Letter from the executive board

Greetings delegates!
We welcome you all to the United Nations Human Rights Council, to be simulated at
Vadodara Youth Model United Nations 2019. We would like to ensure that this
committee offers you all, a value addition and great learning experience during the
two days of the conference. We believe that as the Executive Board, it is our primary
responsibility to ensure that the proceedings are as flexible and productive as
possible. Delegates are encouraged to research on all aspects of the negotiations and
deliberations that leads us towards and up for the discussion related to the agenda.
However, please take note, we strongly urge you not to solely rely on the information
that you have gathered.

According to the ideal method of research in an MUN, it is advisable to analyse the

information and present this analysis as statements in the Committee in a rational and
structured manner. We expect delegates to think critically (clearly listing pros and
cons, by testing and retesting your assumptions, observations and conclusions
through research and questioning) and come up with their own arguments and
structure, which will lead to more productive deliberations. We realize that Human
Rights Council is often viewed as a starting point for many participants in Model UN
Conferences. Often, we find many delegates looking for guidance regarding how to
go about research or even what or what not to speak.

As the Executive Board, we will be understanding of shortcomings in this aspect and

will restrict ourselves to moderation of debate and maintenance of rules of procedure.
However, we will not turn away delegates seeking help in their performance, and
guide them to the best of our capability without being biased in our judgment. Any
queries regarding the procedure, nature of committee etc can be addressed to any of
the Executive Board members via the Secretariat on Email.

Regards Samrth Kanungo, Vedant Bhatnagar

United Nations Human Rights Council, Vadodara Youth Model United Nations 2019
Email: vadodarayouthmun@gmail.com
samrth.kanungo@gmail.com
NATURE OF PROOF AND EVIDENCE

Documents from the following sources will be considered as credible proof for any
allegations made in committee or statements that require verification:
1. Reuters: Appropriate Documents and articles from the Reuters News agency will
be used to corroborate or refute controversial statements made in committee.
2. UN Document: Documents by all UN agencies will be considered as sufficient
proof. Reports from all UN bodies including treaty-based bodies will also be
accepted.
3. Government Reports: Government Reports of a given country used to corroborate
an allegation on the same aforementioned country will be accepted as proof.
Under no circumstances will sources like Wikipedia, Amnesty International,
Human Rights Watch or newspapers like the Guardian, Times of India, etc. be
accepted as credible proof; but may be used for better understanding of any issue and
even be brought up in debate, if the information given in such sources is in line with
the beliefs of a government or a delegate (who is a representative of a government,
usually).
ARMED CONFLICT

Post-cold war hopes of a world without wars, where conflicts between and within
nations are peacefully resolved through negotiations, have not been fully realized.
Recent data on armed conflicts indicate that during the period 1989-1997, there were
103 such conflicts in 69 locations around the world, 33 of which were active in 1997.
Over the decade, roughly one third of all United Nations Member States were directly
involved in at least one armed conflict. The number of conflicts increased after the
end of the cold war, peaking in 1992. Most were contained by the end of 1997. There
were 27 conflicts in 1998 and 36 in 1999.

During the decade 1989-1997, there was only one major armed conflict between
States. This pronounced change in pattern – to intra-state conflict – suggests a new
phase in world security, in which many States are finding it difficult to provide
peaceful and effective solutions when faced with intricate and intractable conflicts
within their borders.

THE NATURE OF ARMED CONFLICTS

Armed conflicts within States are political conflicts involving citizens fighting for
internal change. Some are secessionist movements, generally spearheaded by a group
of people, more often than not a minority within a community, who take up arms to
fight for the establishment of either an autonomous entity within an existing state or
an entirely new and independent state of their own. Such struggles have taken place
recently in Asia and Europe. Such conflicts have been relatively uncommon in
Africa, although issues related to ethnic identity are an important factor in African
politics. However, Eritrea declared independence from Ethiopia and several military
actions on a large scale followed. In Europe, between 1991 and 1992 Slovenia,
Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina seceded from Yugoslavia after short or
prolonged war, while the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia did so peacefully.
Barring these and East Timor, the break-up of States as a result of secessionist
movements has been rare.

A second and larger category of armed conflicts within States often involves a group
of people who are armed and ready to fight for the goal of seizing governmental
power. Sometimes conflicts are matters of organized crime as opposed to politics.
Money is the motivator for these groups. Unlike members of secessionist movements,
such groups are generally prepared to continue to live in the same territory with other
groups, regardless of the outcome of the conflict.

Most armed conflicts are fought not only by regular armies but also by militias and
armed civilians with little discipline and with ill-defined chains of command. Such
clashes are in fact often guerrilla wars without clear front lines. Another important
feature in such conflicts is usually the collapse of the institutions of the state,
especially the police and judiciary, with resulting paralysis of governance, a
breakdown of law and order, and general banditry and chaos. In some cases, not only
are the functions of government suspended but its assets are destroyed or looted and
experienced officials are killed or flee the country.

Fighting in most conflicts is usually intermittent, with a wide range in intensity. It

usually occurs not on well-defined battlefields but in and around communities, and is
often characterized by personalized acts of violence, such as atrocities committed by
former neighbours and, in extreme cases, genocide. In some cases, the fighting spills
over to neighbouring countries used by one of the parties in the conflict as supply
routes or hideouts for combatants.

Home-grown weapons, such as machetes and spears, maim many in armed conflicts,
but imported machine-guns, grenades, mortars and armoured vehicles kill many
more. The weapons are acquired by warring parties, either through hard currency
purchases or through what are known as “parallel financing”, which involves the sale
or barter of goods, such as diamonds, oil, timber and coffee. There is usually some
level of external involvement, whether in the form of arms supply to the warring
factions, provision of military advisers or direct combat support for a particular side,
as was noted earlier in the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia and
Sierra Leone.

Brief ceasefires characterize most armed conflicts. Armed conflicts may end in many
ways, including through peace agreements entered into by the warring parties to
explicitly regulate or resolve contentious issues. They may also end through outright
victory, where one party has been defeated and/or eliminated by the other. For some
experts, conflicts may also be considered to have ended in situations in which even
though there has been no formal 204 ceasefire fighting has been dormant for two
years.

A feature of twentieth century armed conflicts is that civilians have in many

instances become the main combatants, as well as the primary victims. While it is not
possible to estimate civilian casualties in war with precision, authorities agree that the
trend is upward. According to World Military and Social Expenditures 1996, civilians
represented about 50 per cent of war-related deaths in the first half of the twentieth
century. In the 1960s civilians accounted for 63 per cent of recorded war deaths, in
the 1980s 74 per cent, and in the 1990s the figure appears to have risen further. The
massive killings of civilian populations are due, in large part, to the fact that present-
day wars are fought largely within and not between countries. Villages and streets
have become battlefields. Traditional sanctuaries, such as hospitals and churches,
have become targets. Armed conflicts today destroy crops, places of worship and
schools. Nothing is spared. In addition, more and more civilians are involved in
combat because of the easy availability of small arms and light weapons, which are
also inexpensive, reliable and simple to operate. Since the end of the cold war, arms
manufacturers have been aggressively promoting sales to developing countries to
compensate for the fall in arms purchases by most industrialized countries.

Particularly disturbing is the increasing use of young children as soldiers. The

Swedish Save the Children Fund reported that one quarter of a million children, some
as young as seven, were used as soldiers in 33 armed conflicts in 1995 and 1996
alone. They worked as cooks, porters and messengers or participated in active combat
as executioners, assassins, spies and informers. Regardless of what these child
soldiers are assigned to do, they work in close proximity to combat.

Historically, children participated in wars as drummer boys, foot soldiers or ship’s

boys, but not all of them fought or risk their lives. The alarming trend today is that
children are widely used as soldiers during prolonged periods of civil war. As of
1995, conflicts have dragged on in Angola for 30 years, in Afghanistan for 17 years,
in Sri Lanka for 11 years and in Somalia for seven years. Moreover, children are no
longer recruited as a last resort when adult fighters run short – they are sometimes
recruited first.

There are several reasons why children are recruited as soldiers. They are more
docile, complain less and are easily moulded into ruthless fighters. They can easily
carry and use lightweight but high-powered weapons. A boy as young as 10 years can
strip and reassemble rifles with minimal training. It is also believed that most young
soldiers are less afraid of dying than are older combatants. They are often fearless
because of being drugged. In addition, children are a greater proportion of the
population than are adults in these countries. In much of Africa, for example, half of
the population is under 18 years old.

Many child soldiers have been deliberately recruited, others abducted and some
coerced into fighting to protect their families. Boys as young as six have been picked
from schools and indoctrinated into “small boys” units. Boys have been kidnapped
from poor districts of cities or from schools to replenish military forces. To lure
children to fight, they are given amulets or the use of “magic” charms, and
brainwashed into believing that they are fearless warriors and protected from harm. In
other cases, poor parents have offered their children to serve in wars as a means of
family survival. Invariably, recruited child soldiers come from impoverished and
marginalized backgrounds.

The brutal indoctrination of child soldiers leaves them with emotional and
psychological scars. Children were made to witness massacres and commit atrocities.
In Cambodia, Mozambique and the Sudan, child soldiers were “socialized” into
violence by subjecting them to periods of terror and physical abuse. In Sierra Leone,
abducted children were forced to witness or take part in the torture and execution of
their own relatives. This made them outcasts in their villages and forced them to cling
to rebel groups. Another effective tactic used by rebels to spread terror is the
execution of the village chief by the youngest boy.
RAMIFICATIONS OF WAR

Present-day internal wars typically take a heavier toll on civilians than inter-State
wars, and because combatants increasingly have made targeting civilians a strategic
objective. This disregard for humanitarian norms and for the Geneva Conventions on
the rules of war also extends to treatment of humanitarian workers, who are denied
access to victims in conflict zones or are themselves attacked.

Societies ravaged by armed conflicts have paid a massive toll in loss of human life
and economic, political and social disintegration. More than four million people are
estimated to have been killed in violent conflicts since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Women and children, in particular, suffer unspeakable atrocities in armed conflicts.

In the past decade, according to one estimate, up to two million of those killed in
armed conflicts were children. Three times as many have been seriously injured or
permanently disabled, many of them maimed by landmines, and millions were
psychologically scarred by violence. Countless others have been forced to witness or
even to take part in horrifying acts of violence. The widespread insecurity and trauma
due to the atrocities and suffering of the civilian population is another terrible legacy
of these conflicts. Conflicts create extensive emotional and psychosocial stress
associated with attack, loss of loved ones, separation from parents and destruction of
home and community. Many children develop problems, such as flashbacks,
nightmares, social isolation, heightened aggression, depression and diminished future
orientation. These problems of mental health and psychosocial functioning persist
long after the fighting has ceased and make it difficult for children, who may
comprise half the population, to benefit fully from education or to participate in post-
conflict reconstruction. The psychosocial impact of war is often an aspect poorly
addressed by Governments, as are the root causes of conflicts, such as exclusion and
polarization of groups, in their efforts to rebuild society and prevent a relapse of
violence.

Sexual violence is another ruthless weapon of war. Warring parties resort to rape and
sexual slavery of women to humiliate, intimidate and terrorize one another, as, in the
recent conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Rwanda (see chap. XVII). Rape has
been a weapon of ethnic cleansing aimed to humiliate and ostracize women and
young girls for bearing the “enemy’s” child and to eventually destroy communities.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina many women were forced to give birth to babies
conceived during rape. Other women were forced to have abortions. There were also
cases of sexual violence against men.

Millions of children suffer from starvation and disease as a result of war. The high
incidence of malnutrition, disease and deaths among young children is attributed to
war tactics of disrupting the production and distribution of food supplies. Children
are also tortured and raped to extract information about peers or parents, to punish
parents or simply for entertainment. Girls are sometimes obliged to trade sexual
favours for food, shelter or physical protection for themselves or their children,
causing intense psychological trauma. In addition, the incidence of HIV/AIDS has
increased.

Wars have separated millions of children from their families. In 1994, the war in
Rwanda left 100,000 children without families. In 1995, 20 per cent of children in
Angola were separated from families and relatives, according to a UNICEF study. In
Cambodia, a country where half the population is under 15 years old, the war
deprived children of adult caregivers. As a result, problems of delinquency, child
prostitution, drug abuse and other crimes are rampant (see Chap. XVII). Displaced
children are also most likely to be abused, raped, tortured, exploited and drafted as
child soldiers.

The creation of conflict-free zones has proved effective in some cases in protecting
children from harm and providing some essential services. So have periodic
ceasefires agreed to by Governments and rebels to allow health workers to immunize
children against common diseases, such as polio, measles, diphtheria and tetanus, and
to deliver medical services and supplies. Such practices have been used in El
Salvador, Uganda, Lebanon, Afghanistan and the Sudan. In Eritrea, alternative sites
for schools destroyed by war include caves, camouflaged huts or under trees. In
Sierra Leone, mothers and adolescents were trained to teach. Sri Lanka used public
media to reach out-of-school children and other sectors of the community. Vocational
training that leads to employment has in some cases eased the reintegration of former
child soldiers into the community.

For displaced children, UNICEF and UNHCR have initiated programmes to trace
and reunify unaccompanied children with their families. In Ethiopia, Sudanese
refugee camps have created villages where three to five children are housed in a hut
supervised by a caregiver from their own country.

Landmines in many war-torn countries, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia,

Cambodia, Afghanistan, Mozambique and Angola, have claimed about one million
people. According to one report, about 120 million landmines are buried in 71
countries and two to five million landmines are planted each year. Some countries,
such as Afghanistan, Angola, and Cambodia, have approximately 10 million
landmines each. Landmines can have profound medical, environmental and economic
consequences. Anti-personnel mines, which come in different shapes and sizes, are
especially dangerous for children, who are unable to read warning signals and
mistake them for toys. Their small bodies make children more likely to die from
landmine injuries (see Chap. XVII). Aside from residents of the affected countries,
health-care workers and staff of non-governmental organizations who assist
emergency-affected displaced and refugee populations in regional conflicts have
suffered landmine related injuries. Long after conflicts are settled, scattered
landmines continue to injure people and disrupt food production in agricultural lands
and the flow of goods and people.

In addition to exacting a heavy human toll, landmines in some countries, such as

Angola and Cambodia, have rendered vast areas of arable land uncultivable. Safe
drinking water is at a premium in areas with large numbers of landmines, increasing
the risk of waterborne diseases and malnutrition. An exodus from heavily mined rural
areas can lead to overcrowding in urban areas, increasing risks of transmission of
infectious diseases. Landmine victims are a serious financial burden on Governments.
The cost of treating a landmine survivor can be in the range of $3,000 to $5,000,
while clearing a mine can cost $300 to $1,000. Most poor countries contaminated by
landmines cannot cover the costs of victim rehabilitation and mine clearance. The
economy also suffers from the loss of productivity of mine victims.
Refugees and internally displaced persons are the symptoms of wars, communal
violence motivated by ethnic or religious hatred, persecution and intolerance. At the
start of the 1990s, the decline in intensity of several longstanding armed conflicts
bred optimism about a fall in the number of refugees and internally displaced persons
around the world. In fact, the grim reality is that at the end of the 1990s their number
was about 50 million, of whom 30 million were internally displaced persons. The
number of refugees increased from 17 million in 1991 to 27 million in 1995 and then
declined to 22.25 million in 1999. Countries affected by armed conflicts or internal
strife generally have large numbers of refugees and displaced persons, although such
factors as natural disasters and widespread human rights violations have also
contributed to the number of displaced persons.

Refugees may be cared for by a recognized international agency (such as UNHCR).

But no international organization has a parallel authority to intervene on behalf of the
uprooted that did not cross a border, although very often internally displaced persons
have been forced to abandon their homes for precisely the same reasons as refugees.
The situation of internally displaced persons varies from one country to another and
is influenced by many social, economic and political factors.

UNHCR has noted that dealing with the internally displaced is often more arduous
than with refugees who cross borders. The difficulty of gaining access to large
numbers of people in insecure and isolated areas is compounded by the complexity of
assisting civilians in their own countries, where their own state authorities or rebel
forces in control are frequently the cause of their predicament. Hundreds of thousands
of people at risk in war areas, such as southern Sudan, the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, Burundi, Angola and Sierra Leone, a majority of them internally
displaced, cannot be reached by humanitarian agencies. Where such access is
possible, it is often under very dangerous conditions. In Burundi, for example, in the
last quarter of 1999 alone, 30,000 new refugees fled to the United Republic of
Tanzania. The total number of Burundian refugees in that country is now about
300,000. The number of internally displaced people has also increased. There are an
estimated 300,000 people in “regroupment” sites, virtually people who are internally
displaced by a government policy. Access by humanitarian agencies to these people
has been difficult since, among other problems, the Government has provided no
clear guarantees for the security of humanitarian staff in these sites.

Internal displacement poses a threat to political and economic stability at the national
and international levels. The communities left behind and the towns and villages in
which the displaced find refuge are often ravaged. In many situations of armed
conflict, the violence generated in one country often spreads through entire regions,
forcing neighbouring States to bear the brunt of massive refugee flows. Even
countries that are continents away may have to contend with waves of desperate
refugees.

United Nations humanitarian and development agencies have come to recognize the
internally displaced as a distinct category of persons requiring attention. Since 1992,
a representative of the Secretary-General has been monitoring the global situation of
displaced persons. In 1994 the Office of the United Nations Emergency Relief
Coordinator was formally designated as a reference point for requests for assistance
and protection of internally displaced people. In his 1997 reform programme, the
Secretary-General reaffirmed the responsibility of the Office for ensuring continued
assistance to displaced people. There seems to be a growing recognition of the need
for a comprehensive approach to the situation of refugees and internally displaced
persons, given the sharp increase in the numbers of the latter and the problems they
have in common with refugees.

Ultimately, a solution to the problems of refugees and displaced persons depends on

an end to wars that force people to flee their homes. The international community has
sought to prevent, contain and resolve conflicts through a variety of initiatives,
including improved early warning systems to help identify and remove the sources of
conflicts.

National and international efforts are beginning to incorporate measures to address

the needs of child victims and combatants. Increasingly in peace negotiations,
recognition and aid are tied to preconditions that children not be used as soldiers. Sri
Lanka and the Sudan, for example, have agreed to such arrangements. Demobilizing
child soldiers and facilitating their reintegration into society through welfare
programmes, counselling and adoption are seen as new priorities in peace-building.
The task of rehabilitating children victims and soldiers is daunting. Malnourished,
uneducated, without skills and psychologically scarred, children in armed conflict
need urgent attention if they are to become participants in peace. Attaining and
maintaining future peace in these war-torn countries will depend on these children,
who know of no way of life except war. Protecting the human rights of children is
increasingly viewed as a priority in peace negotiations.

For lasting solutions to armed conflicts, respect for human rights is imperative, with
a special sensitivity to the human rights of ethnic, religious, racial and linguistic
minorities. Equally, good governance and the strengthening of civil societies are
essential for addressing the deepest causes of conflict: historic antagonism, economic
despair, social injustice and political oppression. The international community is
moving also to more effectively assist countries that have experienced violent
conflicts and are now grappling with the enormous task of rebuilding their shattered
societies.
INTRODUCTION

Since the 19th March 2015 the Arab country of Yemen is caught up in a devastating
civil war. Three major factions are involved in the conflict, the so-called Supreme
Political Council led by Ali Abdullah Saleh and mainly consisting of Houthi forces,
the Hadi government led by Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi and security forces loyal to
him. The third party is the Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) exerting
influence on around 30% of the country. The Islamic State is also involved
controlling minor territories. Furthermore foreign powers are involved supporting the
different factions. The S u p r e m e Political Council is supported by Iran and the
Hezbollah a n d t h e H a d i government by the Saudi coalition led by Saudi -Arabia
and supported by other Arab countries like Egypt, Morocco, Sudan, Senegal, Jordan
and other countries from the Arab peninsula making it a proxy war between the two
major powers in the region Saudi-Arabia and Iran. The humanitarian situation in
Yemen is very critical at the moment due to the conflict. According to Amnesty
International, around 4600 civilians have been killed and 8000 injured in the conflict
mainly by bombings of the Saudi coalition. About 18.8 million people in Yemen rely
on humanitarian aid. Additionally since 2016 the country suffers from a major
cholera outbreak hitting half a million cases in August 2017 and killing 2000 citizens.
The WHO is already working with UNICEF and local health authorities to tackle the
crisis. As you can see the civil war has severe consequences for the Yemeni people.

Green: Houthi forces

Red: Hadi-led
government
White: AQAP

HISTORY

The beginning of this conflict can be dated back to 2009. From 2009 to 2011 the
government of Yemen was engaged in a conflict with the AQAP which escalated in
2011. In January 2011 the ruling party announced to remove term limits for the
current president Saleh. Inspired by the Arab spring, this announcement triggered
heavy protests forcing then acting president Saleh to sign a deal negotiated by the
Gulf Cooperation Council to resign. Vice-president Hadi was appointed interim
president for two years early 2012. However in September 2014 Saleh took control of
the capital Sanaa with the help of Houthi rebels, overthrow the government of Hadi
and claimed government power. After Saleh’s seizing of power the conflict escalated
quickly and grew into the civil war we see today. Since then the two parties fight for
control of the country especially in the region of Aden and the capital Sanaa.
During that conflict between the two rivalling governments, the IS got involved by
carrying out its first attack in Yemen on the 20th of March. Two suicide bombers
killed 137 people at an attack against Shia mosques. AQAP also profited from the
chaos increasing their influence in the South and midland parts of the country.
However they also lost some of their territory to the IS and the United States began to
commit drone strikes against AQAP in 2017.
On the 26th of March 2015 a Saudi-led coalition announced their support for the
Hadi government and launched operation “Decisive Storm” consisting of airstrikes
and a naval blockade against the Saleh government. This operation ended in May and
was followed by a new operation called “Restoring Hope” continuing the fight
against the Houthi rebels with airstrikes and support for Hadi loyal forces. August the
same year coalition ground forces helped Hadi loyal forces to secure the region of
Aden and drive the Houthi out of the region. However since then the fight is in a
stalemate. The coalition is active until today and supports the Hadi forces with
planes, ships, equipment and training.

There were three peace talks (Switzerland June and December 2015, Kuwait April
2016) supported by the UN and the US but all of them failed. After the failing of the
peace talks in 2016 the coalition continued their airstrikes against the Houthi rebels.
Besides that seven truces were established but all of them were broken.

BELLIGERENTS AND OTHER COMBATENTS

As mentioned above, several different parties are involved in the conflict. We will
now take a closer look at the different actors.

1. The Supreme Political Council

Before the Supreme Political Council came to power, the Houthi rebels formed the so
called Supreme Revolutionary Council which should act as an interim authority for
the country. It was given the task to form a new parliament which should then vote on
a new government. The new parliament General People’s Congress (GPC) then
formed the Supreme Political Council as the new presidential body of the country led
by former president Saleh. The Supreme Revolutionary Council handed over the
power to the new body on the 15th of August 2016. However until today the Council
is not recognized internationally as the government.

In October 2016 the Council also appointed a new government (National Salvation
government) with Abdel-Aziz bin Habtour as prime minister. The ministers were
appointed in November the same year but also this new government is not
internationally recognized. The formation of the government was heavily criticized
because the UN tried to form a unity government and the new government violates
the constitution in view of the UN. The Special Envoy of the UN for Yemen called
the formation “a new and unnecessary obstacle.”

Another speciality to consider is that the Houthi rebels belong to the Shia faith in
contrast to the Sunni dominated government of Hadi. However even though most of
the Yemeni people are Sunni, the Houthi rebels and it allied government have support
among the Sunni population probably due to the general severe situation in the
country.
It is clear that with the formation of a new government only consisting of pro-Saleh
members and Houthi rebels will not be able to unify the country. Therefore it is up to
the delegates how to deal with the internationally not recognized Houthi government
because ignoring is no longer an option.

2. The Hadi government

When the Houthi rebels attacked the capital Sanaa in 2014, president Hadi fled to
Aden and later was forced to leave the country and found exile in Saudi-Arabia. After
Yemeni forces loyal to him secured the region of Aden in August 2015 with support
of coalition forces, Hadi and his government established a temporary home in the city
of Aden claiming to rule the country.

Even though the government is internationally recognized in contrast to the counter

government from the Houthis, Hadi struggles to control the country because of
missing resources and especially missing control over the capital. Furthermore his
government has to deal with a secessionist movement in the South led by former
governor of Aden Aidaroos al-Zubaidi. In May this year they declared their interest
secede which was dismissed by the Hadi government. The government said that a
secession of the country would further strengthen the Houthi rebels and raise the
tensions in the country. The coalition of Saudi-Arabia supported the Southern
Movement with equipment for their struggle against the Houthi rebels however they
don’t support the secession.

The government tries to work closely with the UN in solving the conflicts. The new
Secretary-General Antonio Guterres expressed his support for the Hadi government.
Besides the search for a peaceful solution, the Yemeni forces loyal to Hadi and some
tribal forces continue fighting against the Houthi rebels controlling the north of the
country.

3. Saudi-Arabia and the coalition

As mentioned before, the coalition intervened in the conflict on the sight of Hadi in
March 2015. The main motivational factor is the power struggle between Sunni and
Shia countries in the region. The Houthi rebels are Shia forces and threaten to replace
a former Sunni and therefore pro Saudi-Arabia government with a Shia and pro Iran
government. Therefore it is in the countries interest to intervene and help Hadi and
his government to take back control over the country.

The methods used by the coalition are often criticized since the airstrikes also hit
civilian targets. In a bombing of a village of Mastaba in March 2016 killed around
100 civilians, in August 2016 an airstrike killed around 15 Yemeni students.
Therefore the coalition was criticized heavily by the international community and the
UN for their ruthless approach to fight against the Houthi rebels. Human Rights
Watch even claims that the airstrikes are against international law.
Since the coalition is active until today, Saudi-Arabia is key player.

4. Iran and the Hezbollah

Iran is the other big player in the region besides Saudi-Arabia and is accused of
helping the Shi’ite Houthi rebels in their fight. There is no rock-solid evidence that
the Iran is involved but based on some hints and the geopolitical strategy of the Irani
government in the region in the past we can assume that Iran supports the rebels in
some way.

The scale of support is debated among the different actors; Saudi-Arabia and the US
argue that the increasing influence of Iran justifies the large military intervention
happening right now, others say that the influence of Iran on the Houthi is
exaggerated. For example one of the Houthi commanders admitted that Iran and the
Hezbollah were training his fighters after he surrendered. Furthermore some
interrupted weapon shipments were likely supported by the Irani government. So in
contrast to Saudi-Arabia, Iran is not directly involved in the conflict but supports the
Houthi with weapons, training and technology according to different sources. This is
also more likely since US president Donald Trump makes aggressive statements
about the Irani regime and therefore the regime is clutched between a Saudi-Arabia
and US coalition against it forcing it to act.

5. Islamic terrorist groups

The last actor to address is the Islamic State and AQAP (Al-Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula). As you can see on the map in point 1 AQAP controls or exerts influence
on a large part of the country in the South and East. The United States security
organizations say that AQAP is the most active branch of the Jihadist group formed
by Osama bin Laden. They estimate that the group has around 4000 supporters.
The conflict between AQAP and the Yemeni government is raging since the organization
formed in 2009, when the al-Qaeda branches of Yemen and Saudi-Arabia merged. In 2011
the militia was able to conquer large parts in the south of the country only to be driven back
by a large offensive by a Yemeni offensive in 2012.

Before the civil war, the group was focused on organizing attacks on Western countries. For
example they claimed responsibility for the attack on the magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

After the beginning of the civil war, AQAP was able to increase its influence in the country
heavily however not uncontested. The United States under then president Obama began
drone strikes against the group with one killing the leader Nassar al-Wuhaysi in 2015. He
was succeeded by Qasm al-Rimi. Since Trumps presidency the drone campaign was
expanded heavily. The coalition of Saudi-Arabia, especially forces of the United Arab
Emirates, launched an offensive against AQAP driving them back significantly.

Another contestant is the Islamic State, even though both have the goal of establishing a
Sunni caliphate in the country. The IS announced 2014 that they expand their plans to form a
caliphate in the region into Yemen. AQAP refused to obey to the Islamic State creating a
conflict between the two groups. Furthermore the group fights against the Shi’ite Houthi
forces because of the ideological rivalry between the groups.

As you can see, AQAP is heavily contested in the region by all different sides. The influence
of AQAP had its peak at the beginning of the conflict, since then the groups influence
declined. However some of the tribes and parts of the population don’t see AQAP as
occupiers and are allies or supporters of the militia. They are perceived by some as moderate
Sunni militia because of their careful actions compared to other groups like the IS or al-
Qaeda under bin Laden.

HUMANITARIAN CRISES

Even though as the Security Council our focus is to resolve the conflict and mediate, we will
take a short look at the humanitarian issue since it is a driving motivational factor to get
active in the conflict. The delegates have to decide how far they want to take it into account
during the discussion and in the final resolution.

As mentioned earlier, the Yemeni civilians are experiencing a humanitarian catastrophe. So

far around 7600 people were killed and 46000 injured according to the UN. Amnesty
International estimates that 4600 of the victims were civilians. Furthermore they claim that 3
million lost their homes, and around 18.8 million Yemeni are in need of humanitarian aid.
This includes medical aid and basic needs like food, water and sanitation. The Cholera
outbreak was the latest major incident affecting the population.

The responsibility for that situation is difficult to assess regarding the number of actors
involved in the conflict. However the coalition was often accused to attack civilian targets
like hospitals. Furthermore the Houthi rebels limit the entry of medical or humanitarian aid
into their controlled territory.

ROLE OF UNITED NATIONS AND SECURITY COUNCIL

So far the United Nations Human Rights Council and the Security Council have issued
different resolutions regarding the civil war. Resolution A/HRC/RES/30/18 calls upon the
states involved, especially the government of Yemen to implement measure to secure
civilians in the conflict. However it doesn’t implement any specific measures by itself. The
High Commissioner for Human Rights is regularly reporting to the HRC about the current
situation and is involved by providing technical assistance for governmental institutions and
civil society organizations like the judiciary sector, development and economic, social and
cultural rights.

However more important are the actions taken by the Security Council. They have issued
seven resolutions concerning the crisis, Resolution 2014, 2051, 2140, 2201, 2216, 2266 and
2342. However since most of these resolutions only express the concern of the council about
the current and demand a ceasefire, we will only discuss those resolutions which called for
specific actions.

The resolution 2140 from February 2014, shortly before the outbreak of the civil war, was
the first to call for specific actions by the Council and the international community to tackle
the crisis. First of all, the resolutions established a Committee of the Security Council
(Sanctions Committee) to monitor the freezing of assets or other resources in the member
countries owned by persons designated by this same committee because of their involvement
in the destabilization and manipulating the country and the ongoing political transition.
Furthermore it called for a travel ban for those people.
Resolution 2201 was the first resolution to specifically condemning the actions of the Houthi
rebels in the country and calls for an stop of violence and participation of all parties in UN-
brokered negotiations. Additionally and Arms embargo against the Houthi rebels, other loyal
forces to Saleh and AQAP was established with resolution 2216.

The last two resolutions 2266 and 2342 just renew the measures imposed before (travel ban,
asset freezing and arms embargo), condemning the actions undertaken by the Houthi rebels
and calling for the implementation of the political transition process.

CONCLUSION AND POINTS TO ADDRESS

The civil war in Yemen is one of the most complicated conflicts currently going on with 5
different belligerents each following their own interest. It is the task of this council to define
a path for this conflict to be solved. So far there are already measures in place but they didn’t
achieve lasting peace or a drop of violence. Therefore you as delegates have to think if there
are other possible measures to implement or if you’re in a dead end without any possibilities
left. Some questions the delegates should answer in a resolution:

• How to deal with the Irani government presumably supporting the rebels?

• How to deal with the activity of AQAP in the region?

• Support the coalition bombings harming civilians, condemning them as warcrimes like
other humanitarian organizations or trying to exercise control?

• Is there a possibility to extent the scale of the current measures already employed?

• Would the establishing of an Observation mission (like during the Yemeni civil war
1962), a peacekeeping or training mission by the UN help?

• Is there any possibility to force the Houthi rebels to negotiate and follow the political
transition process established after the resignation of Saleh?

These questions only summarize some problems mentioned in this study guide but have no
claim for being complete. We look forward seeing you and how you as delegates will tackle
the issue.