Yemen Monitor / Newsroom:
In an article published by the Saudi newspaper Al-Riyadh, Saudi writer Dr. Ali Al-Khushaiban asserted that the idea of secession in Yemen is not a realistic option, but rather constitutes a growing strategic threat that extends beyond the country’s internal affairs to endanger stability across the entire Arab region.
Al-Khushaiban clarified that resorting to the military option in the context of secession is a more dangerous threat than it appears on the surface. He pointed out that international experiences with secession have not demonstrated real successes and cannot be applied as some seek to promote in the context of Yemen, which suffers from ongoing internal conflict, a security breakdown, and the intrusive presence of militias supported by external powers.
He indicated that geopolitical analyses, particularly within the strategic context of the Arabian Peninsula, confirm that any border changes in Yemen would have catastrophic effects on regional balances, especially given the sensitive alliances linked to the Red Sea and Horn of Africa region.
He stated that the scenarios promoting the secession of southern Yemen are not based on tangible reality, but stem from both declared and hidden motives, which can only be revealed through strategic risk assessment mechanisms. These mechanisms show that such ideas pose real dangers to the national security of the region.
He noted repeated Saudi affirmations that the “Southern Issue” is a “just cause” and not an obsolete one, indicating that this issue is included in the outcomes of the National Dialogue and is an integral part of any sought-after sustainable political solution, but it does not justify secession.
He emphasized that the field tactics used to exploit geographical vacuums and leverage political pressures cannot achieve a strategic goal like this, especially given the declared international rejection of imposing a new reality in Yemen. The agreed-upon political and international tracks for years continue to prioritize Yemen’s unity and stability as an utmost priority.
He explained that the situation on the ground in Yemen is not heading toward division, as the competing forces on the scene have realized that their objectives are divergent—some are internal, and some are linked to external axes—which weakens the chances of success for any attempt to impose a forced secession.
He affirmed that the collateral risks of the secession idea are not limited to undermining the legitimate government or the political process, but extend to opening the door for forces hostile to the Arab and Islamic region, creating security vacuums exploited by extremist groups to expand their influence, and destabilizing balances in the Horn of Africa.
He added that Saudi efforts to preserve Yemen’s unity and support the legitimate government remain intensive and decisive, and there is no room for sliding toward a secession path that would reshape the geopolitical map of a sensitive region like the Arabian Peninsula.
He stressed that comprehensive dialogue and working to accommodate all political and social spectra within a balanced political framework is the only way to resolve side issues, without resorting to a secession that deepens the crisis and encourages state fragmentation.
He pointed out that the international system, led by the United States, pays direct attention to preventing Yemen from sliding into civil war or chaos, due to its potential repercussions on Red Sea stability, navigation routes, and regional peace negotiations.
He affirmed that the true picture of Yemen, as shown by analyses, is not heading toward division, but toward sustainable unity, built on legitimate political foundations and governance based on law, not on force or geographical expansion.
