have always seen that as a tenuous position; everyone knows that Saudi society is not exactly a shining beacon of democratic openness and principle, while Iranian society, at the grassroots level at least, has long held a high level of democratic knowledge and embracing of democratic ideals. One of the problems with foreign affairs is that we never anticipate a real change of direction until after the change is already well underway. I see this potentiality – a US switch from Saudi interests to Iranian ones – as just one of those changes that only seem far-fetched right now. But with a few well-placed and strategic initiatives, it might not be so far-fetched at all.
Q: MIT linguist and author Noam Chomsky has described the Saudi military intervention in Yemen as “the most extraordinary global terrorism campaign in history”, and American journalist Paul Street says the Obama administration supports the Saudis in this campaign because he needs their oil and money, and so he should “placate” them. What do you think of this assessment? Is it really that the Obama administration has been dragged into the Yemen war involuntarily?
A: I have somewhat answered this question in my previous answers. But in an effort to not be repetitive let me first say that although I greatly admire and respect the academic standing and achievement of Professor Chomsky, the reality is that the prime of his greatest political insights is already in sunset and he has basically created an entire industry unto himself where he is the chief curmudgeon and moral judge against all things American and within American national interests. I do not believe the Saudi military campaign should be judged a global terrorism campaign – especially not the ‘most extraordinary’ in history, simply because it resembles too closely what a standard conventional war campaign looks like to me. And unless we want to judge all conventional warfare as a terrorist campaign, something I feel Professor Chomsky would likely enthusiastically raise both hands in the affirmative to, then the Yemen conflict is not a terrorist campaign. It is a war like so many other wars before it: it is not just about the internal sides fighting for control of the small local pie but also the external sides jockeying around the internals, trying to massage and manage the result to make sure the bigger global picture comes out in their individual favor. As for the Street assessment, it is an easy target to take aim at, most certainly: America needs oil and doesn’t make enough of its own, so as goes the oil, so goes the American interest. It is overly simplistic, however, because the global oil market is slowly but surely changing, and what I find most fascinating is that Iran may now become a much bigger player in that market in the aftermath of the JCPOA. So again, while it is very easy to assume the status quo and make grand immutable generalizations about the state of global affairs, the reality is that it is a constantly changing and amorphous blob of interaction. That is what makes it so fun for professors and analysts in my discipline. It will never be boring! After all, Ghandi was once labeled a terrorist. Arafat was literally ranked as the world’s number one criminal. The former ended up achieving near sainthood while the latter was ultimately embraced on the world stage as a statesman. In short, things change. And they often do in wildly unanticipated and sudden ways. So I would ask that your readers strive to be two things I always force on my own students: first, never believe the first story given at face value and second, be subtle. I always question the veracity of a ‘knowledgeable’ person who speaks on global affairs without subtlety. Inevitably, that person proves him or herself to be far less knowledgeable than we first surmised. Alas, in today’s world, with conflicts like the one in Yemen, there are an awful lot of ‘unsubtle’ people.
Q: In a recent report, the Media Lens website has analyzed the US and British media coverage of the Yemen war, and cited a number of “shortcomings” in the way they’ve been reporting on the Saudi airstrikes and the subsequent human casualties. The report said the media in the UK and America have failed to keep track of the involvement of their respective governments in the war on Yemen and their role in the suffering of the people of the Arab country. Do you believe that the media reaction to the Yemen war has been biased, as the Media Lens notes?
A: This is always a problematic question, simply because war is a horrifically inexact science exemplified by chaos and distraction. Getting accurate numbers of casualties and the true impact and damage while a war is still ongoing has always been a vexing problem for media entities. Now that does not mean all media sources are created equal. Indeed, in America we have a vexing problem that I consider to be the ‘fusing of news with news commentary.’ The pundits who wax poetic on everything, often with little evidence but with great style and flair, often portray themselves as ‘experts’ in the given subjects they are discussing. More often than not, they are no such thing. But the portrayal sticks and since the news corporation that gave them their elevated position has a vested interest in keeping the ratings high and popularity soaring, it does what it can to lend even greater style gravitas to said pundits. On the flip side, ‘hard-core’ news dedicated to objective, substantive, and long-reach analysis is a dying art form in America. The reality is that the American people themselves seem to have little time or desire to delve deeply into the depressing reality of global affairs. Yes, it is indeed hard to blame anyone for not wanting to hear copious detail about the suffering of innocent children or the wanton destruction of civilian areas in a war that they’ve never heard of in a place they likely could never find on a map, even with 100 guesses. On the other hand, however, acquiescing to this reality means we raise a society of ill-informed and indifferent global citizens. The consequences of that, I’m afraid, are quite stark: wars last longer, catastrophes become more prolonged, and atrocities likely become more vicious, as no one cares to notice or, at best, feels that there is nothing they can do to change the situation.
Indeed, to me that has been the much more egregious situation regarding media coverage of the Yemen conflict: the problem is not how biased the media is here in the West, trying to portray it in a one-sided and unfair fashion and engendering a misinformed public perception. No. The problem is how absent the conflict largely is from the main media sources. This of course means the population simply does not have an opinion one way or another, because it simply does not know. There is no real awareness of the Yemen conflict. I fear it is in the shadow of such ignorance and indifference that the worst of human nature comes out.
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13941013001495
Humanitäre Lage / Humanitarian situation
6.1.2015 – Shafaqna
A broken landscape – Ravaged by war Yemen holds on still
“This campaign Riyadh has run against Yemen to restore the forfeited rule of resigned President Abdo Rabbo Mansour Hadi, has led to the obliteration of Yemen’s civil, military and state infrastructures,” said Adams Nichols, a researcher told the Shafaqna Institute for Middle Eastern Studies.
“The coalition forces led by Saudi Arabia have brought death and misery to 20 of Yemen’s 22 provinces … few corners of Yemen have been spared mass bombing. Such a campaign has gone on without any form of international oversight,” Nichols added.
Dr Riaz Karim, the co-founder of the Mona Relief Organization, and former UN official explained how Yemen was pushed past beyond the humanitarian breaking point under the pressure of Riyadh’s blockade. “Saudi officials have closed up Yemen to the world, preventing food, medicine and other products from entering the country on account it intends to flush out all resistance to its mandate … Such behaviour contradicts humanitarian law, international law and human rights law – more importantly it is a grave infringement on Yemenis’ dignity. A entire country, a people has been forced to live in complete and utter destitution over a political dispute. More than anything else it is the silence of the international community which we have found most deplorable.”
“The crisis has been compounded by the fact that getting aid into Yemen and transporting it around the country is very limited. Aid agencies like Save the Children are frantically trying to scale up our response, but it’s almost impossible when we can’t get relief supplies into the country,” Mark kaye wrote in August 2015, highlighting this thaw in between political powers and the humanitarian community.
Yemen is slowly being strangled by a de facto blockade that prevents enough food and medicine getting to the families who need them most. Tens of thousands of children have already died from hunger-related causes, over a million face a similar fate reported Sana al-Dhafer a local social worker in Sana’a.
“Hunger and diseases are a real worry … millions of people in Yemen today are hungry. Hundreds of thousands of families have sold everything they have to feed their children, and today they are reaching the end of their tethers. There is nothing left of my country today. We all have been made destitute,” she told Shafaqna.
Across the country civilian infrastructures, including health facilities, markets, shops and schools, have been damaged and destroyed by airstrikes and ground war. “For too long all parties to this conflict have been allowed by the international community to show an unashamed contempt for human life,” Sana added.
Beyond the intolerable cruelty of war, Yemenis say they feel the sting of betrayal most.
“The world has forsaken us! We have become no more than meat for the canons. The world only sees of us our poverty and the color of our skin … Before the might and riches of Saudi Arabia we are invisible casualties. But we are not poor because we are careless or lazy … our nation was failed by design. Our future was stolen and now the world will allow for a tyrant to enslave us,” said Dr Hasan al-Ansi from Sana’a.
“I have seen the destruction in the highlands (northern provinces) … I have seen pregnant women deliver stillborn babies because of malnutrition. I have heard children cry from hunger, and fathers contemplate suicide for they no longer could bare their family suffering. Yemen has known poverty for a long time, but ever like this … This misery I see everyday stains the soul,” he further emphasized.
Yemen currently has the greatest level of humanitarian needs in the world. After an armed conflict erupted in March, over 20 million people–80 percent of the population—is in desperate need of humanitarian assistance. Just 14% of national fuel requirements have arrived in country since the end of March putting 10 million people at risk of losing access to water. Those are the realities Yemenis have to contend with, yet it fails to describe the pain they have been made to suffer through – by Catherine Shakdam
http://en.shafaqna.com/news/25383
5.1.2016 – Acted
Rural areas in Yemen hard-hit by critical issues with water access
A coalition-led airstrike campaign and economic blockade, beginning nearly nine months ago, continues to make accessing water even more difficult for vulnerable rural communities in one of the world’s most water-scarce countries.
Widespread shortages of fuel caused by the economic blockade have led to dramatically increased prices of water, as pumps for wells, water delivery trucks and urban water networks all rely on the limited amounts of fuel available to operate. Increases in water prices are coming at a time of dramatic inflation when families are already struggling to afford basic household items. As new needs exacerbate an existing water access crisis, an estimated 20.4 million people in Yemen are now in need of humanitarian aid related to water, sanitation or hygiene.
While these shortages have affected communities across Yemen, rural areas are uniquely at risk, where 70% of Yemenis live and access to water has always been more difficult when compared to urban areas. Households in rural areas cannot rely on piped water networks like in some urban areas, where support has been provided by international organizations. Available water sources are often scarce and strained by a dramatic rise in the number of internally displaced people (IDPs). They are placing an enormous burden on existing water sources, which already struggled to meet the water needs of communities before the crisis.
In ACTED’s areas of interventions in rural Al Dhale’e, communities report that they are unable to access sufficient amounts of water as they need to travel long distances to reach clean water, that the available water is not safe to drink and that water is simply too expensive. Alarmingly, there is a reported increase in people relying on unprotected open wells and unprotected springs, compared to before the crisis. Without support, there is an increased risk of malnutrition and water-borne diseases, with community members widely reporting increasing rates of diarrhoea amongst children.
In response to the urgent need to support the water access needs of rural communities, ACTED is providing a range of water, sanitation and hygiene activities in Al Dhale’e, as well as Ibb, Raymah and Al Jawf governorates. Just in Al Dhale’e, ACTED is rehabilitating 29 communal water points and WASH facilities in nine health facilities, distributing water filters at household-level across 15 villages, and is doubling the 14,000 people already reached with hygiene promotion and kits. Elsewhere across the country, ACTED has reached an additional 14,000 people with hygiene kits in Ibb, and is soon to begin water trucking and kit distribution in Al Jawf. However, unmet needs remain very high. Sustained support must be provided to both rural and urban communities in ways that recognise their differing contexts, in order to support basic household water, sanitation and hygiene needs.
http://www.acted.org/en/rural-areas-yemen-hard-hit-critical-issues-water-access
4.1.2016 – Middle East Eye
Yemen's fire sale: How war turns civilians into arms dealers
Many Yemenis have sold their guns at high prices to militias in order to provide for their families as war continues to destroy their livelihoods
Although the arms trade is illegal in Yemen, since the war escalated in March 2015, the demand for weapons has soared and, in the face of rising unemployment and hunger caused by the conflict, Yemenis have started selling their personal weapons to armed groups.
Before the war, a Kalashnikov rifle sold for 170,000 Yemeni Riyals ($791) but now these weapons have skyrocketed to 300,000 Yemeni Riyals ($1,395). This was an indication for Qaatabi that many people will agree to sell their weapons.
When the Houthis occupied Yemen's capital city of Sanaa at the end of 2014, and then began to attack other provinces, they had already seized huge quantities of weapons from the military camps in the Imran and Sanaa provinces.
In response, Sunni Yemenis and militas from several provinces formed the Popular Resistance to fight the Houthis with their personal weapons. Later, the Saudi-led coalition started to provide the resistance with higher-tech weapons and ammunition.
However, the coalition's military support has not provided enough arms for the resistance in Taiz, and for this reason, the leadership of the resistance has decided to purchase Kalashnikovs from local residents, according to Moaath al-Yaseri, a leader in the Popular Resistance in Taiz province.
"Usually the people in the rural areas have Kalashnikovs and pistols, so there are many arms traders buying weapons from residents in rural areas and selling them to us, while we sell bullets to these traders," al-Yaseri added.
Despite the Popular Resistance's tactic of purchasing firearms from local residents, thousands of fighters have not yet been issued a weapon, according to a Popular Resistence recruit, Amar Mubarak. Mubarak himself has not been provided a firearm.
Most Yemenis, especially residents of rural areas, have weapons and traditionally use them at weddings, but with the combination of unemployment and a high-demand for weapons, many have resorted to selling them.
According to reports, there are more than 60 million weapons in Yemen, including mortars and machine guns – by Nasser Al-Sakkaf
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/yemens-war-fuelling-rampant-arms-trade-64294521
15.12.1015 – BBC News
Yemen crisis: How bad is the humanitarian situation?
UN officials have warned that the already desperate humanitarian situation in Yemen has severely deteriorated over the last eight months. How bad is it?
Overview from Mid-December already.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34011187
Houthis
5.1.2016 – Al Monitor
Will Yemen’s journalists fare better in 2016?
Houthis in Yemen have been detaining, kidnapping and even using journalists as “human shields” in military barracks targeted by the air force of the Saudi-led Arab coalition.
The year 2015 dealt a major blow to press freedoms in Yemen amid growing concerns over the fate of at least 13 journalists who continue to be held by rebels with no news about their situation for a month.
Marwan Dammaj, secretary-general of the Yemeni Journalists’ Syndicate (YJS), sounded the alarm as Houthis expanded their attacks against journalists. “Yemen’s journalists need to take broader action. Journalists are being horribly tortured in the prisons of [the Houthi] militia,” he said.
Dammaj also confirmed to Al-Monitor that journalists have been specifically targeted. “All of the independent and partisan press institutions have been closed, while all of the official public and government institutions have been seized.”
The YJS secretary-general pointed out that “as a result of all of these attacks, hundreds of journalists lost their jobs and sources of livelihood.”
Meanwhile, Reporters Without Borders classified the Houthis as the second-largest hostage-takers of professional journalists, following the Islamic State (IS). – by Ashraf Al-Falahi
Südjemen und Hadi-Kämpfer / Southern Yemen and Hadi‘s fighters
5.1.2016 –AP
Governor of Yemen's Aden Survives Car Bomb That Kills 2
The governor of Yemen's southern port city of Aden survived a car bomb attack on Tuesday that killed two bodyguards and critically wounded three others, Yemeni officials said.
The assassination attempt on Gov. Aidarous al-Zubaidi comes a month after his predecessor was killed in a bombing claimed by a local Islamic State affiliate.
Al-Zubaidi has been cracking down on extremist groups, which have exploited the chaos of Yemen's civil war. Last week, government forces retook the strategic Red Sea port from several militias.
The officials said the blast was heard throughout Aden. They spoke on condition of anonymity in line with regulations – by Ahmed Al-Haj
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/governor-yemens-aden-survives-car-bomb-kills-36095672 and see also http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35236572
5.1.2016 – Hit 967 / Dubai Eye
New Resistance Military Council formed in Yemen
A new Resistance Military Council has been formed in Yemen to reinforce the efforts of resistance fighters against Houthi rebels.
Government officials announced the establishment of the Military Council in Taiz and Ibb, as popular resistance forces made gains on several fronts in Taiz.
Saudi-led Arab coalition forces shelled rebel hideouts and weapons stores near the border with Saudi Arabia overnight.
They have also stepped up airstrikes on Houthi rebels and forces aligned with deposed president Ali Abdullah Saleh in the capital Sana’a and Taiz.
http://hit967.ae/new-resistance-military-council-formed-in-yemen/ = http://dubaieye1038.com/new-resistance-military-council-formed-in-yemen/
5.1.2016 – AFP
Qaeda militant arrested in Yemen raids: officials
Yemeni security forces have arrested a local Al-Qaeda leader during a sweep targeting jihadists in the southern city of Aden, security officials said Tuesday.
The capture of Mohammed al-Lahji, the Al-Qaeda chief in the city’s Tawahi district, along with two of his bodyguards sparked a gunfight overnight in which a policeman was wounded, they said.
http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/2016/01/qaeda-militant-arrested-in-yemen-raids-officials/
UNO / UN
5.1.2016 – AP
UN Security Council urges cease-fire and new talks in Yemen
he U.N. Security Council urged the warring parties in Yemen on Tuesday to resume a cease-fire and participate in a new round of talks in mid-January.
The council welcomed “the positive progress” in the last round of U.N.-facilitated talks from Dec. 15-20 and called on the government and Shiite rebels known as Houthis to engage in new talks without preconditions, reject violence, and refrain from provocations.
The council statement, issued after a closed briefing, expresses deep concern at Yemen’s “dire humanitarian situation which continues to worsen.” – by Edith M. Lederer
4.1.2016 – Reuters
U.N. pushes Syria, Yemen peace amid 'worrying' Saudi break with Iran
"The Secretary-General urged both foreign ministers to avoid any actions that could further exacerbate the situation between the two countries and in the region as a whole," Dujarric said.
Ban wanted to ensure that both Iran and Saudi Arabia, regional rivals with a long history of tense relations, continue their commitment to ending the conflicts in Syria and Yemen, where the two countries back opposing sides, Dujarric said.
"(The U.N.) will be pushing forward and very much hoping that the current tensions will not impact negatively on the two peace processes," Dujarric said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-iran-un-idUSKBN0UI1PB20160105
5.1.2016 – Aljazeera
Saudi Arabia has said its decision to break diplomatic ties with Iran will not affect efforts to negotiate peace in Syria and Yemen - where the two regional heavyweights support opposite sides.
Riyadh on Sunday severed relations with Iran after its embassy in Tehran was set ablaze during protests against Saudi Arabia's execution of prominent Shia religious leader Nimr al-Nimr, who was put to death along with 46 other mostly Sunni convicts on terrorism charges.
Abdullah al-Mouallimi, the Saudi Ambassador to the UN, said on Monday that the row with Tehran "should have no effect" on attempts to end the wars.
"We will continue to work very hard towards supporting the peace efforts in Syria, in Yemen, wherever there might be a need for that," he said.
"How is that going to affect the behaviour of Iran, we do not know, you will need to ask the Iranians for that," al-Mouallimi told reporters in New York, accusing Tehran of not being supportive of attempts to find peace before this latest falling out between the two nations.
"They have been taking provocative and negative positions and lines, and as such I don't think that the breaking of relations is going to dissuade them from such behaviour."
Earlier, Iran's foreign ministry said Saudi Arabia was using the attack on its embassy in Tehran as a pretext to fuel tensions.
"Iran ... is committed to providing diplomatic security based on international conventions. But Saudi Arabia, which thrives on tensions, has used this incident as an excuse to fuel the tensions," Hossein Jaberi Ansari, Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, said in televised remarks on Monday
Saudi-Arabien und Iran / Saudi Arabia and Iran
6.1.2016 - Reuters
Will the U.S. fall for Saudi Arabia’s deliberate provocation in killing of Shi’ite cleric?
From the Saudi perspective, geopolitical trends in the region have gone against its interests for more than a decade now. The rise of Iran – and Washington’s decision to negotiate and compromise with Tehran over its nuclear program – has only added to the Saudi panic.
To follow through on this way of thinking, Riyadh’s calculation with the deliberate provocation of executing Nimr may have been to manufacture a crisis — perhaps even war — that it hopes can change the geopolitical trajectory of the region back to the Saudi’s advantage.
The prize would be to force the United States to side with Saudi Arabia and thwart its slow but critical warm-up in relations with Tehran. As a person close to the Saudi government told the Wall Street Journal: “At some point, the U.S. may be forced to take sides [between Saudi Arabia and Iran]… This could potentially threaten the nuclear deal.”
Washington should not repeat Tehran’s mistake and walk into this Saudi trap. In fact, from the U.S. perspective, Saudi Arabia’s destabilizing activities are a vindication of the nuclear deal it struck with Iran in 2015. One critical benefit of that deal, left unstated by Obama administration officials, is that it helped reduce U.S. dependency on Saudi Arabia - by Trita Parsi
6.1.2016 The Independent
Nimr al-Nimr execution: Sectarian fault lines widen across Middle East after Saudi Arabia's beheading of Shia cleric
Some senior Iranian figures believe that Tehran’s own response to the beheading has been ill thought out, and they have taken the unusual step of expressing their views. One official based abroad said the execution was not just another expression of the Saudis’ brand of brutal, fundamentalist Wahhabism – as it has been portrayed in the West – but a Saudi plan to try to undermine the reintegration of Iran into the international fold.
“It was a trap by the Saudis,” he claimed. “There were not enough police on the street to stop the crowd when they took out their anger on the [Saudi] embassy, and so the pictures were like the old days, of the American embassy being attacked, the British embassy being attacked. The Saudis are very worried about the progress we are making diplomatically, so they are trying to sabotage this.”
Fazel Meybodi, a cleric in the Iranian holy city of Qum, said: “Saudi Arabia killed Sheikh al-Nimr at this sensitive time to widen the gulf between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Unfortunately, they had predicted our overreaction, and now they are using it against us to try to isolate Iran once again.” - by Kim Sengupta
6.1.2016 – Deutsche Welle
Eskalation am Golf
Was immer es an Hoffnung für Syrien und den Jemen gab: Der Streit zwischen Saudi-Arabien und dem Iran lässt Friedenslösungen in noch weitere Ferne rücken. Hardliner auf beiden Seiten haben Aufwind.
Jegliche Hoffnung auf einen Durchbruch etwa in Syrien hänge von einer Annäherung zwischen Saudis und Iranern ab, betont Julian Barnes-Dacey vom European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). Es hatte viel diplomatisches Geschick gebraucht, Teheran und Riad in Wien überhaupt gemeinsam an einen Verhandlungstisch zur Zukunft Syriens zu bringen. Die jüngsten Ereignisse, so Barnes-Dacey im DW-Gespräch, hätten die Aussichten auf Fortschritte deutlich erschwert.
Obwohl Saudi-Arabien zwischenzeitlich betont hat, dass die Verhandlungen nicht aufgegeben werden sollen, ist auch Sebastian Sons von der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik (DGAP) skeptisch. Im Interview mit der DW beklagt Sons, der zunächst vorhandene, minimale Vertrauensvorschuss zwischen beiden Seiten sei jetzt verspielt.
Arabien-Kenner Sons analysiert: "Saudi-Arabien fühlt sich - ob das so stimmt oder nicht, sei einmal dahin gestellt - umzingelt von iranisch-dominierten Feinden: In Bahrain, in Syrien, im Jemen und im Irak." Dabei werde in Riad der Einfluss des Irans auf die Schiiten in Bahrain, auf die saudischen Schiiten und auch auf die Houthi-Rebellen im Jemen deutlich überschätzt.
Sons diagnostiziert in Riad eine paranoide Haltung gegenüber dem Iran, die realpolitisches und pragmatisches Handeln unmöglich mache und verhindere, dass man den kleinsten gemeinsamen Nenner mit Teheran finde – von Matthias von Hein
http://www.dw.com/de/eskalation-am-golf/a-18963446
6.1.2016 – Tageswoche
Ein Machtpoker unter dem Deckmantel der Religion
Saudi Arabien verliert an Einfluss und Bedeutung. Die gezielte Provokation des Iran ist kein Zeichen der Stärke, sondern der Schwäche. Im eigenen Land wächst der Unmut. Eine Analyse.
Saudi-Arabien, mit Sitz der Heiligen Stätten der Sunniten, zieht ganz gezielt die religiöse Karte gegen den Iran als Schirmherr der Schiiten und hat al-Nimr zusammen mit sunnitischen Militanten exekutiert. Lokale Medien bezeichneten Nimr nicht nur als Terroristen, sondern nannten ihn in einem Atemzug mit IS-Chef Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Die Religion ist aber nicht viel mehr als ein Vorwand, mit dem sich bei der eigenen Bevölkerung gut Stimmung schüren lässt.
Tatsächlich fürchtet Riad die politische und wirtschaftliche Vormachtstellung in der Region an den Iran zu verlieren. Mit der Einigung im Atom-Streit hat es das Mullah-Regime geschafft, die jahrelange Isolation zu durchbrechen. Vertreter Teherans sitzen jetzt an allen Verhandlungstischen über regionale Krisen. Die einschneidenden Wirtschaftssanktionen werden nach und nach aufgehoben, damit wird es dem Iran möglich, sein gewaltiges Potenzial auszuschöpfen – von Astrid Frefel
Zwar hat der Iran in den letzten Jahren einen massiven Brain-Drain hinnehmen müssen, aber er bleibt ein Land mit Ressourcen in jedem Bereich, die jenen des im Vergleich jungen Staates Saudi-Arabien überlegen sind. Mit den Veränderungen auf dem internationalen Energiemarkt – die USA sind von saudischem Öl inzwischen praktisch unabhängig – hat das Reich der al-Sauds seine Stellung als wichtigster Garant für eine reibungslose Ölversorgung und damit seine Position als unverzichtbarer Stabilitätsanker verloren.
6.1.2016 – Cicero
SAUDI-ARABIEN VS. IRAN: Kriegerisch wirken, ohne Krieg zu führen
Die Angst vor einem Krieg zwischen Iran und Saudi-Arabien wächst. Zu Unrecht. Denn der Rauch der letzten Tage ist wohl dosierte Schau. An der Krise ist der Westen mit seinem Atom-Deal nicht unschuldig.
Riad will Iran in Schach halten, einzig und allein darum geht es. Neu jedoch ist das aggressive saudische Auftreten, vor dem jüngst schon der Bundesnachrichtendienstgewarnt hat Das hat einerseits mit einem Generationswechsel zu tun. Der saudische Verteidigungsminister und Vize-Kronprinz gilt als provokativ und gefährlich.
Andererseits ist der neue saudische Kurs aber auch die unmittelbare Folge eines westlichen Friedensversuchs. Jenem, an dem auch Deutschland gehörigen Anteil hatund auf den Außenminister Steinmeier enorm stolz ist: nämlich dem Atom-Deal mit Iran. „Für Jubel ist es zu früh“, berichtete Cicero bereits im April direkt von den erfolgreichen Verhandlungen aus Lausanne.
Nun werden die geostrategischen Folgen sichtbar: Seit der iranischen Revolution 1979 haben die USA den Part übernommen, Iran zu ächten. Wie heute stand damals auch eine Botschaftsbesetzung symbolisch für den Bruch. Doch mit wochenlanger Geiselnahme war sie wesentlich radikaler als die Stürmung der saudischen Botschaft vor wenigen Tagen. 36 Jahre lang hat sich das sunnitische Arabien darauf verlassen können, dass ein weithin vom Westen geächteter Iran wirtschaftlich schwach bleibt. Nach der Lösung des Atom-Streits gilt das nicht mehr. Der Fall der Sanktionen ist versprochen.
Das eben macht den Saudis Angst, die gerade selbst wegen des – selbst provozierten - Ölpreis-Absturzes in einer bisher ungekannten Wirtschaftskrise stecken. Ihr Motto ist jetzt: Wenn der Westen Iran nicht mehr sanktioniert, dann müssen wir es eben selbst tun – von Wolfgang Schmiese
http://www.cicero.de/weltbuehne/saudi-arabien-contra-iran-starke-rauchbildung-im-nahen-osten/60327
5.1.2016 – Deutsche Welle
Opinion: Tehran and Riyadh are two murderous theocracies
Following the execution of Shiite cleric Nimr Al-Nimr tension between Saudi-Arabia and Iran has been mounting. DW's Kersten Knipp believes that both countries' leaders are deeply cynical and welcome these developments.
One thing is for sure: The timing of the executions was no coincidence. The Saudi State knows full well what it does – and when. No one in Riyadh is naïve enough not to have considered the reactions to the mass executions ahead of time. But that also means: In ordering the executions the Saudis were sending, above all, a political message.
The message read: No one should dare oppose us. No one inside and no one outside our borders. Whoever dares confront us must expect dire consequences.
The executions and also the reactions to them have demonstrated yet again how the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran work. Both are the main powers in the Middle East and have yet again shown that they do not have best intentions for the region. The latest escalation is likely to have deadly consequences for the people in Syria and Yemen. But it should again let western governments rethink whether they really want to refer to these two regimes as "partners." – by Kersten Knipp
http://www.dw.com/en/opinion-tehran-and-riyadh-are-two-murderous-theocracies/a-18957101
5.1.2016 – NZZ
Saudi und Iraner
Gegenseitige Abschreckung am Golf
Die diplomatische Konfrontation zwischen Iran und Saudiarabien lässt einen direkten militärischen Schlagabtausch zwischen den beiden Regionalmächten am Golf befürchten. An Stellvertreterkriegen sind die beiden rivalisierenden Regionalmächte derzeit schon in Syrien und Jemen direkt oder indirekt beteiligt.
Irans Militäraufwand nimmt sich neben dem saudischen geradezu bescheiden aus, er betrug im Jahr 2014 gut 15 Milliarden Dollar. Das iranische Waffenarsenal ist über weite Strecken veraltet. Dies ist auf die Sanktionen zurückzuführen, denen das Land während Jahren unterworfen war. Diejenigen Länder, die moderne Waffen hätten liefern können, wollten oder durften dies nicht. Teheran hat deshalb viel in die Entwicklung eigener Waffensysteme investiert, wobei die Hightech-Komponenten allerdings immer wieder einen Engpass darstellten.
Sowohl Iran wie auch Saudiarabien müssen befürchten, sich bei einem kriegerischen Schlagabtausch eine blutige Nase zu holen. Bei einem kurzen Waffengang könnten wohl die Saudi den Iranern mehr Schaden beifügen als umgekehrt, bei einem länger andauernden Krieg jedoch könnte sich das Blatt wenden.
Sollte es zu Kriegshandlungen am Golf kommen, dürften die Erdölanlagen auf beiden Seiten zu den vorrangigen Angriffszielen gehören. Falls diese in grösserem Umfang zerstört werden, wird es für die Kriegführenden schwierig, Rüstungskäufe oder Söldnerdienste zu finanzieren – von Andres Wysling
5.1.2016 – TAZ
Ein knallharter Machtkampf
Bei der Rivalität zwischen Saudi-Arabien und dem Iran geht es nicht nur um Religion. Und an beiden kommt die Politik des Westens nicht vorbei.
Der Grund für die neuste Eskalation, die zu einem Abbruch der diplomatischen Beziehungen geführt hat, entspringt der Tatsache, dass sich die Gewichte zwischen beiden Regionalmächten gerade verschieben.
Der Iran ist mit dem Atomabkommen international wieder salonfähig geworden. In Teheran gibt sich die internationale Geschäftswelt die Klinke in die Hand, auf der Suche nach zukünftigen lukrativen Geschäftsmöglichkeiten. Der Iran fühlt sich im Aufwind.
Heute gilt Saudi-Arabien als Bösewicht
Saudi Arabien, bisher der selten kritisierte Liebling der USA in der Region und auch Verbündeter Europas, befindet sich dagegen im freien Fall. Noch nie war das Ansehen Saudi Arabiens im Westen so schlecht wie heute. War einst Iran der Schurkenstaat, übernimmt jetzt zunehmend Saudi Arabien im Westen die Feindesrolle.
Der Iran sonnt sich also in seiner neuen Rolle, während die saudische Führung eher panisch um sich schlägt.
Für den Westen stellt sich nun die Frage, wie er sich in diesem Konflikt positionieren soll – von Karim El-Gawhary
4.1.2016 – Washington Post
Why Saudi Arabia escalated the Middle East’s sectarian conflict
Sectarianism today is intense, but that is because of politics. The continuing reverberations of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the Syrian civil war and the Iranian nuclear deal have far more to do with the current spike in sectarianism than some timeless essence of religious difference.
From this perspective, the new sectarian escalation is driven by Riyadh’s curious, and dangerous, mixture of perceived threat and opportunity, strength and weakness.
At least three major reasons have led Saudi Arabia to escalate the sectarian regional cold war now:
The Iran nuclear deal
Foreign policy failure
Sunni leadership: Iran may be less the target of the escalation than other Sunni rivals. Saudi diplomacy has focused intently on efforts to consolidate its leadership of a reconstituted “Sunni” regional order.
Sunni Islamist networks continue to challenge key Saudi policies.
Then there are the states that have collapsed into civil war, such as Syria, Yemen and Libya. State failure, civil war and a hyperpartisan media create ideal conditions for sectarianism to take hold among frightened, angry, polarized communities. Syria’s war has been the greatest incubator of sectarianism, with massive public and private campaigns across the Gulf mobilizing in support of a Sunni jihad against the Syrian regime and its Iranian and Hezbollah backers. Iran, Hezbollah and Iraqi Shiite militias have similarly mobilized around identity and sect in support of the Assad regime.
Regional media has energetically promoted sectarian narratives to build support for wars in Syria and Yemen.
The implications of the Saudi sectarian escalation for the region’s high politics are likely overstated. The challenge to Iran and the mobilization of sectarian passions are part of the standard playbook for Riyadh when faced with regional and domestic challenges. But the new forces unleashed by the Arab uprising, from state weakness and civil wars to potent new media platforms, make this sectarian game much more dangerous than in the past. It will be far more difficult to deescalate these sectarian passions than it has been to inflame them – by Marc Lynch (Marc Lynch is a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University, where he is the director of the Project on Middle East Political Science. He is also a non-resident senior fellow at the Carnegie Middle East Program and the co-director of the Blogs and Bullets project at the U.S. Institute of Peace)
Comment: very profound analysis worth to be read in full at the original site. The author clearly blames Saudi Arabia for firing the sectarian conflict in the Islamic world. Worth are also the links to articles, by Gause, Matthiesen, Wehrey, and on region’s power politics.
Saudi-Arabien / Saudi Arabia
6.1.2016 – Zeit Online
Saudi-Arabien: Der König überreizt
Syrien, der Jemenkrieg und nun die Hinrichtung: Noch nie agierte Saudi-Arabien so aggressiv. Diese neue Machtpolitik könnte dem Königreich selbst zum Verhängnis werden.
Noch nie in seiner Geschichte agierte Saudi-Arabien so aggressiv und impulsiv wie unter dem greisen Monarchen Salman und seinen beiden Kronprinzen, den ersten aus der Enkelgeneration des Staatsgründers von 1932. Und noch nie waren die vom Königshaus ausgelösten Erschütterungen so groß – durch seine militärische Intervention im Jemen und seine Rolle im Syrienkrieg.
Das einst so vorsichtige Saudi-Arabien pokert hoch und könnte sein Blatt überreizen. Denn eine zivilgesellschaftliche Verständigung über den künftigen Kurs des eigenen Landes findet nicht statt.
Dieser sinnlose Krieg [im Jemen] trägt zum Verfall des saudischen Ansehens genauso bei wie die drakonischen Strafen gegen Bürgerrechtler und Blogger sowie die weltweit als geistige Brandstiftung beargwöhnte Fundamentalistenmission. Deren intolerante Botschaft befeuert radikale Milieus rund um den Globus. Inzwischen jedoch führt das drei Jahrzehnte lang mit Öldollars gemästete Frankenstein-Monster ein Eigenleben und bedroht in Gestalt von Al-Kaida und "Islamischem Staat" auch seine ideologischen Ziehväter in Saudi-Arabien. Und so riskiert das Königshaus mit seinen Eskapaden nicht nur seine internationalen Beziehungen, sondern auch das regionale Staatengefüge auf der Arabischen Halbinsel – und vielleicht am Ende sogar seine eigene Existenz – von Martin Gehlen
http://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2016-01/saudi-arabien-koenig-krieg-syrien-hinrichtung
5.1.2016 – Neopresse
Aufstieg des Wahhabismus Teil 1
[…] als im Jahr 1744 in der Oasenstadt Diriya im Najd zwei Männer eine Übereinkunft trafen, welche nicht nur für die Menschen in Diriya von Bedeutung waren, sondern ihren Schatten über Jahrhunderte warf und massgeblich viele Ereignisse des 20. und des bisherigen 21. Jahrhunderts beeinflusste. Bei diesen zwei Männern handelte es sich um den Kleriker Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab, der sich auf der Flucht vor seinem eigenen Stamm befand, und dem Anführer des Oasenstädtchens von Diriya, Scheich Muhammad ibn Saud.
Ibn Wahhab war ein weitgereister Mann für die damalige Zeit und die Region. Er besuchte das Persische Reich und studierte gar in den Wissenschaftszentren von Isfahan und Qom, lebte für einige Zeit in Basra (im heutigen Irak) welches unter der Herrschaft des Osmanischen Reiches stand. Diese Erfahrungen haben Ibn Wahhab radikalisiert, der in der schiitischen Glaubenslehre eine Götzenanbetung sah und der liberaleren Auslegung des Islams im Osmanischen Reich äusserst kritisch gegenüberstand. Nach seiner Rückkehr in den Najd schrieb Ibn Wahhab sein wichtigstes Werk, das „Kitab at-Tauhid“ oder „Buch des Einzigen (Gottes)“ welches die Anbetung eines einzigen und einigenden Gottes vorschrieb. In seinem Versuch die Stammesangehörigen von seiner Sichtweise zu überzeugen, ging er sogar soweit und zerstörte einige Gräber der ersten Weggefährten des Propheten Muhammad in Medina, welche sich zu Stätten der Anbetung entwickelt hatten. Diese Tat rechtfertigte Ibn Wahhab damit, dass die Verehrung von toten Menschen von Christen kopiert wurde und somit unislamisch sei. Damit zog sich Ibn Wahhab den Zorn von prominenten Gelehrten aus Medina zu, selbst seine eigene Familie distanzierte sich vor seinen Äusserungen und Taten und verjagten ihn aus seiner Heimatstadt Uyayna.
In Diriya traf er auf einen Mann, der seine Vorstellung teilte und nach Möglichkeiten suchte, seine Machtbasis über Diriya hinaus zu erweitern. Obwohl Blutfehden im Najd zum täglichen Leben gehörten, dienten sie prinzipiell nicht zur Machtausdehnung. Ibn Saud ging sogar einen Schritt weiter indem er die Tochter von Ibn Wahhab zur Frau nahm und somit eine alte Tradition der Beduinen brach, die eine Heirat zwischen verschiedenen Stämmen der Allianz wegen verbot. Nun ausgestattet mit religiöser Legitimität starteten Ibn Saud und Ibn Wahhab den ersten Jihad gegen andere Muslime, die der Lehre Wahhab`s nach als unislamisch galten, oder shirk, um ihnen den einzig wahren Glauben zu bringen. Das war der Grundstein für das erste saudische Emirat von 1744 bis 1786 – von Zlatko Percinic
http://www.neopresse.com/politik/naherosten/aufstieg-des-wahhabismus-teil-1/
Kommentar: Sehr detailreich, kürzer hier:
5.1.2016 – Zeit Online
Kampf gegen das Fremde: Die Wahhabiten sehen sich als Krieger für die reine Lehre des Islam
[Der Artikel beginnt mit einer Geschichte des Wahabismus]
Der wahhabitische Anspruch auf Reinheit des Islam richtet sich explizit gegen jede Art von fremdem kulturellen Einfluss, vor allem gegen die säkulare Wissenschaft auf heiligem Boden. Der Wahhabitismus ist eine Lehre, die die Frauen vom Lenkrad verbannt und ihnen in konservativeren Landstrichen auch Gesang, Parfüm und Blumentöpfe verwehrt und sich genauso unerbittlich wie gegen Außeneinflüsse auch gegen das kulturelle Erbe des islamischen Orients wendet, dessen Charakteristikum die Vielfalt ist. Für die Wahhabiten gibt es keinen Islam außer dem ihren – von Georg Brunold
http://www.zeit.de/2001/47/200147_wahabismus-kaste.xml
4.1.2016 – New York Times
Saudi Arabia’s Barbaric Executions
The execution of the popular Shiite cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr and 46 other prisoners on Saturday was about the worst way Saudi Arabia could have started what promises to be a grim and tumultuous year in the kingdom and across the Middle East. It is hard to imagine that the Sunni rulers of the kingdom were not aware of the sectarian passions the killings would unleash around the region. They may even have counted on the fierce reaction in Iran and elsewhere as a distraction from economic problems at home and to silence dissenters. America’s longstanding alliance with the House of Saud is no reason for the Obama administration to do anything less than clearly condemn this foolhardy and dangerous course with a more robust response than its call Monday for both sides to exercise restraint – by the Editorial Board
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/05/opinion/saudi-arabias-barbaric-executions.html
4.1.2016 – The Guardian
The Saudi execution will reverberate across the Muslim world
Islamic sectarianism has been inflamed. Expect a hardening of positions in Syria, Iraq and beyond
There are plenty of reasons to worry about Iran, but on the ideological front its influence is always likely to be limited, because the Shia version of Islam is followed by only 10%-13% of the world’s Muslims. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, has been much more successful at promoting its own – Wahhabi – version of Sunni Islam. One reason is that Saudis have spent vast amounts of money doing so. Another is that, since the kingdom is the original birthplace of Islam, it’s a lot easier to persuade Muslims in other countries that the Saudi version is the most authentic.
This has had baleful effects in many parts of the world. “Saudi Arabia’s export of Wahhabi puritanical Islam,” Thomas Friedman wrote in the New York Times, “has been one of the worst things to happen to Muslim and Arab pluralism – pluralism of religious thought, gender and education – in the last century”
Even where the Saudi regime has reasons to be fearful, the scale of the Iranian/Shia threat has often been exaggerated for political reasons, and Saudi responses have turned out to be counterproductive. For example, the establishment of Wahhabi-run schools in Pakistan in the 1980s, intended as a bulwark against Iranian/Shia influence, helped fuel the conflict in Afghanistan.
In Yemen, aggressive Saudi-Wahhabi proselytising, starting in the 1990s, stirred unrest among the Zaidi communities (a branch of Shia Islam), which then led to a series of Houthi uprisings. Today the Saudis are at war with the Houthis and Yemen is being destroyed in the process. Naturally they have characterised this as a war with Iran, though in comparison with what the Saudis and their allies have been doing in Yemen, Iranian involvement has mostly been marginal.
Another effect of this onslaught in Yemen, whether intentional or not, has been to empower militant Sunni elements there, including al-Qaida and Islamic State. In the wake of the Arab spring uprisings, sectarian narratives have also proved auseful tool for Gulf monarchies leading the counter-revolution – characterising protesters as foreign-inspired or at least not representative of the Sunni mainstream – by Brian Whitacker
USA
5.1.2016 – New York Times
U.S. in a Bind as Saudi Actions Test a Durable Alliance
The Obama administration on Monday confronted the fundamental contradiction in its increasingly tense relationship with Saudi Arabia. It could not bring itself, at least in public, to condemn theexecution of a dissident cleric who challenged the royal family, for fear of undermining the fragile Saudi leadership that it desperately needs in fighting the Islamic State and ending the conflict in Syria.
The United States has usually looked the other way or issued carefully calibrated warnings in human rights reports as the Saudi royal family cracked down on dissent and free speech and allowed its elite to fund Islamic extremists. In return, Saudi Arabia became America’s most dependable filling station, a regular supplier of intelligence, and a valuable counterweight to Iran.
For years it was oil that provided the glue for a relationship between two nations that share few common values.
Today, with American oil production surging and the Saudi leadership fractured, the mutual dependency that goes back to the early 1930s, with the first American investment in the kingdom’s oil fields, no longer binds the nations as it once did – by David E. Sanger
Comment: At this point the U.S. Should not even attempt to "explain" it's alliance with the Saudis because it will mean it is openly fooling its citizens.
https://www.facebook.com/yemen.crisis/posts/548856888613885
To this NYR article also the following is referring:
5.1.2016 – The American Conservative
Ignoring the U.S. Role in the Shameful War on Yemen
This New York Times article on the U.S. “bind” in dealing with the Saudis completely overlooks U.S. backing for the war on Yemen. The one passage that does refer to Yemen specifically offers this extremely misleading description: […]
It just isn’t true that the Obama administration has been “sharply critical” of the intervention. In fact, there has been almost no public criticism of the Saudi-led campaign or blockade by U.S, officials, and the U.S. has helped the Saudis to cover up for their likely war crimes committed during their air war. When U.S. officials do bestir themselves to complain about the intervention in Yemen, it is almost always done through anonymous expressions of “dismay” and “alarm” in the press that never lead to any change in policy. The administration wants credit with the Saudis for helping them, but it doesn’t want to be perceived here as enabling their cruel and indefensible war. It is more common for U.S. officials to echo Saudi propaganda lines and praise the coalition for its efforts. This article helps the administration to maintain the illusion that it isn’t partly responsible for the wrecking of Yemen.
The administration is annoyed that the Saudi-led coalition has diverted its attention away from the war on ISIS, but that hasn’t stopped it from continuing to support the “huge distraction” in Yemen that has caused this. Reading this article, one would not know that the U.S. is arming and refueling the coalition’s planes so that they can bomb Yemen, and one would have no idea that the administration has been providing intelligence to help the coalition choose its targets. Also missing from the report is the recent decision to sell the Saudis another $1 billion in weapons. In an article that is supposed to cover the tensions in the U.S.-Saudi relationship, these are grievous omissions that would lead the average reader to believe that the U.S. is much less supportive of the Saudis than it really is. It’s bad enough that the war on Yemen receives such paltry coverage in the U.S., but it’s even worse when the U.S. role in the war is completely ignored in a report where it ought to have a prominent place – by Daniel Larison
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/ignoring-the-u-s-role-in-the-shameful-war-on-yemen/
4.1.2016 – Democracy Now
As Saudi Arabia Executes Sheikh al-Nimr, Will U.S. Respond by Cutting $50 Billion in Weapons Sales?
We examine how this will impact both regional tensions and the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia. Under the Obama administration, the United States has entered a record $50 billion in new arms sales agreements with the Saudis. "If the Obama administration wants to show its displeasure with this execution and try to bring an end to the war in Yemen, there’s got to be a distancing from Saudi Arabia, beginning with cutting off some of these arms supplies,” says William Hartung, senior adviser to the Security Assistance Monitor and director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. We also speak with Toby Jones, an associate professor of history and director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Rutgers University and author of "Desert Kingdom: How Oil and Water Forged Modern Saudi Arabia," and with Ali al-Ahmed, the founder and director of the Institute for Gulf Affairs.
AMY GOODMAN: Ali al-Ahmed, what could the U.S. do? And what—how do you assess the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia?
ALI AL-AHMED: This is a complex relationship that really is led and dominated by the Saudi ability to buy silence and support. If you look at the reaction of presidential candidates, for example, you don’t see any of them speaking out against these executions. It’s odd that, for example, Mr. Ben Carson would say that the Saudi government is an ally of us and we should support it, at the same time that the Saudi monarchy prevents black people from becoming diplomats or judges because they view blacks as slaves. So, really, here you see a contradiction of the—what we know as American values, is that the Saudis have been able to buy their way by giving money to a lot of politicians, to their foundations, like the Clinton Foundation, the Carter foundation, and shaping their opinion. And, unfortunately, because in America politics works on money, the Saudi monarchy has really broken that code and understood how to use it.
The United States can do a few things, really, right now. They can first, for example, stop the U.S. taxpayers spending money on protecting the Saudi monarchy and Gulf monarchies. Professor Roger Stern of Princeton has a study that says that the United States has been spending over $200 billion a year in military expenditure in the Gulf. That is the largest military expenditure abroad. It is to—the effect is—the default effect is, it’s protecting these monarchies. The U.S. should not be spending that money. The monarchies can spend their own money defending themselves.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Toby Jones, we have 30 seconds. Why is the U.S. not being more vocal in its criticism of Saudi Arabia?
TOBY JONES: Well, the U.S. is stuck. I mean, aside from questions of profit, the U.S. is also beholden—you know, and it’s partly the product of its own making. I mean, this is a generational commitment to Saudi Arabia, in which for over three decades we’ve committed ourselves. Now, whether this is true or not, we’ve committed ourselves to protecting the flow of energy out of the Persian Gulf. It’s the largest producer of oil on the planet in this one area. And the United States has tied its military fortunes, in many ways the pocketbooks of its gunmakers, as well as the Pentagon, to what comes in and goes out of the Persian Gulf. If you think about it critically, that’s what needs to change, but it’s also the hardest thing to re-engineer, this breaking away not only from oil dependency, but also from the massive financial and military investment that the U.S. has made in the region.
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/4/as_saudi_arabia_executes_sheikh_al
4.1.2016 – Consortium News
How Obama Enables Atrocities
As the New Year dawns, the neocons and their liberal interventionist sidekicks remain firmly in control of Official Washington’s storylines – on Syria, Russia and elsewhere – even as their policies continue to wreak havoc across the Mideast and threaten the stability of Europe and indeed the future of civilization.
The latest proof of this dangerous reality came when Saudi Arabia’s repressive Sunni monarchy executed prominent Shiite political leader Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr for criticizing the nation’s kings and princes. Before the killing, the Obama administration held its tongue in public so as not to antagonize the Saudi royals. (Nimr’s nephew awaits Saudi “crucifixion” for his role as a teenager in Arab Spring protests.)
After the Nimr execution, the State Department issued a mild protest toward the Saudis while blurring the guilt by twinning it with criticism of Iran where outraged protesters damaged the Saudi embassy, which led to Saudi Arabia’s retaliatory breaking of relations with Iran.
The fact that the Obama administration could not voice its revulsion over the Saudi mass head-chopping (along with some firing squads) for 47 men, including Nimr, over the weekend speaks volumes. President Barack Obama and other insiders continue to tip-toe around the unsavory U.S. “alliances” in the Mideast.
Over the past several years, Saudi Arabia sealed its impervious protection from U.S. government criticism by forming an undeclared alliance with Israel around their mutual hatred of Shiite-ruled Iran and its Shiite allies, a cause picked up by American neocons and shared by the career-oriented liberal interventionists.
Some more “realist-oriented” U.S. officials, reportedly including Obama and some national security aides, recognize the havoc that neocon/liberal-hawk strategies continue to wreak across the region and now spreading into Europe, but they act powerless to do anything bold to stop it.
With Israel’s lobby siding with the Sunni states in their bloody rivalry with Shiite states, most U.S. politicians and pundits have scrambled to defend each recurring outrage by the Saudis, Qataris and Turks by trying to flip the script and somehow put the blame on Iran, Syria and Russia.
Thus, the Saudis, Qataris and Turks get mostly a pass for arming and enabling radical jihadists, including Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. Israel also provides assistance to Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front along the Golan Heights and bombs allies of the Syrian government and, of course, faces no official U.S. criticism.
In 2014, when Vice President Joe Biden blurted out the truth about Saudi support for Islamic terrorism inside Syria, he was the one who had to apologize. [Quote at 53:20 of clip.] In 2015, when Saudi Arabia invaded and bombed Yemen after hyping Iran’s support for Houthi rebels, the Obama administration sided with the Saudis even as their wanton attacks on poverty-stricken Yemen killed thousands of civilians and created a humanitarian crisis.
In other words, whatever these U.S. “allies” do – no matter how brutal and reckless – the Obama administration at least publicly rushes to their defense. Otherwise, the neocon/liberal-hawk “group think” would be offended – and many angry editorials and columns would follow.
While this strange reality may make sense inside Official Washington – where careerism is intense and offending the Israel Lobby is a sure career killer – this pusillanimous approach to these grave problems is endangering U.S. national interests as well as the world’s future.
Yet, despite this record of spreading chaos and death around the world, the grip that the neocons and liberal hawks have on Official Washington remains almost absolute. They control most of the think tanks – from the Brookings Institution to the American Enterprise Institute – as well as the editorial pages of The Washington Post and The New York Times and pretty much the rest of the mainstream media.
In case you haven’t noticed, the Times’ “news” coverage of the Middle East and Russia has been consistently slanted to favor neocon/liberal-hawk positions. Just as the Times eagerly joined President George W. Bush’s bogus case for invading Iraq in 2003, “the newspaper of record” has peddled false and misleading articles about the crises in Syria and Ukraine as well as promoting anti-Russian propaganda.
As the rise of those neocons has played out since their emergence during the Reagan administration, the “realists” who were known for cold-hearted foreign policy calculations to protect American interests have aged, died out or otherwise disappeared. They have been largely replaced by ideologues, either neocons with their intense devotion to right-wing Israeli interests or liberal interventionists who almost invariably side with the neocons but cite “humanitarian” concerns to justify “regime change” wars.
No matter how foolhardy and deadly these policy prescriptions have been, there is almost no way to dislodge the neocons and liberal hawks inside Official Washington, since they monopolize almost all levers of political and media power.
I have long argued that the only way to begin to challenge the neocon/liberal-hawk “group thinks” is to release facts about pivotal events, such as the 2013 Syria-sarin case, the 2014 sniper attacks at Kiev’s Maidan square, and the 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine. The neocons/liberal hawks currently control all those narratives, using them as clubs to advance ideological agendas just as they did with the false claims about Iraq’s WMD. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Power of False Narrative.”] – by Robert Parry
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/04/how-obama-enables-atrocities/
Saudische Verbündete / Saudi allies
5.1.2016 – Wirtschaftswoche
Kuwait ruft Botschafter aus dem Iran zurück
Nach den Übergriffen auf die saudische Botschaft im Iran ruft auch Kuwait seinen Botschafter aus dem schiitischen Nachbarland zurück. Das meldete die staatliche Nachrichtenagentur Kuna am Dienstagmorgen unter Berufung auf das kuwaitische Außenministerium. Die Erstürmung der saudischen Botschaft in Teheran stelle einen „groben Bruch“ internationaler Verträge dar, hieß es.
Deutschland / Germany
6.1.2016 - Telepolis
"Politik ist ein schmutziges Geschäft"
Wer übernimmt nun Verantwortung für die Aufrüstung der saudi-arabischen Öl-Theokratie?
Unter dem neoliberalistischen Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder (SPD) und Vizekanzler Joschka Fischer (Die Grünen) hatte eine sogenannte rotgrüne Regierung 1999 gleich im ersten Jahr ihrer Amtszeit die deutschen Rüstungsexporte mehr als verdoppelt.
Das saudi-arabische Regime ist laut Focus ein "Reich der Finsternis" und zugleich "der wichtigste Verbündete des Westens in der arabischen Welt". Unter Schwarz-Gelb machte sich die deutsche Regierung nicht einmal mehr die Mühe, die Preisgabe moralischer und vom Grundgesetz zwingend gebotener Gesichtspunkte bei den Kriegsgüterexporten an das fundamentalistische Königshaus in Riad in Abrede zu stellen.
Es lohnt sich in diesem Zusammenhang, noch einmal Zeugnisse aus der wahrlich historischen Bundestagsdebatte vom 8. Juli 2011 zu sichten. Der sozialistische Politiker Dr. Gregor Gysi führte in seiner Rede zum ersten Mal in seiner Parlamentslaufbahn zustimmend einen Artikel der BILD-Zeitung an, um die offenbar über Parteispenden der deutschen Kriegsindustrie vorbereitete Hochrüstung Saudi-Arabiens mit deutschen Panzern als Ausverkauf jeglichen Anspruchs auf moralische Glaubwürdigkeit anzuprangern.
Der CDU-Abgeordnete Roderich Kiesewetter demonstrierte hingegen in seinem Debattenbeitrag, welche Abgründe mit der NATO-Propagandaparole "Werte und Interessen" zunächst verschleiert werden und dann immer deutlicher zur Sprache kommen sollen.
Roderich Kiesewetter nannte 2011 die Kritik an den deutschen Panzerlieferungen populistisch und machte im Rahmen seines "nachbarschaftspolitischen", außernormalen Paradigmas allen Ernstes geltend, die Aufrüstung des fundamentalistischen Regimes in Riad trage dazu bei, "die Sicherheit Israels gewährleisten".
Sehr kompetent zeigte sich im gleichen Monat auch Entwicklungshilfeminister Dirk Niebel in seinerKommentierung der von einem nicht öffentlich tagenden Regierungsgremium abgesegneten Leopard-Exporte an die Herrschenden in Saudi-Arabien:
Die Stabilisierung einer Region trägt durchaus dazu bei, die Menschenrechte zu wahren - vielleicht nicht in dem Land, in dem man tätig ist, aber in den Nachbarländern.
So gesehen sind natürlich auch profitable deutsche Waffenlieferungen in Kriegsgebiete und namentlich an eine der - laut BILD-Zeitung - schlimmsten Diktaturen auf dem Globus unbedingt verfassungskonform, denn sie dienen eben auf magische Weise irgendwie der Stabilisierung einer Region und somit dem "Frieden in der Welt" (Grundgesetz, Präambel).
Ihre Predigten im Dienste des militärischen Heilsaberglaubens stellen viele Parteipolitiker hingegen als vernünftige "geopolitische Expertisen" hin. Um die deutschen Rüstungsprofite am Laufen zu halten, wird eine schmutzige und aus meiner Sicht mutwillig verfassungsfeindliche Exportpolitik im Massenmordgeschäft betrieben.
Nie jedoch übernehmen Politiker Verantwortung für ihre "strategischen" Phantasien , ihre Stimmabgabe zur Durchführung von Militärabenteuern und die Absegnungen von Kriegsexporten. Wenn der vorherrschende Diskurs in unserer Demokratie ihnen das weiterhin durchgehen lässt, werden diese Politiker ihr Hase-und-Igel-Spiel mit rationalen Kritikern der Militär- und Kriegsideologie ("Sie können es nicht!") bis in alle Ewigkeit fortsetzen können - von Peter Bürger
http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/47/47031/1.html
5.1.2016 – German Foreign Policy
Blutiges Bündnis (I)
Saudi-Arabien kann bei der Unterdrückung seiner Opposition, die am Wochenende in einer Massenexekution kulminiert ist, deutsche Repressionstechnologie und von der deutschen Polizei vermittelte Fähigkeiten nutzen. In den vergangenen Jahren hat die Bundesregierung die Lieferung von Produkten zur Telekommunikationsüberwachung im Wert von mehr als 18 Millionen Euro an Riad genehmigt. Das Bundeskriminalamt hat unter anderem für den saudischen Geheimdienst GID eine Schulung zur Terrorismusbekämpfung durchgeführt. Als "Terrorismus" definiert Saudi-Arabien auch nicht-gewaltförmigen Protest der stark diskriminierten schiitischen Minderheit im Land. Die Bundespolizei bildet in einem offiziellen Projekt, das der damalige Bundesinnenminister Wolfgang Schäuble im Mai 2009 formal abgesegnet hat, saudische Grenzschutz-Offiziere aus. Berichten zufolge werden dabei auch der Umgang mit Sturmgewehren sowie das Vorgehen gegen Demonstranten trainiert. Involviert war zumindest zeitweise auch die saudische Religionspolizei. Die Repressionskooperation ist eingebunden in eine umfassende ökonomische Zusammenarbeit, die deutschen Unternehmen großen Absatz und Milliardenaufträge garantiert. Vor allem aber folgt sie strategischen Zielen der Berliner Mittelostpolitik.
Bekannt ist hingegen, dass das größte in Deutschland verzeichnete Geschäft mit Saudi-Arabien in Sachen Überwachungstechnologie wohl nicht ohne staatliche Unterstützung zustande gekommen wäre. Als der deutsch-französische Airbus-Konzern 2009 den Auftrag erhielt, die saudischen Außengrenzen auf der gesamten Länge von etwa 9.000 Kilometern mit modernstem Gerät hochzurüsten, begann die Bundespolizei zeitgleich mit einem langfristig angelegten Projekt zur Ausbildung saudischer Grenzer, von dessen Zustandekommen Riad den Auftrag an Airbus abhängig gemacht hatte. Die Maßnahme wurde am 27. Mai 2009 vom damaligen Bundesinnenminister Wolfgang Schäuble in Riad per Unterschrift unter eine Vereinbarung über die "Zusammenarbeit im Sicherheitsbereich" formalisiert. Offiziellen Angaben zufolge werden saudische Grenzschutz-Offiziere auf Feldern wie "Personalführung" oder "polizeiliche Entscheidungsprozesse" geschult. Vor Ort eingesetzte Beamte beklagten allerdings schon vor Jahren, ihre Aufgaben gingen deutlich darüber hinaus; sie umfassten etwa auch Waffentraining. Im September wurde berichtet, allein zwischen April und Juni 2015 seien 19 Bundespolizisten in Saudi-Arabien im Einsatz gewesen. Das Bundesinnenministerium erklärt dazu: "Die deutsche Unterstützung bei der Modernisierung des saudi-arabischen Grenzschutzes ist Teil einer strategischen Partnerschaft im Sicherheitsbereich".
Wie wenig sich die deutsch-saudische Zusammenarbeit in puncto Repression von der allgemeinen ökonomischen Kooperation zwischen Berlin und Riad trennen lässt, zeigen exemplarisch Bauprojekte deutscher Architekten. Die Wirtschaftsbeziehungen zwischen Deutschland und Saudi-Arabien sind eng. Deutsche Firmen verkaufen jährlich Produkte im Wert von rund neun Milliarden Euro in der Golfdiktatur und haben dort lukrative Aufträge erhalten.
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/fulltext/59278
6.1.2015 – German Foreign Policy
Blutiges Bündnis (II)
Mit einer gemeinsamen antiiranischen Politik hat der Westen dem aktuellen aggressiven Vorgehen Saudi-Arabiens gegen Teheran den Boden bereitet. Dies zeigt das Vorgehen der westlichen Mittelostpolitik in den vergangenen 13 Jahren. Während dieser Zeit haben die Staaten des Westens, auch Deutschland, Saudi-Arabien systematisch gestärkt, um es als Gegenmacht gegen den aufstrebenden Iran zu positionieren. Zuvor hatte der Irak diese Funktion innegehabt. Riad wurde dabei vom Westen nicht nur ökonomisch, sondern auch militärisch gefördert; es erhielt zudem modernste Repressionstechnologien auch aus der Bundesrepublik, um sich gegen etwaige Unruhen im Innern behaupten zu können. Eine Verschiebung der Berliner Interessenlage hat inzwischen allerdings das Nuklearabkommen mit Teheran gebracht, das es deutschen Unternehmen erlaubt, künftig eng mit Iran zu kooperieren und aus Geschäften mit dem Land hohe Profite zu ziehen. Seitdem zielt die Bundesregierung auf einen Ausgleich zwischen Iran und Saudi-Arabien - und sucht Riad, das sich diesem Ansinnen verweigert und den bisherigen antiiranischen Kurs fortsetzen will, auf "Dialog" zu trimmen.
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/fulltext/59279 = http://www.lebenshaus-alb.de/magazin/009583.html
5.1.2015 – Jung und Naiv
Grotesk: Der Mittlere Osten soll "der Welt etwas schuldig" sein (Video)
Der Sprecher des Auswärtigen Amtes, Martin Schäfer, in der Nundespressekonferenz
Schaut hin, hört zu:
Die Bundesregierung findet, dass der "Mittlere Osten der Welt etwas schuldig ist". Seit Jahren würden sich Deutschland, Europa & die USA bemühen die Konflikte in der Region "einzudämmen" und Krisen zu "überwinden". Ihr hohes politisches, finanzielles und "sonstiges" Engagement sei unübersehbar. Wenn diese Selbsteinschätzung nicht so grotesk und traurig wäre, könnten wir über diese Haltung nur ganz, ganz laut lachen...
https://www.facebook.com/jungundnaiv/videos/1165281343483812/
4.1.2016 – Jung und Naiv
Bundesregierung will mit Saudis befreundet bleiben (Video)
Ausschnitt aus der BPK-Folge vom 4. Januar 2016
Kopf in den Sand bei Kopf ab:
Saudi-Arabien hat am Wochenende 47 Menschen hingerichtet. Für dieBundesregierung ist das kein Anlass, ihr Verhältnis zum befreundeten "Königreich" zu überdenken. "Business as usual" sei aber auch nicht das Motto. Vielmehr wolle man sich viele Fragen stellen! Außerdem betont die Bundesregierung, dass man die Todesstrafe in allen Staaten bekämpfe.
Aus den Nutzerkommentaren:
DL: Unerträgliches Blabla....widerliches Gewäsch. Das sich Herr Schäfer nicht vor sich selber ekelt. Allerdings sollte sich ja dieses wohlwollenden Verhalten ja auch auf Russland gegenüber zeigen, das sich zu solchen Menschenunwürdigkeiten nie herabgelassen würde. Aber DA werden Sanktionen verhängt...unglaublich.
MK: Ein Land, das Dichter zum Tode verurteilt und Oppositionelle enthauptet, Kriege anzettelt und den Fundamentalismus weltweit exportiert, gehört isoliert wie Nordkorea statt als Partner behandelt zu werden und sogar noch den Vorsitz in einer Kommission des UN-Menschenrechtsrates inne zu haben.
Lesen Sie weiter – über 300 Kommentare dazu!!
Und hier das Transkript:
Bundesregierung für Desinteressierte: BPK vom 4. Januar 2016
Naive Fragen zu:
Saudi-Arabien (ab 1:30 min)
– warum ist Saudi-Arabien immer noch ein Verbündeter Deutschlands, der Bundesregierung? Warum kommen für die Bundesregierung keine Sanktionen infrage? (17:40 min)
– Herr Seibert, mit Blick auf Realitäten: Saudi-Arabien ist ja nicht nur ein Feind von Menschenrechten, sondern auch nicht wirklich ein Feind von ISIS vielleicht eher das Gegenteil. Hat die Bundesregierung mit Saudi-Arabien eigentlich einen wichtigen Partner, der Teil der Lösung oder Teil des Problems im Nahen Osten ist? (38:00 min)
– Herr Schäfer, gerade im Hinblick auf die BND-Berichte der letzten Wochen hat das Auswärtige Amt ja eine andere Haltung. Geht die Bundesregierung davon aus, dass die saudische Königsfamilie am Ende des Jahres noch an der Macht in Riad sein wird? (38:00 min)
– Herr Seibert, sind in Riad jetzt, das haben Sie angesprochen, alle syrischen Oppositionsgruppen vor Ort, die die Bundesregierung auch eingeladen hätte? (41:00 min)
– Herr Schäfer, Deutschland ist Ehrengast des 30. Janadriyah-Festivals Anfang Februar in der Nähe von Riad. Dass Deutschland da das Zentrum des Festivals bildet und der saudischen Bevölkerung deutsche Gepflogenheiten und Traditionen vorzeigen wird, hat auch das Auswärtige Amt mit eingefädelt. Was für Messages plant Ihr Auswärtiges Amt den Menschen dort denn beizubringen? So etwas wie: Todesstrafe ist doof? (41:00 min)
http://www.jungundnaiv.de/2016/01/04/bundesregierung-fuer-desinteressierte-bpk-vom-4-januar-2016/
Kommentar: Auch nur Exzerpte der Antworten würden den Rahmen sprengen. Lesen Sie es unter dem Link nach. Die Antworten sind, mit einem Wort: Erbärmlich. Man will einfach ein Partner der saudischen Massenmörder bleiben und meint, sich selber damit nicht auch mit Blut zu besudeln. Man will einfach nicht erkennen, dass etwa für Syrien die Saudis keineswegs Teil einer Lösung, sondern ein gewichtiger Teil des Problems sind.
3.1.2016 – NTV
Hinrichtungen in Riad: Nicht kuschen vor den Saudis!
Was ist das für ein Land, in dem Menschen mit Schwertern öffentlich enthauptet werden? In dem freie Meinungsäußerung mit Peitschenhieben bestraft wird, wie bei dem Blogger Raif Badawi? In dem Christen um ihr Leben fürchten müssen?
Es klingt wie die Hölle auf Erden. Aber es ist einer der wichtigsten Partner des Westens. Saudi-Arabien trampelt auf den Werten herum, für die unsere Gesellschaft, unser Leben, steht, Werte, die die Menschen in Europa sich in Jahrhunderten erkämpft und erstritten haben. Und von denen wir sagen: Sie sind universell!
Saudi-Arabien ist nicht unser Partner; westliche Politiker, die das sagen und denken, verraten die Ideale unserer freien Welt. Nur aus Angst, dass es noch schlimmer werden kann in einer Region, die bereits in einem Abwärtsstrudel steckt, dürfen wir vor den Henkern nicht kuschen. Wir brauchen Regierungspolitiker, die den Mut haben, das saudische Regime als das zu verurteilen, was es ist: eine Schreckensherrschaft! – von Constantin Schreiber
http://www.n-tv.de/politik/politik_kommentare/Nicht-kuschen-vor-den-Saudis-article16680571.html
Anmerkung von JK auf den Nachdenkseiten: Im Verhältnis zu Saudi-Arabien manifestiert sich eine unglaubliche Heuchelei der Bundesregierung. Saudi-Arabien steht im Köpfe abschneiden dem IS in nichts nach. Auch, dass der IS aus diesem Land weiterhin finanzielle Unterstützung erfährt ist keine Neuigkeit. Der Wahhabismus als Staatsdoktrin Saudi-Arabiens unterscheidet sich nur nuanciert vom radikalen Islam, den der IS predigt. Dennoch ist das saudische Königshaus der wichtigste Verbündete des „Westens“ in der Golfregion und im Nahen Osten. Während Merkel also in ihrer Neujahrsansprache auch davon schwadronierte, welchen wichtigen Beitrag Deutschland im Kampf gegen den IS leistet, unterstützt die Bundesregierung weiterhin eine der brutalsten Diktaturen und einen der größten Förderer des radikalen Islam. Das Verhältnis zu Saudi-Arabien zeigt auch die tiefe Verlogenheit des „Westens“ beim Umgang mit Menschenrechten. Man kann nicht vor dem Hintergrund der Terroranschläge in Paris die gemeinsamen Werte der Aufklärung, der Demokratie und Freiheit beschwören, aber über die Massenhinrichtung in Saudi-Arabien mit einem Schulterzucken hinweggehen. Während sich nach dem Terroranschlag in Paris deutsche Politiker fast überschlugen vor Bekenntnissen zu den „westlichen“ Werten und der Verurteilung des Anschlages, hat man angesichts der Massenhinrichtung bisher nicht auch nur ein Sterbenswort der Kritik gehört. Die „Qualitätsmedien“ stehen dem in nichts nach. Wurden die Seiten nach Paris mit vollmundigen Statements vollgeschrieben, findet sich bis auf Ausnahmen (wie oben) keinerlei Kritik an der saudischen Diktatur oder am Umgang der Bundesregierung mit dem saudischen Königshaus.
http://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=29890#h01
Waffenhandel / Arms Trade
6.1.2016 – Der Spiegel
Rüstungsexporte nach Saudi-Arabien: Handel mit den Henkern
Deutschland droht Saudi-Arabien wegen Massenhinrichtungen mit dem Stopp von Rüstungsexporten. Doch Menschenrechte werden am Golf seit Langem verletzt. Wieso gehören die Saudis trotzdem zu den wichtigsten Kunden deutscher Rüstungskonzerne?
Bundeswirtschaftsminister Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) kündigte an, die Waffenexporte nach Saudi-Arabien könnten weiter eingeschränkt werden. Linke und Grüne fordern, diese komplett zu stoppen.
Hinrichtungen sind im erzkonservativen Königreich freilich kein neues Phänomen. Amnesty International zählte in den vergangenen Jahren stets rund 80 bis 90 vollstreckte Todesstrafen, im Jahr 2007 waren es sogar mehr als 140.
Dennoch gehören die Saudis bis heute zu den wichtigsten Kunden deutscher Rüstungskonzerne. Im ersten Halbjahr 2015 wurden Waffenexporte im Wert von knapp 180 Millionen Euro nach Saudi-Arabien genehmigt - nur mit Großbritannien und Israel gab es noch umfangreichere Geschäfte. In den Vorjahren war das Bild ähnlich: 2014 landete Saudi-Arabien auf dem sechsten, 2013 auf dem vierten Platz deutscher Rüstungsexporte.
"Im Vergleich mit anderen Ländern der Region ist Saudi-Arabien immer noch ein privilegierter Partner", sagt Michael Brzoska, Wissenschaftlicher Direktor des Instituts für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik an der Universität Hamburg (IFSH). Wie ist das angesichts der Lage im Land möglich? Und wie ernstzunehmend sind vor diesem Hintergrund die aktuellen Boykottdrohungen der Bundesregierung?
Noch unter der schwarz-gelben Bundesregierung (2009 bis 2013) wurde die Rüstungsexportpolitik deutlich gelockert- auch gegenüber Saudi-Arabien.
Nachdem eine Lieferung von schwerem Kriegsgerät in das Land jahrzehntelang als tabu gegolten hatte, beschloss der Bundessicherheitsrat unter Leitung von Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel (CDU), einen Verkauf des Kampfpanzers "Leopard 2" an die Saudis zu genehmigen. Der SPIEGEL machte die Entscheidung öffentlich, der Deal kam letztlich nicht zustande. Dennoch zeigen Zahlen des schwedischen Friedenforschungsinstituts Sipri, dass Deutschlands Bedeutung als Rüstungslieferant für Saudi-Arabien während der schwarz-gelben Koalition deutlich zunahm.
[Dazu interessantes Schaubild: Wer liefert Rüstungsgüter an Saudi-Arabien?]
Gerechtfertigt wurde der laxere Exportkurs häufig mit dem Argument, Saudi-Arabien diene als Stabilitätsfaktor in der unruhigen Region. Tatsächlich habe das Königreich außenpolitisch lange einen recht gemäßigten Kurs vertreten, sagt Friedensforscher Brzoska. Dies habe sich jedoch bereits mit dem Arabischen Frühling 2011 geändert.
Die deutsche Rüstungsindustrie schrumpft seit Ende des Kalten Krieges ohnehin. Auf die lukrativen Aufträge aus Saudi-Arabien will man dort auf keinen Fall verzichten - und macht entsprechend Druck – von David Böcking und Christina Elmer
Medien / Media
6.1.2016 – Your Middle East
Yemen: new media breaks the silence
Launched on 6 January, Almashahid.net aims to provide independent news and human interest stories from inside war-torn Yemen to the information-starved Yemeni population.
“The first casualty of war is always the truth.” The words stare down from a whiteboard in the interim editorial office belonging to three Yemeni journalists in a secret location in Cairo.
The three journalists fled Yemen moments before they were arrested for “subversive activities”. Now, working in exile from their editorial office in Cairo, the journalists are preparing to launch a new website, Almashahid.net (The Viewer), which aims to provide independent news to Yemenis inside and outside Yemen – by Miki Mistrati
http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/culture/yemen-new-media-breaks-the-silence_37872
Terrorismus / Terrorism
5.1.2016 – Press TV Iran
Daesh commander killed in southern Yemen
A commander of the Takfiri Daesh terrorists has been killed in clashes with fighters of Yemen’s Houthi Ansarullah movement and military units amid the ongoing Saudi military aggression against the Yemenis.
Yemen’s al-Masirah news website Tuesday identified the Daesh chief as Hassan Hamoud Uqlan, a known field commander of the terrorists in the Tha’bat district of Ta’izz Province.
http://presstv.ir/Detail/2016/01/05/444599/Daesh-commander-Yemen-Houthi-Ansarullah/ and see also http://www.albawaba.com/news/houthis-claim-have-killed-daesh-commander-yemen-789434
Propaganda
5.1.2016 – WAM
YEMEN'S PRESIDENT INSPECTS ADEN CONTAINER /ACT/ AND MUALLA CONTAINER TERMINALS
Yemen's President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, yesterday inspected a number of directorates and neighbourhoods in Aden, the temporary capital of Yemen.
During his tour, he was briefed on the latest developments and changes witnessed by the city after clearing it from coup militias and their arms which try desperately to destabilise the security and stability of the city.
Hadi toured the Aden Container Terminal (ACT) and Mualla container terminal at the free zone, praising efforts, acts of heroism and courageous stances of members of the National Army and popular resistance forces aimed at safeguarding the security and stability of the brave city.
He also lauded the honourable acts of heroism of the people of Aden and other neighbouring cities as well as the support provided by the Saud-led Arab coalition, especially Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to defeat coup militias.
http://www.wam.ae/en/news/arab/1395289929246.html
Kommentar: Faszinierend, dass dieser “Präsident” für alle seine öffentlichen Äußerungen mit einem Repertoire von sagen wir 5 Gedanken und 15 Stichwörtern auskommt – und das seit Monaten.
Saudische Luftangriffe / Saudi air raids
6.1.2016 - Iran Daily
Saudi warplanes have bombarded areas in Yemen’s Hajjah Province, where at least four people were killed.
Yemen’s al-Masirah TV said Wednesday that the Saudi bombers hit residential areas in the border region of al-Morzaq.
Hajjah is located in Yemen’s northwestern region which has been a flash point since the regime in Riyadh started its bombardment campaign on March 26, 2015.
The report said two other people were injured in the strikes.
6.1.2016 – Press TV Iran
Saudi fighter jets continue to bombard Yemen
Saudi warplanes have carried out new airstrikes across Yemen, hitting, among other places, an airport in the capital, Sana’a, along with an airbase.
According to Yemen’s al-Masirah news channel, Saudi warplanes bombarded the al-Dailami airbase as well as the international airport and the al-Nahdain district of Sana’a on Wednesday.
Local media reports said a truck carrying gas cylinders was also targeted and exploded during the raids.
Meanwhile, two civilians lost their lives in a Saudi airstrike on the Yemeni province of Dhale.
In another development, various parts of Yemen’s northern Sa’ada Province came under Saudi air raids and mortar attacks. Also on Wednesday, Saudi fighter jets launched several strikes on the Yemeni provinces of Ma’rib and Jawf, killing and wounding a number of civilians.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/01/06/444722/Saudi-Arabia-airstrikes-Yemen/
6.1.2016 – Yemen Real News
#HODEIDA: A beverage factory has been struck by the Saudi-led coalition jet in the port city of Hodeidah west of the country. There was no military activity anywhere in or around the factory that was struck adding to the long list of Saudi-led coalition war crimes on Yemen.
https://www.facebook.com/yemen.crisis/posts/549013348598239
6.1.2016 – Yemen Real News
UPDATE ON #SANAA AIRSTRIKES :Saudi led coalition jets continue to pound the capital Sanaa for the fourth hour with massive explosions in the north and south of the capital. Strikes have included targets in both the north and south of the capital including strikes on the airport and other sites that have been repeatedly struck since the beginning of the aggression. No word on casualties as yet.
https://www.facebook.com/yemen.crisis/posts/549013008598273
5.1.2016 – International Business Times
Yemen: Home for the blind bombed as Saudi-led airstrikes intensify against Houthi forces (with film)
A home for the blind and the Chamber of Commerce in Sanaa are among the sites that have been destroyed by the latest round of Saudi Arabia-led airstrikes in Yemen.
Abdullah Ahmed Banyan, a patient at the Noor Centre for the Blind, said: "People with disabilities are being struck in their residence. Around 1.30am, two missiles hit the live-in quarters of a home for the blind. Can you imagine they are striking the blind? What is this criminality? Why? Is it the blind that are fighting the war?"
"The chamber of commerce was targeted last night by an air strike. For what reason? This kind of air strike is not justified and we hope that all sides refrain from targeting commercial and civilian sites and civilians," said Abdel Hakim Naser, head of legal at the Chamber of Commerce.
A party hall for weddings in Sanaa was also destroyed in the bombings. Saudi forces first entered the conflict against Houthi fighters in an attempt to quell what it saw as Iran's growing influencein the region – by James Liilywhite
5.1.2016 – Middle East Eye
Yemen centre for blind 'hit in Saudi coalition air raid'
A centre for blind people in the Yemeni capital of Sanaa has been reportedly hit in an air raid by the Saudi-led coalition.
According to local reports, the Noor Centre for the Blind in the Safiah district of Sanaa was struck on Tuesday morning, along with an empty wedding hall.
The third floor of the centre was hit at 1am on Tuesday morning. There have been no reports of casualties.
The centre was funded by the Yemeni Social Fund Development, a project of the World Bank.
Mohammed al-Daylami, the deputy manager of the centre told the Saba news agency that “the targeting of the centre proves that the Saudi coalition has no clue about the rules and ethics of war".
"What did the disabled children do to do deserve being hit by an air strike?" he asked. "Where are the NGOs? Where is the UN?"
Air strikes overnight also struck the port city of Hodaida and the southwestern city of Taiz.
Comment by Judith Brown: Another condemnation of the air strikes on a centre for the blind in Yemen; three people injured. Much as I condemn all criminal acts such as the attacks on the Saudi embassy in Iran, it my moral window it pales into significance compared with this attack. These blind people were innocents who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time; the Saudi diplomats were representing a country that had acted extremely provocatively by killing a Shia cleric: outspoken he may have been, but by any measure he was not a 'terrorist' - Rights groups have called his trial a travesty of justice.
https://www.facebook.com/judith.brown.794628/posts/10154015647398641
5.1.2016 – RT
Yemen center for blind hit by Saudi-led coalition airstrike – locals
The third floor of the Noor Center for the Blind in the Safiah district was damaged in the 1 a.m. incident, according to the Middle East Eye. No casualties in the bombing were reported.
Noor Center is one-of-a-kind in Yemen, receiving funding from one of the World Bank’s projects in the country.
After the airstrike, the center’s deputy manager, Mohammed Daylami, blamed Saudi Arabia and its allies for “having no clue about the rules and ethics of war."
"What did the disabled children do to do deserve being hit by an air strike? Where are the NGOs? Where is the UN?" Daylami told Saba news agency.
Saudi-led airstrikes resumed in Yemen as a formal ceasefire agreed on 15 December between the coalition and the Houthi rebels expired over the weekend.
However, the Saudi-Arabian coalition kept violating Yemeni air space even during the formal ceasefire, Sanaa-based political analyst Hassan Al-Haifi told RT. Air raids often hit civilians with weapons prohibited under the rules of engagement, he added.
“They are continuing [to bomb]. They have never stopped,” Haifi said. “There are literally hundreds of air raids not just in Sanaa but around the country.”
“They are using every kind of weapon available to them. The military targets are far fewer than civilian targets,” Haifi told RT, adding that the Saudis have recently bombed a Coca-Cola factory and a dairy farm, in addition to numerous schools and hospitals.
https://www.rt.com/news/328024-yemen-saudi-airstrike-blind/
5.1.2016 – Vice News
The Saudi Coalition Bombed A Rehabilitation Center for Blind People in Yemen
https://news.vice.com/article/saudi-arabia-bombed-a-rehabilitation-center-for-blind-people-in-yemen
5.1.2016 – The Intercept
SAUDI COALITION JUST BOMBED A CENTER FOR THE BLIND IN YEMEN
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/05/saudi-coalition-just-bombed-a-center-for-the-blind-in-yemen/
Kriegsereignisse / Theater of War
5.1.2016 – Deutschlandfunk
Wieder heftigere Kämpfe
Nachdem Saudi-Arabien am Wochenende die Waffenruhe im Jemen aufgekündigt hat, kommt es dort wieder zu heftigeren Kämpfen.
Wie Anwohner berichten, bombardierte die von Saudi-Arabien geführte Militärallianz Stellungen der Huthi-Rebellen, unter anderem in der Hauptstadt Sanaa, der Hafenstadt Hodaida und der Stadt Tais.
Die Huthi-Rebellen sollen ihrerseits Katjuscha-Raketen abgeschossen haben.
http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/jemen-wieder-heftigere-kaempfe.447.de.html?drn:news_id=566015
Kommentar: Warum wird (wie bei Reuters, folgende Meldung), die Phrase „bombardierte die von Saudi-Arabien geführte Militärallianz Stellungen der Huthi-Rebellen, unter anderem in der Hauptstadt Sanaa“ unreflektiert von der saudischen Propaganda übernommen? In Sanaa wurden bombardiert: Die Handelskammer, eine Hochzeitshalle, ein Blindenzentrum (s. oben): „Stellungen der Huthi-Rebellen“???
5.1.2016 – Reuters
Yemen war intensifies amid mounting regional tension
Saudi-led air strikes targeting Iranian-allied Houthi forces intensified in Yemen on Tuesday, residents said, an escalation of a nine-month-old war that follows a rise in tensions between the kingdom and arch foe Tehran.
After weeks of a relative lull, large air strikes targeted military positions linked to Yemen's ascendant Houthis in the capital Sanaa, the port city of Hodaida and the disputed southwestern city of Taiz.
Heavy shelling resumed on battle fronts which had been largely static during a truce which began on Dec. 15 in tandem with United Nations-backed peace talks.
Houthi fighters launched Katyusha rockets at the city of Marib, residents said, their first attack on the area since Gulf Arab troops and armed loyalists of President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi seized it from the group over the summer.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-idUSKBN0UJ0RQ20160105 and also in Gulf Times: http://www.gulf-times.com/story/473846/Yemen-war-intensifies-amid-mounting-regional-tensi
Comment: The phrase “Saudi-led air strikes targeting Iranian-allied Houthi forces” is for the most part repeating the Saudi propaganda lies. Why Reuters does this? At Sanaa there have been hit and destroyed the Chamber of Commerce, a wedding hall and a center for blind people (see above). That is “Houthi forces”????
5.1.2016 – Saba Net
Aggression launches five sorties in Mareb
The Saudi-led coalition warplanes waged five raids on scattered areas in Mareb province on Tuesday. In a statement to Saba, a local official said the hostile war jets launched two raids on the strategic Hailan Mountain and other raids on al-Jawf crossroads and the areas of al-Jadaan.
http://www.sabanews.net/en/news414953.htm and also http://www.albawaba.com/news/saudi-launches-five-raids-yemen-789280
Neue Artikel zum Nachlesen 1-81: / Yemen Press reader 1-81:
https://www.freitag.de/autoren/dklose oder / or
Was ist Ihre Meinung?
Kommentare einblendenDiskutieren Sie mit.