Militarization of the Land: The Examples of Egypt and Yemen

The military administration of the territory of the State and citizens’ security of tenure

Public land, or land owned by the state, is considered one of the issues that give rise to much controversy in the Middle East and North Africa, especially with the increase in population, and the escalation of the conflict on the acquisition and use of land (especially desert land), and the lack of an institutionalized and transparent system of registration and disposition of land.

Military institutions have taken the reins of government in the past decades, and governments have adopted a set of laws and procedures to strengthen government control over public lands and the organization and use of land, especially land located outside the scope of urbanization or planning. Even after those military regimes evolved into civil form, the laws and regulations to protect the military jurisdiction over land have remained inherent in the organization and disposition of public land, or land owned by the state. This military jurisdiction over land has reached the point of undermining the state`s obligation to respect, protect and fulfill secure land tenure for citizens.[1]

This dilemma has been demonstrated most dramatically in the countries of the so-called “Arab Spring.” Notably, Egypt and Yemen have been the focus of disputes over land, because of the failure to address cases of squatting by diverse parties, as well as the increase in crimes of looting public land by officials and influential people. The state’s mismanagement of land and natural resources, including the lack of equitable distribution of natural resources among needy segments of society, has counted among the key factors in the outbreak of protests and uprising against former regimes, the escalation of political crises, and the calls for transitional justice.

Despite the passage of three years since the Arab Spring uprisings, and the attempts to take the initial steps to apply the principles of transitional justice and to engage in constitutional reform processes, the regulation of land use and its domination by military institutions have not been dealt with. That omission is in spite of the many of clashes in recent years between civilians and the military over land tenure, and the seizure of large tracts led to the escalation of these conflicts.

Despite the passage of three years on the Arab Spring uprisings, and the attempts to take the initial steps to apply the principles of transitional justice and to engage in constitutional reform, regulating the use of land involves confronting dominant military institutions. These contradictions remain unaddressed, in spite of the many clashes in recent years between civilians and the military over tenure security and the seizure of large tracts of public or disputed lands.

Egypt :

In the wake of the 1952 revolution , the governing military establishment adopted a set of laws to control public land and take charge of its organization and disposition. However, those laws have adversely affected the rights enshrined under the 1948 Civil Code. Law No. 124 (1958) on the organization of desert land banned individual ownership of desert lands—i.e., those lands located outside the urban planning areas—except by way of inheritance, unless the Minister of Defense explicitly rescinded military claims to it for military purposes. These procedures annulled the right to land tenure established under Article 874 and Article 968 of the previous Civil Code. Subsequent Laws 100 (1964) and 143 (1981),[2] stipulated that desert land is “privately” owned by the state, and may not be owned by way of squatting (adverse possession). As also set forth in articles 35–36 of Law 100 (1964),[3] the Minister of Defense may determine land required for military purposes and expropriate land temporarily, as required for reasons of maintaining the integrity of the state and national security, whether external or internal.

That set of laws and procedures, as well as the control of institutions of the civil state by military figures, have subjected the organization and planning of land to a military function, enabling the military to control 87% of the total land area, in a country where the land registered to owners does not exceed 13%. A series of disputes between the military and some of the groups of Egyptians affected by those laws have arisen from the danger of losing possession of the lands on which they live for decades, or indeed centuries. These cases include the Nile River islands of al-Qursaya and Bain al-Bahrain, the area of al-Dhaba`a (north coast), al-Umshouti village, and the land belonging the al-Qunaishat tribe, as well as the cases related to the infamous corruption and looting of the land by the Pilots` Association.[4]

See video on the case of al-Umshouti Land

Yemen:

The issue of land management and organization in Yemen differs from the situation in the Egyptian state, which has seen the Egyptian military organizations assuming the management of land under the cover of various state entities responsible for the management, organization and planning of public land. However, in Yemen, the mismanagement of land and natural resources actually falls outside the framework of the state. There the management and the organization of land have been subject to individual political decisions based on tribal affiliation and political loyalty, as well as through corruption of the land registration system.[5]

Civil laws regulate public land and real estate, such as the Law 21 (1995) and Law No. 16 (1978), on public domain land and public utilities, and Law No. 1/1995 on the expropriation for public interest. Those laws do not specify the role of the military in the disposition of the public lands as the Egyptian state does. However, Article 30/1 of the law regulating public land and real estate explicitly states that it is permissible to determine the areas of strategic military importance and ban exploitation of land desert by presidential decree, after the approval of the Cabinet upon submission of the Minister of Defense.

However, the most-notable land-grabbing cases in Yemen have evaded laws and have been carried out through corruption and nepotism to control the distribution of land following the reunification in 1990 and in the aftermath of the civil war of 1994. The regime ultimately dominated by the north from Sanaà benefited from the resources of the south by various means, including the confiscation of land and properties, and excluding employees of the South from the organs and institutions state. The former regime nationalized real estate, agricultural and desert land, and appropriated all the public utilities of the state in former South Yemen. These included the military`s economic corporation, YECO, large tracts of land, various parastatal companies, and assets of companies in the oil and gas, pharmaceutical and agriculture sectors. Land holdings lack a transparent registration system, and lands appropriated on the premise of military purposes ended up being distributed to military officers to ensure their loyalty, and the prominent al-Ahmar family assumes effective management of the military’s economic interests.[6]

The northern-dominated regime pillaged prime land holdings and commercial areas under the pretext of housing and commercial projects for senior officials. These included vast tracts of agricultural and semi-agricultural land confiscated under the Land Reform Act, especially in the areas of Aden, Hudaidah, Lahij and Ibaan, and divided them among the military and tribal elite of Sana`a and others close to the ruling regime.[7]

This overview of the situation of the management of land by the military in both Egypt and Yemen highlights the need for reform and to establish a just system consistent with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the principles of human rights and the state`s obligation to respect, protect and fulfill the right of every person in the land to secure tenure. The popular uprisings in the Arab Spring countries have revealed many cases of corruption that have exemplified the land as one of the most-important resources of the state. However, the military administration of the land has continued without sufficient oversight or follow-up to ensure legitimacy and social justice in the disposition of that essential resource.

Reflecting on the militarization of land management in the MENA region, HLRN legal researcher Ahmed Mansour observed “The purpose of military operations must not be to violate the rights of citizens or destroy the natural environment, and land planning must involve the participation of persons likely to be affected as a result, and there transparency and fairness in the distribution of such land and resources should respect the historical rights of the population in the possession of their lands.” He added that, “As with many countries undergoing transition, remedy for the abuses of land and property rights by the ancien régimes in Egypt and Yemen likely will remain the subject of transitional justice processes for years to come.”