By Nassr Taha Mustapha - Is it possible that political differences make one lose the ability to tackle matters objectively and impartially? This is a question presents itself when you are faced with melancholic readings when specifically political sides appraise each other in their official statements or opinions of their writers who support or defend their stances.
I think the political difference does not necessarily mean the loss of ability to evaluate stances of the other side neutrally and objectively. Also the political difference does not mean using illegitimate means in confronting the adversary. In other words I say that for a time not so short I have been member of the Islah party and used to have a critical vision of some matters inside the party, some of which I published and other some I did not. When I left the party my viewpoints regarding issues did not change and did not consider it as a party void of positives. On the contrary I still believe it is a patriotic party contributed with great roles to serving Yemen. So is it something believable that what I read these days of writings striping President Ali Abdulah Saleh and the General People’s Congress of any positives or accomplishments? It is regrettable and more so when it is issued by people who I think understand the meaning of being fair and objective in evaluation of others.
Even in the worst regimes in the world the situation is not void of some positives. How could this attitude be applied to a regime having much of transparency and spacious areas of the freedom of opinion, granting people the right to openly criticize the president of the republic in the press, and to say everything whether right or wrong? Two weeks ago I wrote an article expressing my astonishment about those who accuse president Saleh of not having done anything in favor of this country throughout the 28 years of his stay in power, to which some have responded angrily as if I have said something I am not allowed to mention.
Actually I was pleased with the controversy the article aroused and enjoyed very much the comments I read in the past issue of Annas newspaper. However, I expected beforehand what can be said in response to what I have written and that the reply will not be discussed with objectivity and with calm nerves and although I have not offended anyone but I was surprised to be offended in addition to reshuffling of cards I did not wish some dear colleagues to do that. On the other hand I did not say all that I have and may frankly not say it out of preserving of values I believe in and principles I adopt.
Moreover, none has discussed the essence of the idea I have submitted. I do not blame them for that because some of them may not be old enough to understand the courses of events in the post-unity years when t Muslim Brotherhood and the Baathists were partners in formulating their features and making their events and partners in many of that period’s decisions. Beside those the Yemen Socialist Party and its allied joined them in 1990 in making features of the three transitional years and the year of crisis and war (August 1993-Juy 1994) whose impact the country is still suffering. When establishment of the Yemen Republic was declared on 22 May 1990, the state’s treasury was in possession of a $ four billion monetary reserve, all of the reserves of the regime that was ruling the northern part of Yemen. By the end of the 1994 summer war the public treasury asset was just $ 90 million, meaning that the state was on the brink of full economic collapse.

You know very well dears who had planned conspiracies against the united Yemen throughout the transitional period and sponsored the zonal and tribal conferences, instigated fanatical feuds, refused results of 1993 elections and prepared for secession and war. Are you going to insist and claim that Ali Abdullah Saleh was behind all that? With any economic concept you want this man to tackle all that horrible collapse in a few years in a country with very weak resources and all its budget does not amount to half of the deficit in any of neighboring oil producing state?
I admit there is financial corruption, which is painful, but the president, the state and the government do not deny it but rather practical steps have been taken to minimize it in cooperation with the international donor establishments. There is poverty that is painful to our dignity, but the president, the state, and the government know it and admit its existence and thee are practical measures t alleviate it. The problem you want to convince us that President Ali Abdullah Saleh is behind the corruption and poverty, as if the country’s situations in the period of pre-1997 were more than great and all of a sudden poverty and corruption landed on it after the abandonment of the governance by the partner and defender of the unity.
Discussion of such issues faithfully needs not only neutrality and objectivity but rather also o a deep reading of all components of the image and its political, economic, social and cultural backgrounds as hey are, not as our whims want. For instance, any beginner in economics knows that the most important means of fighting poverty is to attract external investments and encourage the domestic ones and to provide suitable atmospheres for them as they would create thousands of job opportunities and limit unemployment and consequently alleviate poverty. I had previously written an article on hindrances of investment in the 26 September newspaper and focused on the necessity of curbing the role of who I described as highwaymen who frighten investors and put pressure on them to be partners with them under excuse of protecting them.

So we criticize the negatives as you are but we have to talk about other impediments such as the spread of weapons and wonder about those who until now try to prevent the passing of the law regulating carrying of weapons and many of them are in the opposition. We also query about the role of sedition like that of al-Houthi in frightening investors. I expect there are those who will say that al-Houthi was a member in the GPC ruling party. In this regard I have he right to respond and say if we accept that, so why most of the JMP newspapers have defended him and were about to arouse a thousand seditions for his sake? On the other hand one can question the role of some parties in the opposition in the ideological feeding of those who killed the foreign tourists in Abyan in 1998 and those who blasted the USS Cole destroyer I 2000, as well as those who exploded the French tanker Limburg in 2002. In fact I do not mean here the Islah party but some of the hard line groups it knows, and that contributed intentionally or without intention to such special mobilization. Is it then reasonable to hold president Ali Abdullah Saleh responsible for those events that cause fear of investors and consequently prevent helping the state from taking practical steps in the efforts of fighting unemployment and poverty? We have to acknowledge the heritage of the socialist era in the south and the semi-socialist in the north and the conflicts that followed. We should cite the halt in offering assistance putting heavy burden on the state represented by hundreds of thousands of employees who have changed to poor persons because of the drop in the value of the Yemeni riyal and little resources of the state, and other reasons the economists know. Among those reasons is the big increase of the population. This is the same reason that made the united Germany, the greater and richer state of European countries, pay the price of the burden of unity until now. That is normal. All the countries that were socialist then changed are still paying the price of that change, including Arab countries like Algeria, Egypt and Sudan. Yemen is surely not demanded to be outside this rule.