Stockholm, Yemen… Traditions, Intersections

Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Anne Linde at the Yemen International Forum 2022 (Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies)
Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Anne Linde at the Yemen International Forum 2022 (Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies)
TT
20

Stockholm, Yemen… Traditions, Intersections

Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Anne Linde at the Yemen International Forum 2022 (Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies)
Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Anne Linde at the Yemen International Forum 2022 (Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies)

Sweden’s Special Envoy for Yemen, Ambassador Peter Semneby, constantly recalls old Swedish traditions centered around promoting conflict resolution and care for humanitarian affairs. Sweden has showcased those traditions in many conflicts around the world.

For example, Sweden has provided continued support to Afghanistan for over four decades, according to Semneby, who served three years as an ambassador to the South Asian country.

In Yemen, Sweden has made an effective contribution on the humanitarian and political levels. It cooperated with the Yemeni government and civil society organizations as well as with researchers, activists, and experts.

“The focus is the plight of the people living in that country,” Semneby told Asharq Al-Awsat about Sweden’s concern with Yemen.

Semneby spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat at the Yemen International Forum 2022, an event organized by the Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies in cooperation with the Folke Bernadotte Academy.

Held on June 17-19 in Stockholm, the Forum offered a platform for Yemenis to engage in in-depth conversations on the political situation, peace efforts and the economy.

Semneby stressed that Swedish interaction in Yemen began with humanitarian participation.

“Alongside Switzerland, we hosted five UN donor conferences for Yemen,” revealed Semneby, adding that Sweden later decided to complement its efforts for Yemen with actions that support a peace solution.

The Swedish shift in support yielded the Stockholm Agreement in 2018.

However, the Yemen International Forum 2022 mirrored deep divisions among Yemenis with some welcoming the event and others, like the Southern Transitional Council (STC), abstaining from participation.

Asharq Al-Awsat investigated the reason behind the STC not participating in the Forum and discovered that the Yemeni group strongly opposes the work of the Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies.

“We sent a letter valuing the role played by Sweden in producing peace in Yemen and the region, and we apologized for not partaking in the Forum,” STC spokesman Ali Al-Kathiri told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“We did not participate because of the Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies and its involvement in fueling conflict and tearing apart the Yemeni social fabric,” said Al-Kathiri, accusing the center of bias that goes against the cause of the people of southern Yemen.

Al-Kathiri added that the STC had relayed its concern and opposition to the Center’s work during an earlier meeting with Semneby in March.

For her part, Rasha Jarhum, from the Peace Track Initiative (PTI), stresses the importance of creating common spaces for all Yemenis.

“The Forum in Stockholm gathered more than 270 people, 36 % of whom were women,” noted Jarhum, adding that the assembly discussed many issues on the peace agenda, including south Yemen.

It also tackled the role of parties, minorities, women, tribes, and victims in advancing the peace process.

Moreover, the Forum discussed the challenges of integrating combatants.

“The Forum provided space for Yemeni, regional and international peacemakers to discuss and find future opportunities for cooperation,” said Jarhum.

“This space follows the holding of the Yemeni talks under the auspices of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Riyadh talks), which brought together more than 500 people, of whom 12 % were women,” noted Jarhum.

The Riyadh talks had led to outcomes in six tracks for enhancing stability and national cohesion.

“It resulted in a political transformation that stirred stagnant waters,” said Jarhum about the Riyadh consultations.

“One of the most vital messages that I shared in the Forum is the importance of supporting the transitional stages by financing services and salaries, reparations, and fighting corruption,” she noted.

Tim Lenderking, US special envoy for Yemen, said that the Forum was a great opportunity to meet Yemenis from all over the country.

“While many Yemenis may disagree about some tactical moves, every Yemeni here desires peace, and these moments should be seized. Yemen is on a much better path,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat at the sidelines of the Forum.

“However, it’s a fragile path,” he added.

“If Yemenis work together and with the support of the international community, I really believe that peace in Yemen can become a reality,” noted Lenderking.

On Sweden expanding its efforts to find a peace solution for Yemen, Semneby notes that his country is partaking in regional consultations.

“We are also engaged in dialogue with regional actors,” said Semneby.

“Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Anne Linde has made at least four trips to the region, and Yemen has figured high on her agenda for the past four years,” affirmed the Swedish diplomat, adding that Linde has visited Yemen twice.

“The political process is in the hands of the UN,” he asserted.

“If there is a desire from the UN and from the parties, Sweden is ready to host further talks,” noted Semneby.

“But we also engage in conversations that are not part of any process; It could even be useful to the UN,” he explained.

Speaking about the advantages of the Forum, Semneby said: “Yemenis from a wide range of political parties and nationwide civil society organizations can meet in an informal setting to discuss the most pressing issues facing their country.”

He added that the Forum also aids Yemenis in putting forward long-term visions for the war-torn country.

“I hope that those who have been invited to Stockholm and who have not attended the Forum will consider the subject of this meeting, and the new ideas that have emerged,” said Semneby.

“I hope, for the future, they conclude that there is nothing to lose by participating, and that there is a lot to gain,” he added.



India and Pakistan Don’t Fight Wars Like Other Countries. Here’s Why 

This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
TT
20

India and Pakistan Don’t Fight Wars Like Other Countries. Here’s Why 

This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)

India and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars since they gained independence from Britain in 1947. They’ve also had dozens of skirmishes and conflicts, including one atop a glacier dubbed the coldest and highest-altitude battlefield in the world.

The latest escalation follows a deadly gun attack on tourists that India blames Pakistan for — Islamabad denies any connection. But they don’t fight wars like other countries.

The dominant factor is their nuclear weapons arsenal, a distinct way of deterring major attacks and a guarantee that fighting doesn’t get out of hand, even when the situation is spiraling.

Here’s how — and why — India and Pakistan fight the way they do:

Their nuclear arsenals can destroy each other “Pakistan and India have enough nuclear weapons to wipe the other side out several times over,” says security analyst Syed Mohammed Ali, who is based in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital. “Their nuclear weapons create a scenario for mutually assured destruction.”

Both countries have “deliberately developed” the size and range of their stockpile to remind the other about the guarantee of mutually assured destruction, he adds.

Neither country discloses their nuclear capabilities but each is thought to have between 170 and 180 warheads that are short-, long- and medium-range. Both countries have different delivery systems — ways of launching and propelling these weapons to their targets.

The arsenals are a defensive move to prevent and deter further fighting, because “neither side can afford to initiate such a war or hope to achieve anything from it,” Ali says.

It might not look this way to the outsider, but nuclear weapons are a reminder to the other side that they can't take things too far.

But the secrecy around their arsenals means that it's unclear if Pakistan or India can survive a first nuclear strike and retaliate, something called “second-strike capability.”

This capacity stops an opponent from attempting to win a nuclear war through a first strike by preventing aggression that could lead to nuclear escalation.

Without this capability, there is, in theory, nothing to stop one side from launching a warhead at the other.

Kashmir at the crux of the dispute India and Pakistan have each laid claim to Kashmir since 1947, when both gained independence, and border skirmishes have created instability in the region for decades. Each country controls a part of Kashmir, which is divided by a heavily militarized border.

The two archrivals have also fought two of their three wars over Kashmir — a disputed Himalayan region divided between the them where armed insurgents resist Indian rule. Many Muslim Kashmiris support the rebels’ goal of uniting the territory, either under Pakistani rule or as an independent country.

Border flare-ups and militant attacks in India-controlled Kashmir have prompted New Delhi to take an increasingly tough position on Islamabad, accusing it of “terrorism.”

In the latest conflict, India punished Pakistan by hitting what it said were sites used by Pakistan-backed militants linked to a gun massacre last month.

A conventional military imbalance India is one of the biggest defense spenders in the world, with $74.4 billion in 2025, according to the Military Balance report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. It’s also one of the world’s largest arms importers.

Pakistan is no slouch, spending $10 billion last year, but it can never match India’s deep pockets. India also has more than double the number of active armed forces personnel than Pakistan does.

While India’s armed forces are traditionally focused on Pakistan, it has another nuclear neighbor to contend with, China, and it is increasingly concerned with maritime security in the Indian Ocean. Those are two factors that Pakistan doesn’t have to consider in its security paradigm.

Pakistan's long and narrow shape, together with the outsized role of the military in foreign policy, makes it easier to move the armed forces around and prioritize defense.

A pattern of escalation and defusing Neither Pakistan or India are in a hurry to announce their military moves against the other and, as seen in the current flare-up of hostilities, it can take a while for confirmation of strikes and retaliation to surface.

But both launch operations into territories and airspace controlled by the other. Sometimes these are intended to damage checkpoints, installations, or sites allegedly used by militants.

They are also aimed at embarrassing or provoking — forcing leaders to bow to public pressure and respond, with the potential for miscalculation.

Many of these activities originate along the Line of Control, which divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan. It's largely inaccessible to the media and public, making it hard to independently verify claims of an attack or retaliation.

Such incidents raise international alarm, because both countries have nuclear capabilities, forcing attention back to India and Pakistan and, eventually, their competing claims over Kashmir.

The fear of nuclear war has put the two countries at the top of the agenda, competing with the papal conclave, US President Donald Trump’s policies, and the Sean “Diddy” Combs trial in the news cycle.

No desire for conquest, influence or resources Pakistan and India’s battles and skirmishes are away from the public eye.

Strikes and retaliation are late at night or early in the morning and, with the exception of the drone attacks on Thursday, they mostly take place away from densely populated urban centers. It shows that neither country has the desire to significantly harm the other’s population. Attacks are either described as surgical or limited.

Neither country is motivated by competition for resources. Pakistan has huge mineral wealth, but India isn't interested in these and, while there are stark ideological differences between Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan, they don’t seek control or influence over the other.

Other than Kashmir, they have no interest in claiming the other’s territory or exercising dominance.