The US envoy alleges the “aggression” countries’ “agreement” to pay salaries; Sanaa warns of intransigence

Less than half a month away from the end of the second extension period of the armistice, Sana’a announced that it may be the last in the event of not reaching an agreement that includes a clear mechanism for paying salaries and leads to the lifting of the siege. The assessment of the implementation of the provisions of the current agreement by the coalition of aggression is still negative, which explains their insistence on sticking to prevarication and blackmail. The new US-made statements pointed out the coalition’s agreement to pay salaries. However, the real test is still the implementation of this on-ground. That is why Sana’a is still keen to clarify this manner by sending successive warning messages to the coalition of aggression regarding the consequences.

An American approval to pay salaries: a new maneuver or a positive sign?!

In a new statement about Envoy Tim Lenderking’s recent visit to the region, the US State Department reported that the envoy had found “a broad agreement that includes payment of civil servant salaries, improved freedom of movement by opening roads, smooth transportation of fuel through ports, and expansion of commercial flights from Sanaa Airport.

An announcement that could represent a positive indication if the United States of America and the countries of aggression have serious intentions to advance and address the humanitarian file (with the motive of avoiding the return of deterrence operations, of course), but there are no real indications of the existence of such intentions, as the intransigence in implementing the provisions of the current agreement for nearly Six months, and previous experiences with US statements in general, reduce the chances of the seriousness of this announcement or at least make it dependent on practical evidence.

This is also confirmed by other paragraphs in the US State Department’s statement, which included repeated attempts to accuse Sana’a of obstructing the implementation of the terms of the agreement, and to present the government of mercenaries as a party sticking to the provisions of the armistice. In addition, it also stipulated a misleading story about the existence of a “new mechanism” that gives them the right to besiege oil ships is a clear indication of keeping Yemen under siege.

This part of the statement (which is the largest part), unlike the previous part, has realistic indications that confirm the United States’ adherence to the path of prevarication and the use of the humanitarian file and the provisions of the current agreement as a pressure card and blackmail, especially with regard to fuel ships, where the forces of aggression are still holding three fuel ships and preventing them from entering the country. Access to the port of Hodeidah, and talking about a “new mechanism” that legalizes the detention of ships at this time is a clear and open attempt to anticipate any progress in this file; In order to keep the siege as a continuous pressure card.

Therefore, the United States is not merely satisfied with just obstructing the implementation of the provisions of the current agreement (on its limitations), but rather seeks to derail any future progress, including the “extended agreement” that its envoy talked about, even if there is actually official approval of the latter.

The insistence on talking repeatedly about the alleged “new mechanism” for the entry of ships during the recent period is a clear indication of the intentions to block any progress regarding the flow of fuel. Also, the experiences of the current truce have clearly revealed that the enemy deals with the issue of flights and the opening of roads in accordance with the interests of its political and military position, which have nothing to do with what is agreed upon. What makes matters worse is the complicity of the United Nations in this, whose envoy had previously made pledges similar to what was announced by the American envoy, but it quickly ignored them and returned to act according to the interests and desires of the countries of aggression.

With regard to salaries, the recent statements of the Minister of Civil Service in the Salvation Government in Sana’a, Salim Al-Maghlis (a few days ago) confirm that this file has not moved yet, and this means that even if the United States and the countries of the aggression have “agreed” to reach an agreement to pay salaries, They likely want to use this “approval” as a negotiating ploy to buy more time without real, tangible progress.

A clear acknowledgment of the creation of the humanitarian crisis

Despite all that, the statement of the US State Department and what it included regarding salaries represents an explicit recognition of the responsibility of the aggression countries for the interruption of employee salaries for years, and their use as a pressure and negotiation card, especially during the past periods, and tries to put the responsibility on Sanaa in front of public opinion.

The envoy’s talk about the aggression countries’ agreement to expand flights and facilitate the entry of fuel is also an additional recognition that the suffering of Yemenis is a result of the closure of the airport and port by them, meaning that the crisis Yemenis are living now was deliberately formed by the coalition of aggression to use it as a weapon and then as a negotiating card.

These confessions, in turn, represent another acknowledgment of Sana’a’s success in imposing its main equation of war and peace on the table and in the field, and in a way that made the enemy find no other way out of its predicament except by acknowledging the legitimacy of Sana’a’s humanitarian demands, whether with regard to the armistice or with regard to ending the war.

Continuous warning messages to the countries of aggression

So far, there has been no official response from Sanaa to what was announced by the US State Department’s statement, which confirms that the matter is still dependent on practical steps to prove the seriousness, and therefore the possibility of the failure of the truce still exists.

This is also confirmed by the successive messages that Sanaa sends militarily and politically to the countries of the coalition of aggression, which stress the closure of the door of prevarication and procrastination and “extension for the sake of extension”, and it warns of severe and unprecedented consequences in the event of a re-escalation.

In this context, the Deputy Foreign Minister of the Salvation Government, Hussain Al-Ezzi, affirmed that: “Ensuring the security and peace of the region requires respect for the rights of the Yemeni people,” noting that “Sana’a’s refusal until this moment from its right to respond in the same hostile way as its opponents is in favor of Sana’a, And an opportunity that should not be wasted.”

He added: “Sana’a’s demands are just and fair, and it is wise not to delay or procrastinate in implementing them.”

The Minister of Defense, Major General Mohammed Nasser Al-Atifi, confirmed a few days ago that the armed forces are ready for a new phase of confrontation that includes protecting the country’s wealth and stopping its looting by the forces of aggression and their mercenaries within the battle of comprehensive liberation, in addition to protecting the sovereignty and maritime entitlements of the country.

Sanaa has sent multiple direct and implicit messages during the past period, stressing that the path of breaking the siege will return with broader battles if the requirements for extending the armistice are not implemented, represented by the payment of salaries from oil and gas revenues, and the lifting of the siege restrictions.