Wars are not only fought on battlefields; they are also interpreted, reframed, and judged through intellectual traditions shaped by historical experience. For a Pakistani academic, the conflict in Yemen is not merely a regional power struggle involving Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), but a revealing case study in regional security dilemmas, the limitations of coercive diplomacy, and the strategic utility of principled neutrality. Pakistan’s approach to Yemen cannot be reduced to indifference, nor can it be mischaracterized as alliance abandonment. Instead, it reflects a deliberate and historically informed foreign policy posture rooted in conflict resolution theory and middle-power diplomacy.
Parliamentary Oversight and Strategic Culture
A defining feature of Pakistan’s Yemen policy is the unusual yet consequential role of parliamentary oversight in shaping a security-related foreign policy decision. This intervention is emblematic of a broader evolution in Pakistan’s strategic culture. One that increasingly prioritizes stability, de-securitization, and strategic autonomy despite enduring partnerships with Gulf states. In this context, neutrality is not passivity; it is a calculated instrument of statecraft. Operationally, Pakistan’s restraint underscores a keen awareness of the “spillover effects” of regional wars, particularly their capacity to exacerbate domestic sectarian divides and militancy. Given Pakistan’s own vulnerabilities, the Yemen conflict is viewed less as a distant crisis and more as a cautionary mirror.
Lessons on Coercive Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution
Within Pakistani scholarly discourse, Yemen epitomizes the structural limits of coercive diplomacy in civil wars rooted in governance failure, political exclusion, and social fragmentation. Pakistan’s extensive experience with counterinsurgency and reconciliation informs a critical insight: non-state actors embedded in local social orders cannot be decisively defeated through external military force alone. This framework explains Islamabad’s consistent emphasis on dialogue, ceasefires, and UN-led mediation. From this perspective, peace is not a by-product of battlefield superiority but the outcome of negotiated political inclusion.
Saudi Arabia’s involvement in Yemen is generally assessed through the prism of regional security dilemmas. Pakistani academics recognize Riyadh’s perception of strategic encirclement and threats from hostile non-state actors near its borders as rational within realist theory. Yet, this acknowledgement is coupled with a firm critique: prolonged military campaigns tend to generate diminishing strategic returns and mounting legitimacy deficits. The gradual recalibration of Saudi policy from escalation toward diplomatic engagement empirically validates Pakistan’s long-standing argument that force is an inadequate substitute for political settlement in complex civil conflicts.
The UAE and Sub-State Actor Dynamics
By contrast, the UAE receives comparatively limited attention in Pakistani academic analysis, reflecting its secondary importance in Pakistan’s Yemen calculus. Where examined, the focus centers on the destabilizing effects of supporting sub-state actors. Drawing upon state-building literature, Pakistani scholars caution that weakening central political authority—even for short-term tactical gains—undermines post-conflict reconstruction and prolongs instability. This reinforces Pakistan’s normative preference for preserving territorial integrity and centralized negotiation frameworks in conflict resolution processes.
Neutrality as a Strategic Asset
What ultimately distinguishes Pakistan’s position is its conceptualization of neutrality as a strategic asset rather than a marker of disengagement. From an international relations perspective, Pakistan’s posture aligns closely with that of a middle power seeking to preserve diplomatic flexibility while avoiding entrapment in regional rivalries. By maintaining functional relations with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other stakeholders, Pakistan positions itself normatively as a potential facilitator rather than a belligerent. Yemen thus becomes a compelling case study in how non-intervention can enhance a state’s credibility in peacemaking diplomacy.
Humanitarian considerations and international law further reinforce this stance. The scale of civilian suffering in Yemen has sharpened Pakistani concerns about the erosion of humanitarian norms in asymmetric warfare. Although Pakistan has not assumed a leading role in humanitarian operations, its diplomatic position remains closely aligned with calls for humanitarian access and cessation of hostilities. Academically, Yemen highlights the delicate balance between alliance politics and strategic autonomy in Pakistan’s foreign relations. Pakistan’s ability to resist pressure from strategic partners without severing long-term ties demonstrates a sophisticated calibration of autonomy and alignment, challenging simplistic assumptions that its Middle East policy is merely reactive or alliance-driven.
Broader Implications for Conflict Intervention
Ultimately, for Pakistani analysis, Yemen is less about Saudi or Emirati involvement and more about the broader implications of intervention in civil wars. The central lesson is unequivocal: “Conflict can only be resolved through inclusive politics, not through military hegemony and external intervention.” Frequently overlooked in mainstream commentary, Pakistan’s understated conflict resolution approach reflects the imprint of its own hard-earned lessons in managing internal conflict and pursuing reconciliation. Yemen thus stands simultaneously as a tragedy of failed intervention and a quiet validation of Pakistan’s preference for soft-state intervention and negotiated political solutions in intrastate conflicts across the Global South.
Areesha Arshad is a research intern at the West Asia Program, Institute of Regional Studies (IRS) Islamabad. She can be reached at areeshaarshad6677@gmail.com.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.