The Sweden agreement has become a thing of the past and the United Nations is “naked” and far from integrity


Hussein Al-Sadr

Martin Griffiths introduced the Sweden Agreement within his vision of building peace from below and making peace with local agreements, and this is what was promoted at least by Martin.

In fact, the agreement halted the momentum of a comprehensive war and missed the opportunity to achieve a comprehensive peace.

Martin has left his post and it seems that his theories about building peace from below and building peace through localities are nothing more than nonsense.

It is certain that the United Nations, too, will not adhere to this agreement as a guarantor, and it accomplished it under a humanitarian slogan, or so it was marketed for the agreement.

The United Nations stands completely naked and far from the humanitarian situation in the West and the East. (Marib – the coast).

And just as it is naked and dishonest in the humanitarian aspect, it has also been in the political situation, as during three years it showed all its openness to the Houthi violations in Hodeidah.

The problem of the Yemeni media is that it is preoccupied with nonsense and did not talk about the architects and theorists of the conflict, and in the foreground is the UN.

The Sweden Agreement is a thing of the past

The Sweden agreement was effectively terminated by two of its parties, the first party being the sponsor and guarantor of the agreement, which is the United Nations. In the statement of the Secretary-General, he did not urge the parties to adhere to it, but rather demanded them to avoid harming civilians. Such a statement on the implicit side is the continuation of the conflict.

The second party is the militia, which took the initiative to spread outside the borders of the agreement and completed its overthrow on the ground.

The third party is the Yemeni government, which has not issued a position except for its lack of knowledge and may announce the fall of the agreement in the coming days as a fait accompli..

As a political reality, there is no reason for the legitimacy to adhere to the agreement, given the legitimacy’s complaints about Houthi intransigence and the continuous breach of the agreement.

But the legitimacy’s dissatisfaction with the withdrawal and the lack of consultation with it may delay the announcement of a clear position, and it may turn into inter-legal rivalries in the legitimacy camp…

As for who wins and who loses from the fall of the agreement, this will be determined by the coming days.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *