U.S. targets Yemen, expands ‘war on terror’

Using the pretext of fighting terror, the U.S. government has expanded its war into the poor Arab country of Yemen.

Washington claims a Yemeni cleric and a small group in Yemen called “al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” provided the marching orders for the alleged “Christmas bomber,” a young Nigerian man who, at most, managed to set a fire in his trousers on a flight bound for Detroit.

Government hype, amplified by a willing media, adds that al Qaeda has a “natural affinity” for Yemeni tribes; that Yemen is the Bin Laden family’s ancestral homeland, so Osama Bin Laden calls the shots there; and that Shias and Sunnis fight in Yemen.

The most powerful capitalist countries — the U.S., Britain and France — temporarily shut down their embassies in Yemen, citing impending danger of an al Qaeda attack.

On Jan 4, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said instability in Yemen poses a “global threat.” On Jan. 8 President Barack Obama declared, “We are at war against Al Qaeda.”

CIA admits provocateur actions

Washington’s attempt to stamp its cookie-cutter terror scenario on Yemen has strayed too far from the truth even for the CIA.

After interviewing highly-placed CIA officials, the New York Times wrote on Jan. 12, “politically charged clamor has lumped together disparate cases and obscured the fact[s]” regarding threats to the U.S. The Times says “enemies on American soil in 2009 ... were a scattered, uncoordinated group of amateurs. ... The weapons were old-fashioned guns and explosives — in several cases, duds supplied by F.B.I. informants.”

“The term ‘Al Qaeda,’” the Times continued, “used as a catchall ... blurs important distinctions. ... None of the 2009 cases appears to be directly tied to ‘Al Qaeda central,’ as experts refer to the Pakistan-based group led by Mr. bin Laden. Others involved ersatz ‘Qaeda’ agents who actually worked for the F.B.I.”

The Times calls Al Qaeda in Yemen a loosely linked affiliate of Mr. Bin Laden’s group, and quotes Audrey Kurth Cronin of the National War College as saying “The proper response is to stop calling all these plots ‘Al Qaeda.’”

Former ambassador counters Yemen ‘myths’

Edmund J. Hull, the U.S. ambassador to Yemen from 2002 to 2004, countered “myths” in a Jan. 12 New York Times op-ed. In Yemen “there is no clear divide between Sunnis and Shiites ... and it’s not unknown for Yemenis to convert from Sunni to Shiite as a matter of convenience.”

Hull continued, “The bin Ladens are not part of any politically significant tribe or clan, nor has the family sought to convert its wealth into power in Yemen. ... There is no deep-seeded affinity between Yemeni tribes and the Qaeda movement.”

A look at the relationship of forces shows how preposterous it is to claim that Yemen threatens the U.S. The U.S. spends more on the military than the arms budgets of every other government in the world combined.

Diego Garcia, a huge naval base in use against Iraq, is not far from Yemen. Washington has hundreds of U.S. soldiers in the French base in Djibouti, just across the straits from Yemen. U.S. naval ships are now in Yemeni waters.

In marked contrast, Yemen is struggling to keep its head above water. In Yemen 45 percent of the 23.8 million people live below the poverty line, 35 percent are unemployed, and per capita gross national product is only $2,500. Infant mortality is 54.7 percent and literacy 50 percent, according to the CIA World Factbook.

Yemen gets significant revenue from oil, but the world economic crisis and the resulting drop in oil prices has hurt it badly. Eight million Yeminis work abroad, sending home a billion dollars in remittances yearly. Yemen is burdened by the presence of 10,000 desperate Somalis fleeing war, poverty and hunger in their country.

Nevertheless, the U.S. war on Yemen has begun.

On Jan. 2, U.S. Gen. David Petraeus met with Yemeni President Ali Abdallah Salih. Washington has announced $70 million a year would go to Yemen for “counter-terrorism training.” U.S. “advisers” are in Yemen. U.S. drones have already unleashed cruise missiles.

What’s at stake for the U.S.?

Just as in Afghanistan and Iran, in Yemen Washington seeks not to fight terror, but to grab the natural resources and territory belonging to the indigenous people.

At stake is who profits from the drilling and distribution of oil. Yemen contains one of the world’s largest untapped petroleum reserves, which U.S. oil companies want.

Of more immediate importance is Yemen’s strategic location on key oil routes. At question is a key oil shipping lane, the Bab el Mandeb strait.

Twenty miles wide at its narrowest point, Bab el Mandeb lies in the waters of Yemen, Djibouti and Ethiopia, with Yemen most positioned to exercise control over the strait’s shipping lanes through its possession of Perim Island. Traffic through the strait is associated with the Suez Canal and the Suez/Sumed complex, a major pipeline through Egypt that brings oil from the Arabian Peninsula to Europe. Vital oil routes for China are close by.

In 2006 the U.S. Energy Department reported an estimated 3.3 million barrels of oil a day flowed through the straits. Most is from Saudi Arabia, Washington’s lynchpin and the world’s largest producer and exporter of total petroleum liquids.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the strait is a chokepoint between the Horn of Africa and the Middle East, and a strategic link between the Mediterranean Sea and Indian Ocean. This government agency explains, “Closure of the Bab el-Mandeb could keep tankers from the Persian Gulf from reaching the Suez Canal/Sumed pipeline complex, diverting them around the southern tip of Africa.”

The Pentagon is in Yemen not to squash terrorism, but to grab its oil and to dominate strategic oil routes.

Next: Why is Yemen unstable? Why does military intervention fuel suicide bombings? What do U.S. workers gain from U.S. bombings in Yemen?

Based on a talk given at a Workers World forum in New York City on Jan. 16.