Talk:Southern Transitional Council

RfC: Existence and nature of the STC
There is currently a content dispute among three editors, including myself.

These are current major elements of this dispute regarding the existence of the STC:


 * 1. Does the Southern Transitional Council exist, as an independent organization from the Hadi-led government of Yemen?
 * 2. Is the Southern Movement in fact affiliated to the Southern Transitional Council?
 * 3. Are the Southern Transitional Council's territories on the YCW war map (module) effectively under the control of the Hadi-led government?
 * 4. Is the STC at war with the Hadi-led government?

Please keep in mind that the situation is evolving and keep in mind that the current RfC should generally be limited to these questions, and should not go to questions that cannot be resolved without depending on an answer to one of these four questions. Nuke (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Here is the RfC. I hope it is acceptable and neutral to both of you. Nuke (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Also for anyone reviewing this case, it is important to note that there was a long-held discussion on the Yemeni Civil War article's Talk Page so if you need any further elaboration or just want to take a look at some of the information. Please take a look at the article's talk page. Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct. Thank you for posting this. Nuke (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, leaning to yes. I was going to bring this up actually, because a lot of territories are labelled as yellow randomly on the map.

The issue I have is that while the Southern Movement operates autonomously from Hadi, so do other factions. The tribal structure in Ma'rib for example, while loyal to Hadi, is still autonomous from his government. In Taizz, you have a plethora of Salafi groups that switch sides between Hadi and SM/UAE. In Hudayda such as Mocha and Khokha, the Southern Movement is there along with its main backers the UAE, alongside a lesser known group called the Tehama Movement. These guys want autonomy for Hudayda and the coast, and they appear to be embedded with the SM and UAE.

So even in areas of north Yemen, such as Taizz and Hudayda, you can find armed groups that are allied to the SM against Hadi.

And then we don't know if the SM itself is united. Some subfactions of the SM demand autonomy for Hadhramaut and Mahra from the rest of South Yemen. Their situation with the SM is comparable to the situation of Ma'rib tribes to Hadi, in that they are loyal, yet operate independently.

That said, I think the SM/STC are reasonably autonomous and well defined enough to warrant their own colour on the map, since they have a clear objective rather than a simple alliance of convenience. NightShadeAEB (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, do you think that the yellow of the STC / SM should be displayed on the module and the map ? And for the infobox of the civil war? For the rest, I thank you for your feedback. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess put me down as a maybe. They definitely fulfill the criteria of notability, but their future is not clear, and there is very little actual conflict between them and Hadi forces, which as pointed out also spills over into north Yemen at Taizz. Given that the STC have a clarity of purpose and armed strength on the ground, they definitely deserve to be put as yellow, if not now then in the near future. It may be worthwhile to keep all non-AQ/IS forces as red for simplicity's sake, like we keep all federal Baghdad forces red and both Kurdish parties yellow in Iraq. The STC is just one of many rivals to Hadi, but it's the only one with a united cause and has weight. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Although much of what you have said, has already been discussed on the YCW talk page, one thing that I wanted to clarify is that, wanting autonomy doesn't mean that they're against Hadi, as Hadi was the one that purposed the 6 autonomous regions back in 2014 and is one of the main supporters of this new federalized system. Furthermore, you also acknowledge that the Southern Movement within it's own ranks aren't united, as some have different set of goals (whether that maybe autonomy, like Hadi's plan, or outright independence) yet you say that they have common goals as the STC, which is quite confusing, when you yourself have already acknowledged, there is conflict in between their own ranks. Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that to the extent that Al Islah, who was in the near past, in hiding and fought (at least politically) by the coalition, was on the infobox of the civil war, I think we must do the same for the STC, considering it as a sub-faction, especially as they have a close political agenda. They have a parliament, promised an independence referendum, and so on. For the fact that the Southern Movement is divided, some "factions" should be added in parentheses. But we can not act as if he did not exist. Finally, for Syria, even if Assad does not recognize them, Rojava is often used as a sub-faction of the Syrian camp against Daesh. Also, even if there is reciprocal recognition between Iraqi Kurdistan and the government, besides, Baghdad pays the peshmerga, we consider the Kurds as a sub-section. For the module, since there are sources for the areas controlled by the STC, I think it is useful to keep the yellow.--Panam2014 (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes like I said, factionalism exists even within the northern camp. What makes the Southern Movement unique is that they've had a clarity and unity of purpose since 1994, and are heirs to a formerly independent republic. The southern movement wants not just autonomy, but independence, and they do not raise the would-be federal flag, but the southern autonomist one. I think we can safely say that in a Venn diagram, we would have a giant yellow bubble that includes southern autonomists, southern separatists, and Hadhrami separatists together, for despite their differences, they can still be categorized as a clear movement separate from the rest. Infighting has been rife between Hadi loyalists and STC supporters in Aden, with Hadi sacking their governors and their militias expelling Hadi loyalists from key facilities such as Aden airport. The infighting is still small, but the combination of limited fighting against Hadi (1), historicity (2), weight on the ground (3), and unity/clarity of purpose on southern autonomy (4), would lead us to recognize the STC as a category apart from the rest of Hadi loyalists.
 * It boils down to whether you opt for simplicity or accuracy. It's simpler to just label them all as Hadi loyalists, just as it is simpler to label both PUK and KDP forces as yellow in Iraq. But if you opt for keeping STC as separate, we can't just keep the map as it is now with random cities coloured yellow and others half yellow, and we might have to recognize the expansion of STC loyalists northwards into Mocha and Hudayda, and possibly soon into Bayda as well. And the presence of Salafi militias like Harakat Hasm, which control the district of al Turbah inside Taizz and appear more closely tied to STC than to Hadi, would make this even trickier. Actually Hasm itself appears to be Salafis from South Yemen who entered Taizz, but they aren't categorized as part of the Southern Movement by any source I've read on them. If no consensus can be reached on these straddling issues, then it's better to just keep everything red.
 * All in all, to summarize what I'm saying is, I'm only for making the STC yellow if we're willing to discuss every detail and reach a consensus on straddling issues, such as STC affiliated militias in north Yemen. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I think I understand your stance more clearer now, you are for keeping it yellow, only if all belligerents and factions are shown, and not having some under this "Hadi umbrella" and others shown as independent. Although, I do disagree with you on how you mention the southern movement because according to all reliable sources and Wikipedia itself, the southern movement was created in 2007 to seek greater autonomy or independence. Therefore, it would be absurd to just group them all in one category, because in Hadi's Cabinet there are members of the southern movement. An in the southern movement's defense no region in Yemen has begun to use their federal flags, as the National Dialogue was never fully implemented and according to Hadi's cabinet members, changes can still be made on these points. I also think that the Iraqi Civil War is a better reference, than the Syrian Civil War, to the current Yemeni situation, because it's like you said there has been infighting after the handing over of the Kirkuk Governorate, to the Iraqi forces, but also you have to remember that the reason the PUK and KDP forces are put as one is because they have their own military force (Peshmerga) that consists of both parties, which is independent from the Iraqi government and only takes orders from the Kurdistan regional government. All in all, I think it is best to keep these belligerents red as they are recognized, by the Yemeni Government and the Saudi-Led Co. as apart of the Yemeni National army.  Chilicheese22 (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the STC / SM is a significant group so we can easily display them and not the others. Indeed, they even have parallel executive and legislative institutions that openly call for independence. For the presence of southerners in the government, four days ago Hadi dismissed the last governors and the latest pro-STC ministers. For the southern movement, if it is effectively divided, just write "southern movement (some factions) under the faction of Hadi but also under the faction of the STC.What do you think? --Panam2014 (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * My comment applies only to the map. The map has too many colors/factions (8). This makes it too complicated for our viewers. They will get lost with all the factions. This is an encyclopedia, and we should give a quick idea of what is happening to viewers who are not following closely the conflict. The Syria map has 5 colors and soon maybe 4 if ISIL is completely wiped out. So we need to reduce the number of colors on the map. For this reason, having a yellow color is a bad idea. Let’s stick with the KISS principle. Tradedia talk 05:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I also think that some of the factions shown, need to be removed, because they are based on theories, and no hard evidence to support justification for adding such factions. The ones that I believe that need to be removed are the STC, Saleh forces, and ISIL (in fact there are no dots in the whole map that show ISIL presence, only AQAP). By doing such changes that would get us down to 5 factions and in line with other middle eastern wars, like Syria. Furthermore, I think that keeping the local non aligned forces could prove to be useful, because Yemen is very tribal, and many of the tribes prefer to be neutral as they do not want, areas of clashes to be in there villages and cities. Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not understand CC22's position. All sources consider the STC as a faction with armed forces: Al-Hizam and some part of the southern movement. So its existence is not theoretical. For the rest, Saleh and Daesh have lost all their territories so we can remove them. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not know if you read, what Tradedia wrote on the template's talk page, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that matter, but to claim that the "STC" is a uncontested faction with all sources indicating such, is absurd. Even if we were to take everything you said as 100% factual, it still wouldn't be considered a relevant faction, because it doesn't have a presence of more than 10 objects like Tradedia said. Furthermore, if you read Nightshade's statement on the "STC" he himself, also clarifies that yellow dots were just randomly placed on the map, and if the "STC" is kept as a faction then it would require not only the STC to be broken up into smaller factions (As Al-hizam, Security forces, and the Southern Tribes, loyalties are unknown) but would also require many additional factions to be added in the governorates of Taiz and Hudadyah. You also insinuate on this matter, but you seem to make this connection, that Al-hizam, Security forces, STC, and the Southern Tribes are loyal to UAE therefore they are loyal to each other. Finally, the "STC" is at best, nothing more then a political movement, because last I checked they weren't the ones that took up arms against the Houthis, when they entered Aden, nor were they the ones to kick them out of the Southern Governorates. Chilicheese22 (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe that if the orange and blue is cut from the map, it should suffice. I believe that allowing UAE-backed rebel groups in Yemen to be uniformly colored yellow could be an acceptable compromise, in regards to blue, as all currently-blue groups match this description; in regards to every color however, they are already being discussed on the YCW detailed map talk page. As a rule of thumb, I'd say that once the map has roughly the same amount of colors as the SCW maps, it should be acceptable for simplicity's sake. Nuke (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

STC is a confederation of some groups like Hizam, Security, some factions of Southern Movement, so it is an armed group like Al Islah which is opposed to the saudi led coalition. So it is absurd to denie it existence. For Taiz and Hudaydah, we could add it as a presence. --Panam2014 (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Without being to redundant, even if we were to take everything you said as 100% factual it still wouldn't be considered a relevant faction as there are less than 10 objects in the map. Furthermore, its kind of ironic that you would consider these three separate factions as an confederation, when you deny such reasoning for placing them under Hadi. Lastly, Al-islah is fighting side by side, with Hadi and the Saudi-Led Co. so I really don't understand, what you are trying to imply in that sense. Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The coalition refuses so far to help Al Islah and persecutes them because he considers them to be terrorists because they are members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The three militias are part of the STC as they recognize his authority. And finally, it is not because the STC recognizes Hadi's authority that he is pro-Hadi. Indeed, Hadi is a member of the GPC, but this party was led by Saleh, who was both his rival but these two never sought to exclude the other from the party and Hadi did not try to take the control of the party. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I’ve heard these rumors before, that Al-Islah is not helped by the Saudi Led Co. because they have a connection to the Muslim brotherhood, but these rumors are not true, in fact just a couple days ago Al-Islah met with Mohamed Bin Zayed, and Mohamed Bin Salman, to discuss how they can further military cooperation. . It was also held on the anniversary of the liberation of Marib City (which Al-Islah played a key role in that military operation). Again, I find it ironic/confusing on how you use the same reasoning on excluding the STC from Hadi, as your reasoning for making it independent (i.e. STC recognizes Hadi’s authority, but that is irrelevant, because other sub-factions recognize STC's authority therefore we should consider it independent). Like I said before, your explanation further proves my argument that the STC is at best nothing more than a political party. Lastly, you mention Hadi being a GPC member, but I really don’t understand what you are implying at considering many other former YSP members became part of the GPC in the late 90’s early 2000’s like Ahmed Bin Dagher, and Khaled Bahah. Chilicheese22 (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For Al Islah, it is only now that attempts at rapprochement have been announced. And the Gulf sources announce that Al Islah supposedly cut off his ties with the Muslim brothers. For the rest, this meeting is only symbolic, like Ben Zayed's visit to Ahmed Saleh. But for the rest, Emirati sources themselves in 2016 accused Al Islah of releasing pro-Hadi forces. Finally, the story of recognition of legitimacy is symbolic. For example, in Iraq, the peshmerga fully recognize the Iraqi state but they are still placed in a separate section. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, the reason that Marib was liberated (the only northern governorate to be at least 90% liberated) was because of Al-Islah, and there were multiple reports that they received weapons, training, and logistical support from the Saudi Led Co. As for the disconnect between them and the Gulf countries, it's because they want to have a larger role, then they already have in the Government Of Yemen. Therefore, the Gulf Countries needed some guarantees from Al-Islah to ease their concerns because they don't want to see another Qatar proxy faction (in their eyes). As for your comparison between Al-Islahs meeting and Ahmed Ali's "meeting", I really don't know how you can compare Al-Islahs actual meeting, where they discussed on how they can help to end the Yemen Civil War and further military/political cooperation between them and the Gulf countries, too Mohamed Bin Zayed's visit to Ahmed Ali, where all he does is give his condolences to him on his fathers passing. That's not a "meeting". Lastly, the peshmerga during the course of the Iraqi Civil War (up until October 2017, before the battle of Kirkuk) didn't recognize the Iraqi state so I don't really know what your talking about in that sense. Furthermore, there has been talks of turning them into a small police force and handing over all borders and airports, in exchange for the Kurdistan Regional Government to receive their share of salaries from the Iraqi federal government. Chilicheese22 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For Saleh, whether simple condolence is only an official version. In fact, the United Arab Emirates wants to use Ahmed Saleh and Al Islah to train new militias or armies and defeat the Houthis. Finally, the Iraqi constitution recognizes the Kudistan regional government and its defense forces as an entity subject to the state and as Iraqi officials.--Panam2014 (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is all pure speculation, we can only go off of the official statement, especially when such a matter took place at a funeral, and you literally just said that the UAE/Co. refuses to help Al-Islah out, because of their ties to the Muslim brotherhood, your positions are quite vague/confusing because you continue to change them. Finally, the Iraqi Constitution recognizes a federal state, that allows the right of self-governorship of these autonomous communities (i.e. The Kurds) it does not specifically mention the "KRG" nor does it mention their "defense forces". It also states that all borders and airports must be under federal forces, therefore a clear violation that has led to the current standoff between Iraq and the KRG/Peshmerga. Chilicheese22 (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * please see here. Also,For the KRG, it recognizes Iraqi sovereignty, but not the other way around. Exactly like the STC. Afterwards, whether the STC is a government or an armed group / political movement, it does not really matter whether or not to put it on the infobox. For wars, even militias are put on the infobox. And a militia can have its own colors.--Panam2014 (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Come on, really this is the site you are using, besides the fact that it's in French, if you literally scroll down it's filled with numerous conspiracy theories, on how the UAE is planning to get rid of the Houthis. (i.e creating whole new factions/alliances) Furthermore, the text is only a paragraph long and doesn't explain, where it has received its information from, to help it reach such a conclusion. Finally the "KRG" up until October of 2017 didn't recognize Iraqi sovereignty, and annexed Iraqi land that didn't fall in its region. An its not like the STC because the Iraqi Constitution recognizes the rights of self governorship of the Kurdish community. There is no comparison between the KRG, a faction that has been supported for years by the USA, considered one of the best, Middle Eastern allies to western countries, to the STC an unrecognized political movement. Chilicheese22 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This source claims that the STC has attacked al-Islah, so I doubt they're fighting "side by side" with al-Islah, unless the standard that al-Qaeda and ISIS, fighting "side by side" in the same column of the infobox with a bar of separation, separated on the map, etc. applies, which would mean the STC does in fact exist. Nuke (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No one claimed that they were fighting "side by side" with the "STC", so I really don't know what argument you're trying prove, but here is a more recent example in the YCW where factions switched sides, Pro-Saleh Soldiers were fighting against Al-Islah/Hadi Government, yet they are now in the same column as them. Furthermore, I don't really know what you are implying when saying "which would mean the STC does in fact exist" because the topic of discussion was never about the STC and Al-Islah, it was about the Saudi led Co. and Al-Islah. All in all, you and Panam have differing views, on how the STC functions, as Panam believes the STC is a confederation, of three entities, while your all over the place. Proving once again my point. Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Use control+F to look up the four (soon five) uses of the phrase "side by side" in this talk page. You may be shocked to discover that you posted that exact phrase. I'm not sure if attacking everyone who disagrees with your view as disagreeing with each other is an ad hominem or not but it feels like one. I already made an edit where I stated that the Southern Movement switched sides when it became the STC, and increasingly the STC is becoming even more distant from the Hadi/Saudi coalition, yes. I'll take this as you recanting everything you've said thus far, so please restate what exactly your views are on the questions asked by this RfC again. Nuke (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Though, perhaps I should clarify--if your claim that the STC is part of the Hadi government or whatever is correct, then why are they fighting al-Islah, which is fighting side by side with the Saudi/Hadi coalition? Nuke (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no need to take this discussion so personally, I simply poked holes in your argument, and stated the obvious that there are differing opinions on the matter. Furthermore you, yourself had acknowledged that your positions have been susceptible to change, you can take a look for yourself at the YCW talk page. I don't consider asking a person that has a differing opinion then me to state/restate his stance on how he views the "STC" and its so called alliances, as attacking a person especially when such a stance has been quite vague this whole time. Lastly, I don't believe that you fully understood what I was trying to say, I never denied that I said "side by side" I simply stated that it was between Al-Islah and the Saudi Led Co., the discussion was never about the STC and Al-Islah, yet you continue to put two and two together as if there is a direct correlation between such discussions. I also gave a more recent example which is Pro-Saleh factions who have been fighting Al-Islah/Hadi, yet they are now in the same section as Hadi/Islah, but using your logic they would need to be separated and be considered an independent faction. Chilicheese22 (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is that this is very comparable to the AQAP-ISIS conflict in Yemen, rather than comparable to al-Islah or a unit (or group of them) of the pro-Hadi security forces. They're on the same side but they're not side-by-side. As the Summer Ahmed interview said, the STC has different internal factions. In fact, the council itself seems to be a representative body in which these factions unite with one organization. If they do not exist, then what is the Hadi coalition? Sorry if you got offended or thought anything was a personal attack, as it was not intended to be such. Nuke (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No offense taken, I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't personally attacking you or anyone that has a differing opinion than me. Anyways, my question to you is do you consider the Hadi factions a coalition or alliance? Furthermore, you have acknowledged to some degree that there has been coordination/cooperation between Hadi and the Southern Movement, you've also acknowledged that the Southern Movement is a military faction, whereas the STC is more of a political faction. Chilicheese22 (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say an alliance, I guess, but I don't really think it matters that much. I don't see them as different factions so much as I see al-Hirak as part of the STC.
 * However, in any case, the situation has changed with the Battle of Aden (2018). The STC and Hadi government, regardless of any de jure technicalities, are definitely fighting each other. Nuke (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

what do you think ? --Panam2014 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

First, I would definitely say that they are independent of the government because of the great media attention it has received from the Battle of Aden (2018) and thus formed its own faction.

At 2. I would say yes because it has not been reported by solo efforts of the Southern Movement.

4. Definitely yes

Braganza (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The situation has dramatically changed in the last 24 hours, but I don't think the Southern Movement is apart of the current fighting that is happening on the ground most Arabic sources are saying that it is the Security Belt forces that is fighting with Hadi and Co. (i.e. ) Also is there a reason that the RFC was ended, when they are many question still unanswered? Chilicheese22 (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It states that "the STC's de-facto military wing known as the "Security Belt"" is fighting in Aden, so if it's the STC's security forces fighting, there's no real difference between that and the STC. The RfC is not over yet, as we are clearly demonstrating here by commenting in it. Nuke (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What I meant by that is there is no evidence of cooperation between the SM and the STC during the Battle Of Aden. Furthermore, it shows that an alliance of convenience was made between the STC and Security Belt forces to get rid of Bin Dagher as Security Belt forces, have never taken any orders from the STC. Finally, if you scroll up to the top of this page you will find that the RFC template is no longer there, and has been removed. Chilicheese22 (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't "de facto military wing" imply cooperation? Also, you're right. It expired. Nuke (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, "de facto military wing" doesn't state when cooperation began and to what extent. Also would you like me to start a new RFC or will you do it? Chilicheese22 (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

per sources, Belt forces are part of STC. They recognize Aidarus authority. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Aidarus as leader of the STC has come out in support of Saleh, while Security Belt forces have denounced any Northern soldiers presence. At the very least there may be some friction between the two. Chilicheese22 (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Different context. The members of the belt made these remarks before the battle and northerner for them referred mostly to Al Islah. For the rest, Aidarous did not speak alone about Saleh, the reporter asked him the question and he said he was ready to cooperate with Saleh or any other Nordic against the Houthis.--Panam2014 (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we should have subcolumn for STC/Saleh. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Russia
What is Russia's position towards the STC? During the Cold War, the communist South (officially the Peoples Democratic Republic of Yemen) was a major Soviet ally while the North (officially the yemeni arab republic) was in the American camp. Does russia still support socialism in the middle east? 2A00:23C7:5882:8201:A08B:E67A:A076:F969 (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)