Member of the Parliamentary Bloc of the Yemeni Islah Party, MP Ali Ashal, said that the continuation of the consultations of the United Nations envoy to Yemen, Hans Grandberg, revolves around the forces surrounding legitimacy without registering a real breakthrough by pressuring the revolutionary party to accept the features of a real and serious political settlement in Yemen, to be a kind of The activity in which the envoy feels some satisfaction with himself only.
Ashal, a member of the Islah delegation in the Amman consultations that took place in Jordan last week, made it clear in his intervention on Suhail TV, Sunday evening, that the continuation of this situation will not achieve a positive result by pushing for a comprehensive political settlement process, as a result of the arrogance faced by the United Nations on both sides. coup d’état.
Representative Ashal indicated that the envoy, Grandberg, is still suffering from difficulties and a state of arrogance on the other side (the Houthi militia), while moving easily with all institutions and forces supporting legitimacy, whether in the political leadership and the government, or political parties, or even regional parties.
He stressed that the envoy suffers from a state of obstruction in reaching the other “coup” party and did not find any response that could be referred to, as he did not reach Sana’a and did not meet with the coup leaders in a real way.
He added that the envoy wants to focus on the parties involved in the legitimacy and the political leadership because he wants to remain active before the world and the United Nations.
And Ashal considered that the envoy Grandberg’s meetings in Jordan recently, and the mobilization of groups of Yemeni figures and political parties to say that his mission is still vital and in a state of permanent movement, and that it will not stop as a result of the obstruction imposed by the coup party, and that he aims through it to give a message that “I am here” and that no He is still practicing his job as peace envoy in Yemen.
On the Islah delegation’s meeting with Granberg in Amman last week, Ashal explained that he focused on a number of ideas related to the envoy’s desire to launch a general framework for a comprehensive political settlement in Yemen, pointing out that the framework for the settlement includes the political track, the political and security track, as well as the economic track. .
He stressed that the Islah delegation explained to the envoy that its position on any comprehensive framework is based on a number of determinants that govern its position in dealing with any negotiations.
He went on to say: “The determinants are that any ideas for a political settlement be based on the three references, which have been governing the course of the political process in Yemen during the past period, and are still the basic constant for any upcoming solution in Yemen, based on the Gulf initiative and its executive mechanism, and the outcomes of the Dialogue Conference.” National Security Council, and UN resolutions, foremost among which is Resolution 2216.
He pointed out that the determinants that Al-Islah explained to the international envoy, based on his vision, is that there should be a hierarchy between the security and military arrangements, and the political arrangements, as the security and military arrangements must be at the forefront of the solution in terms of theoretical agreement on them as well as in terms of their actual arrangement.
MP Ashal indicated that the security and military arrangements are what prepare the appropriate ground for any political arrangements in the future to manage the upcoming transitional process.
He reiterated that hierarchy is very important, and that parallel implementation of any of the different tracks will be extremely difficult if security and military arrangements are not completed.
The reformist leader noted that Islah made it clear to Grandberg that the mandate of the UN envoy stems from resolution 2216, which clearly specified that dialogue exists between the legitimate government recognized by the world, and the coup group, and that restoring the state should be through a serious dialogue between these two parties, in order to win the return of state, and an end to all manifestations that accompanied the coup.
He revealed that the UN envoy Grandberg did not present anything new regarding the general framework of the comprehensive solution negotiations, given that the ideas presented were included in the dialogues that took place in previous negotiating stages.
He said that Kuwait’s negotiations, which lasted for three months, were engaged in issues of political, security and military arrangements, and led to some ideas put forward by the former envoy, “Ismail Ould Cheikh,” and included the various tracks, ideas that the legitimate government delegation dealt with during the last period in a positive way. The failure of those attempts and the refusal to deal with the paper presented for the comprehensive framework is the revolutionary delegation.
Ashal pointed out that the Hodeidah (Stockholm) agreement, which was reached in Sweden at the end of 2018, was a partial agreement and carried signs of the success of the various tracks, and was seeking to arrange the administrative and political conditions in Hodeidah through the return of the local authority and various institutions, including the elected (local councils and others). It includes military and security arrangements related to the supervision of the Ministry of Interior and the return of security forces according to the data of the year 2014, and the supply of economic resources in the governorate to the Central Bank to deliver the salaries of employees and the state fulfills its obligations in the city of Hodeidah, through these resources.
He continued, “Even this partial agreement in Hodeidah, which the UN envoy and the United Nations no longer talk about what was agreed upon in Stockholm, did not find a way to implement it properly.”
Ashal stressed that the delegation explained to the international envoy that the comprehensive framework suffered a major setback when the Hodeidah agreement failed, which could have been a microcosm that could be measured against in the comprehensive political settlement.
He explained that the Houthi militia’s coup against the contents of the Hodeidah Agreement, and the failure of the United Nations to fulfill its duty to follow up the implementation in a real and serious manner, made it difficult to talk today about a comprehensive framework for negotiations, in light of the experience of failure in the Hodeidah Agreement.
.
