Passing of Saudi King Abdullah felt in Yemen's chaotic descent

As the regime in Yemen crumbled this week, the normally attentive Saudis were absorbed with their own leadership transition: the passing of King Abdullah.

Khaled Abdullah/Reuters
People demonstrate against the Houthi movement at the Change Square in Sanaa, Yemen, January 23, 2015. Yemen's President Abdu-Rabbu Mansour Hadi resigned on Thursday, days after Houthi rebels battled their way into his presidential palace, plunging the unstable Arab country deeper into chaos and depriving Washington of a key ally against Al Qaeda.

Amid the chaos in Yemen, which resulted Thursday night in the resignation of President Abdo Rabbu Mansour Hadi, many in the Gulf region wondered out loud: Where are the Saudis?

After all, Yemen’s leadership transition after the Arab Spring had been closely stage-managed in Riyadh. 

“They’re just letting it go,” Theodore Karasik, senior adviser to Risk Insurance Management in Dubai, told the Monitor earlier this week. Yemen “is screaming for a policy.”

On Friday morning, one likely reason for the silence became clear: King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler for nearly a quarter century who had been ill with pneumonia, had passed away overnight.

For now, King Abdullah’s passing means Riyadh is unlikely to be able to play a high-level role in resolving Yemen’s political crisis, leaving that country under the control of Iranian-allied Houthi rebels. 

While lower-level envoys and diplomats are likely to continue their work, the Saudi foreign policy establishment will be tied up with mourning and a political transition.

Containment with a fence

The timing of Abdullah’s passing also reinforces what has been the Saudi policy of containment: trying to limit the fallout from Yemen’s turmoil, rather than addressing it directly. The kingdom is currently building a fence along the two countries’ 1,060 mile land border.

Saudi Arabia had helped to steer Yemen’s transition after 2011 Arab Spring protests. Under the auspices of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Riyadh shepherded a negotiated power transfer in November 2011, handing the presidency from President Ali Abdullah Saleh to his vice president, Mr. Hadi. In addition to providing political support, Saudi Arabia pledged more than $3 billion in economic aid to give Hadi’s government a fighting chance.

The new government was meant to lead a national dialogue and draft a new constitution. Then came a military offensive last fall by Houthi rebels opposed to the draft charter, arguing that it would marginalize them. 

Saudi Arabia, exercising its economic veto, suspended aid to Sanaa last year after Houthi rebels took control of most government institutions. Riyadh views the rebellion as a satellite of Iranian influence in the region – something it has opposed not just in Yemen but across the Arab world – and is likely to withhold aid unless Houthis pull back. 

Risks of security focus

This means that the Saudis’ emphasis will have to fall on security: keeping not just the Houthis, but also Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) – the terrorist group’s most competent wing – out of Saudi territory.

That’s a risky stance. The ongoing events in Yemen are “going to be serious for them for their security,” says Abdulhamid Mulhi, an adviser to Hadi, describing the Gulf countries’ collective position as “very weak.”

Meanwhile, for the United States, AQAP will remain the priority. On Wednesday, US Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers acknowledged that it has an intelligence relationship with the Houthi rebels and will seek to continue efforts to combat their mutual enemy AQAP.

One place to watch for signs of how things will move forward is in Marib, where Houthi rebels appear to be gearing up for a battle against Sunni tribes, which the rebels say are sympathetic to Al Qaeda. Alarmingly for the Saudis, Marib is north of Sanaa – and just that much closer to the border, where a fence is far from completed.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.