Thanks to coronavirus, the war in Yemen may be forgotten entirely

The pandemic will enable the UK to continue avoiding scrutiny of its facilitation of this protracted conflict, writes Andrew Smith

A medical worker measures the body temperature of a man at a state-run facility as a precautionary measure to combat Covid-19 on 24 March 2020 in Sana'a, Yemen. (Getty)

The imminent threat of coronavirus could break Yemen’s already fragile healthcare system. The Yemen-based NGO Mwatana for Human Rights warns that following five years of war and a Saudi-led bombardment which has destroyed hospitals, aid facilities and other infrastructure, the country’s healthcare system has “almost collapsed”; it is reportedly operating at 50 per cent capacity. Over recent weeks, the World Health Organisation has increased distribution of protective gear and test equipment to the country in anticipation of an “explosion” of coronavirus cases.

It is not the only pandemic Yemen is worried about. Since cholera first broke out in Yemen in 2017, there have been over 2.3 million suspected cases of the deadly, entirely preventable disease – and this week, Oxfam warned that the months ahead could see a resurgence of cases. According to UNICEF, 18 million Yemeni people lack access to clean water and sanitation, exponentially increasing the risk of both diseases.

Even before these two threats emerged, Yemen was already enduring the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data project estimates that over 100,000 people have been killed as a result of the war – yet that could be a significant underestimate. In 2018, Save the Children found that 85,000 children under the age of five had died of hunger in just the first four years of conflict.

It is a crisis that arms-dealing governments, including the UK, have facilitated. Many of the attacks have been carried out using UK-made fighter jets, bombs and missiles. Since the bombing began five years ago today, the UK has licensed at least £6.3 billion worth of arms to the Saudi-led coalition, with the vast majority going to Saudi forces.

In an unprecedented and damning verdict delivered last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that these arms were licensed illegally. The judgment, which followed a case brought by Campaign Against Arms Trade, set a vitally important legal precedent. However, it has not stopped weapons from being transferred under existing licenses. Nor has it done anything to curb the huge levels of military cooperation and political support that Downing Street and Whitehall have offered to Saudi forces and their coalition partners.

That uncritical support is particularly unlikely to change now that Boris Johnson has won such a strong majority. He has been a long-term supporter of arms sales and of the Saudi authorities. During his time as Foreign Secretary, Johnson personally approved hundreds of millions of pounds worth of arms sales to Saudi forces. This included a bomb license that was approved only three days after Saudi forces hit a food factory, killing 14 people. Shortly after his resignation as Foreign Secretary, he received £14,000 worth of hospitality from Riyadh.

At this time every year, the UK, US and other arms dealing governments send familiar platitudes in which they stress that they want the war to be over before the next anniversary comes around. This is exactly what Dominic Raab said upon visiting the region earlier this month. However, at a time when the levers of government are focused on domestic challenges, the chances of any meaningful engagement with the situation feel even more remote.

The longer the war has endured, the less attention it has received, the more hollow the lofty talk of the various parties involved. Many observers now refer to the conflict as “the forgotten war” – and with a global pandemic underway, the months ahead could see it slip even further down the international agenda.

If there is any positive that might come from this situation, it is that it may concentrate minds in the region, and force warring parties to step back. All major participants in the war have indicated that they are open to supporting a temporary ceasefire in order to focus on the immediate threat posed by the virus. However, a lot of the language they have used has been hedged with references to “de-escalation” and no mechanism has been suggested to ensure it works. Nonetheless, if such a move was successful then it could provide much-needed short-term relief for Yemen and provide a base from which to build a lasting peace.

This war has seen many false dawns and broken promises. Even if a short-term agreement was reached, it will take a far greater degree of political will from all parties to turn the situation around. With such a terrible backdrop, and Yemen’s vulnerable on so many fronts, there are two things Downing Street must do: encourage peace negotiations, and stop arming this brutal war.

Andrew Smith is a spokesperson for Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT).