Yemen’s peace process has a structural blind spot: The south’s political future

Yemen’s prolonged conflict is frequently discussed through the familiar language of ceasefires, military de-escalation, humanitarian assistance and negotiations between the principal armed parties. These are important elements of any effort to end the war. Yet they do not fully explain why successive political initiatives have struggled to establish a durable settlement.

The deeper problem is structural:

Yemen’s crisis is not simply a contest over who controls the central government. It is also a dispute over the nature of the state, the distribution of political authority and the future status of its different regions. Among these questions, the Southern Question remains one of the most consequential and least adequately resolved.

A peace process that postpones this question risks producing an agreement that reduces violence temporarily without resolving the political disagreements capable of generating another conflict. The challenge for regional governments and international mediators is therefore not merely to bring the parties back to the negotiating table, but to design a political framework that addresses the underlying causes of instability.

The Limits of a Narrow Peace Process

Yemen’s war has multiple dimensions, involving competing political projects, regional rivalries, institutional fragmentation and a severe economic crisis. Negotiations focused exclusively on the confrontation between the internationally recognised government and the Houthis cannot, by themselves, resolve every dispute shaping the country’s future.

The United Nations’ efforts to promote a negotiated settlement have helped maintain international attention on diplomacy and the need to reduce violence. Nevertheless, the broader question remains: what political order is a settlement intended to establish, and whose aspirations must it accommodate to remain sustainable?

The distinction matters. An agreement can distribute positions within existing institutions without resolving fundamental disagreements about the legitimacy of those institutions or the territorial structure of the state. It can also establish temporary security arrangements while leaving competing political claims untouched.

Such agreements may create valuable space for diplomacy, but they should not be mistaken for a comprehensive settlement.

The Southern Question illustrates this difficulty.

For many southerners, the issue is not limited to representation within a unified state. It concerns historical experience, political identity, governance, the distribution of resources and the right to determine the South’s future status.

Treating these demands as secondary matters to be addressed after a national agreement has been reached risks placing the most difficult questions at the end of a process that may never reach them.

Why the Southern Question Is Fundamentally Political

The unification of the former North Yemen and South Yemen in 1990 created a new political framework, but it did not permanently settle disagreements over power, representation and the character of the state. The 1994 war deepened divisions, while subsequent grievances contributed to the emergence of a broader southern political movement.

These historical developments do not mean that every southern community shares the same political preferences or supports a single representative. Southern Yemen contains diverse political currents, regional interests and social constituencies. Hadramout, Aden, Shabwa, Lahj, Abyan, Al-Mahra and other southern areas have distinct histories and priorities that any credible settlement must take seriously.

Recognising this diversity is essential. The Southern Question should neither be reduced to the position of one political organisation nor dismissed because southern political actors disagree over leadership, strategy or the desired constitutional outcome.

A sustainable process must create meaningful opportunities for southern participation, allow competing perspectives to be expressed peacefully and establish a credible mechanism for determining the region’s future.

The central principle is that political disagreement should be addressed through an agreed and legitimate process, rather than indefinitely deferred or settled through military pressure.

For international mediators, this requires a more explicit approach to the South. Instead of assuming that its future can be determined automatically through a broader Yemeni agreement, negotiations should establish a dedicated political track with clear objectives, representative participation and a defined timetable.

Without such a framework, the Southern Question is likely to remain a source of uncertainty even if other fronts experience de-escalation.

The Constitutional Declaration: Political Significance and Legal Questions

On 2 January 2026, the Southern Transitional Council, led by Aidarous Al-Zubaidi, announced a constitutional declaration associated with a proposed transitional process for the South. The initiative outlined a two-year period intended to facilitate dialogue and prepare for a popular referendum on self-determination.

The announcement brought the question of southern statehood into sharper focus. It also highlighted the distance between the political aspirations advanced by the Southern Transitional Council and the existing international framework, which continues to recognise the Republic of Yemen as a state.

The declaration should therefore be examined on two distinct levels: its political significance and its legal status.

Politically, it represents an attempt to establish a defined pathway for addressing the South’s future rather than leaving the question open-ended. Its proposed referendum also places popular consent at the centre of the debate, an important consideration in any discussion of self-determination.

Legally and diplomatically, however, a unilateral declaration does not automatically create an internationally recognised state or impose an obligation on other governments to recognise it. The Yemeni government rejected the initiative, and the proposal did not receive an announced endorsement from the United Nations when it was introduced.

These distinctions should not obscure the underlying political question. The absence of immediate international recognition does not eliminate the need to address southern aspirations, just as the announcement of a constitutional framework does not, by itself, settle questions of representation, territorial governance, institutional legitimacy or international law.

The appropriate response is serious diplomatic engagement.

Regional governments and international institutions should examine the declaration’s proposed transitional arrangements, the practical conditions required for a referendum, the participation of different southern constituencies and the safeguards needed to ensure that any political process is peaceful, transparent and credible.

They should also clarify what legal and political steps would be required for any future change in the South’s status to gain wider international acceptance.

This approach would neither prejudge the outcome nor dismiss the initiative without examination. Instead, it would create a framework through which a contested political claim could be addressed through diplomacy rather than renewed confrontation.

International Recognition Must Be Part of a Political Strategy

Calls for international recognition of the South’s political aspirations are likely to remain central to the debate. However, recognition should be understood as part of a broader diplomatic process, not as a substitute for one.

Governments considering the South’s future must weigh the principles of self-determination, territorial integrity, regional stability and the peaceful resolution of disputes. They must also consider the extent to which any proposed arrangement reflects the freely expressed preferences of the population concerned and provides credible protections for those who hold different views.

For supporters of southern independence, the objective should be to secure international engagement with a clear and credible pathway towards self-determination, including the possibility of recognising an independent southern state if the necessary political and legal conditions are met.

That requires more than declarations of support. It requires sustained diplomacy, inclusive southern representation, institutional preparation and an agreed process capable of earning domestic and international confidence.

The international community should not allow the absence of consensus over the final outcome to become a permanent justification for avoiding the question itself.

At the same time, no political actor should assume that recognition can be secured solely through unilateral measures or the establishment of institutions without broader political legitimacy. Durable outcomes require processes that can withstand disagreement and accommodate the interests of affected communities.

The task is therefore to establish a credible route from political aspiration to a peaceful and legitimate determination of status.

Hadramout and the Challenge of Southern Representation

Hadramout illustrates why the future of southern Yemen cannot be approached through a narrow focus on competing political leaderships.

Its geographic position, economic resources, social structures and connections with the wider Gulf give it particular significance. Yet its importance is not merely strategic or economic. Hadramout’s people have their own political interests and expectations concerning local governance, security, resource management and representation.

Any settlement concerning the South must take these interests seriously. A process that assumes a single political organisation can automatically speak for every southern community risks reproducing the very problem that negotiations are intended to solve: the exclusion of significant constituencies from decisions about their future.

This does not mean that southern political aspirations should be fragmented into competing local vetoes. Rather, it means that a credible framework must combine a coherent political process with meaningful guarantees for regional participation and local decision-making.

For Hadramout, this includes transparent arrangements for managing public resources, accountable local institutions, reliable public services and a meaningful role in determining the political and economic future of the region.

These considerations are equally important for the wider South. Political legitimacy cannot be established through slogans alone; it must be reflected in the institutions through which people participate, exercise rights and hold authorities accountable.

A Practical Framework for International Engagement

If international mediators want a settlement capable of lasting beyond an initial reduction in fighting, four steps deserve particular attention.

First, establish a dedicated political track for the Southern Question. Its mandate should explicitly address the South’s future status, political representation and the range of constitutional options available. The process should have a clear timetable and should not be indefinitely subordinated to negotiations on other fronts.

Second, develop an inclusive framework for southern participation. Political parties, regional representatives, civil society and other relevant constituencies should have meaningful opportunities to contribute. Participation must be substantive rather than symbolic, and the process should provide safeguards for peaceful political disagreement.

Third, clarify the legal and diplomatic pathway. The constitutional declaration announced by Al-Zubaidi should be subject to serious examination alongside the wider question of self-determination. International actors should identify the procedures, guarantees and political agreements required for a credible process, without presenting contested legal claims as settled facts.

Fourth, connect political negotiations with economic and institutional recovery. Any future arrangement must address public revenue, local governance, security, infrastructure and the provision of essential services. Political legitimacy is difficult to sustain when people experience persistent economic insecurity and weak public institutions.

These steps would not guarantee agreement. They would, however, make the process more realistic by confronting the questions that a sustainable settlement must ultimately answer.

The Cost of Leaving the Question Unresolved

The international community has understandable reasons to prioritise immediate de-escalation in Yemen. Renewed fighting threatens civilian lives, deepens economic hardship and risks destabilising the wider region, including areas of importance to international maritime trade.

But urgency should not be confused with a preference for temporary arrangements over difficult political decisions.

A settlement that leaves the Southern Question unresolved may reduce violence in the short term while preserving the conditions for future confrontation. Conversely, a serious process addressing the South’s political future could help transform a recurring source of conflict into a structured diplomatic negotiation.

This requires regional governments to recognise that stability cannot be measured solely by the absence of active fighting. It must also be assessed by whether political arrangements are sufficiently credible, inclusive and legitimate to withstand future disputes.

The same principle applies to international policy. Maintaining existing diplomatic formulas simply because they are familiar may appear less risky than reconsidering them. Yet if those formulas fail to accommodate the political realities of Yemen, preserving them indefinitely may carry its own substantial risks.

Conclusion: Peace Requires a Political Answer

Yemen does not need another agreement that postpones the most difficult questions until a later stage. It needs a political process that addresses the causes of conflict and establishes a credible framework for determining the country’s future.

The Southern Question must be treated as a central component of that process. The constitutional declaration announced by Aidarous Al-Zubaidi has brought the debate over southern statehood and self-determination into sharper focus, but its announcement alone cannot resolve the political and legal questions surrounding the South’s future.

Those questions require serious international engagement, inclusive participation, a clear timetable and a peaceful process capable of establishing political legitimacy.

For the international community, the objective should not be to impose a predetermined outcome. It should be to ensure that the South’s future is addressed directly, that its people have a credible opportunity to determine their political status and that any resulting arrangement is pursued through a legitimate and peaceful framework.

The test of diplomacy is not whether it can postpone a difficult dispute. It is whether it can create a process capable of resolving it.

Yemen’s peace process will remain incomplete for as long as the political future of the South remains an unanswered question.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Middle East Monitor.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.