It is hardly surprising that the Saudi initiative to host the intra-Southern dialogue has been well received in Yemen. The initiative offers the people of southern Yemen, as well as all of its factions, an opportunity to develop a united vision for the Southern Question and a framework for implementing that vision through dialogue.
It has called for the talks at the request of the Chairman of the Presidential Leadership Council, Rashad al-Alimi, seeking to address the trajectory triggered by reckless practices on the part of certain actors within the Southern Transitional Council. The decision to host this dialogue reflects the Kingdom's focus on addressing crises through political solutions developed through dialogue and consensus, thereby building a bulwark to adventurism, confrontation, rupture, and exclusion.
Encouraging Yemeni parties to adopt the language of dialogue also entails reinforcing Yemenis’ relationship with institutions and legitimate frameworks, ensuring that just causes are not leveraged in political bidding wars, placing them on course for resolution instead.
Saudi Arabia’s posture in Yemen is part of its broader strategic approach: using its political, economic, Arab, Islamic, and international weight to consolidate regional stability. This approach is also evident in its positions on a series of crises, including Sudan and Lebanon.
The need for stabilization is made more pressing by the devastating wars and major shifts unfolding in the region, especially as the instability goes beyond the Middle East, with the entire world in turmoil because of the actions of great powers.
Four years ago, the Russian invasion of Ukraine shattered Europe’s sense of security. Germany had assumed war was merely a painful memory covered in history books and that redrawing international borders by force, especially on the old continent, was prohibited. Today, Germany is in a race against time as it seeks to retrieve its fangs and modernize its arsenal. Massive sums will be spent to recover a measure of reassurance as German generals raise the alarm and warn that a devastating conflict with Russia could erupt within years. They believe that the Ukrainian “meal” will only whet Putin’s appetite for former Soviet possessions. The same apprehensions are shared by the generals of Britain and France. Polish generals run their fingers over their country’s borders and the wounds of their history. Europe is preparing for war; this is not a trivial matter.
Another dramatic development has shaken the world. No one expected to see a handcuffed Nicolas Maduro being led to a US court on drug- trafficking charges. Latin America’s animosity toward “big brother’s” dominance goes without saying. These sensitivities are deeply rooted in the culture of many countries on the continent, and several regimes were born and survived on the rhetoric of defiance against the American general.
Europe worries about the precedent set by Putin in Ukraine. In many countries, these fears have been aggravated by the precedent Donald Trump set with his adventure in Venezuela.
It is impossible to decipher Putin’s intentions or the limits of his appetites. He emerged from the vaults of the KGB, carrying its Soviet wounds. As for predicting Trump’s surprises, even the most advanced models of artificial intelligence and the most renowned fortune-tellers plead ignorance. Accordingly, the world appears poised for extreme turbulence.
Small or modest states must decide how to adapt to a world that is becoming less restrained. These states, especially those plagued by infighting, have no choice but to return to their maps. Bets on force, rupture, victory, and abrasive dreams (even when dreams are sometimes justified) must be dropped.
A conversation I had with the late Iraqi president Jalal Talabani in Baghdad comes to mind. “The Kurds have the right to dream of a state of their own, like all other peoples. No Kurd can openly renounce this dream,” he told me. “But when I look at the maps of neighboring states and their Kurds, and at the balance of power, I choose a compromise that reconciles dreams with reality and figures. I feel that the interests of the Kurds, if they obtain their basic rights, would be better served by remaining within the Iraqi family than by drowning in the deep waters of endless conflict.”
The health of maps, like the health of individuals, requires constant work. Citizenship and institutions must be maintained to stand up to greed and maintain the integrity of maps. This demands sense and courage, foresight, and the openness to compromise. Maps are not preserved through force, domination, monopolization, or clean victories. Crushing victories are temporary, even when they endure. The road to stability always passes through fair settlements that give all inhabitants a sense of belonging, equality before the law, respect, and the right to difference.
Do the Lebanese have better options than life under the roof of a state- a state that treats components and citizens equally, and bears sole responsibility for decisions of war and peace, a state that imposes its sole authority and monopolizes armament? All other solutions would merely perpetuate fractures and open the door to various threats, including the entrenchment of despair in coexistence.
Do the Libyans have a better option than returning to life under the roof of a single state that can accommodate all regions and factions through the framework of law and institutions? Regionalism is alarming. Small armies are inherently hostile to development, stability, and progress. Every national fracture opens the door to foreign meddling and turns the factions fighting it out within the lines on the map into proxies of wars waged through them and at their expense.
Do Syrians have a better home than Syria and a just state that its Kurds, coastal population, and Sweida can identify with on the basis of citizenship, mutual recognition, and the rule of law?
Building stability has become a pressing task. Neither security nor safety can be built without stability. There can be no progress or development without stable states and sensible, just governments.
The dialogue in Saudi Arabia is an opportunity that must be seized. Success in these talks would demonstrate that the participants seek stability in Yemen. It would also offer a model for other states that need to maintain their maps through stability.
