UN’s Yemen report is flawed and unfair

Double standards are clearly at play in Yemen. On the one hand we have Resolution 2216 adopted by the UN Security Council in 2015 that imposed sanctions on individuals undermining stability in the country and demanded that the Houthis withdraw from all areas, relinquish arms seized from military and security institutions, cease all actions that fall under the authority of the legitimate government of Yemen and fully implement previous UN Security Council resolutions. On the other we have UN envoy to Yemen Martin Griffiths who seems to be siding with the Houthis and has deliberately overlooked most of the important points made in the resolution.

The latest report on Yemen also disregards the UN resolution and makes a few points that contradict facts on the ground. The report described Abdulmalik Al Houthi as a ‘revolutionist’, and labels Arab coalition’s efforts in Yemen as ‘aggression’.

I was shocked to read the report. It lacks objectivity and authenticity, as most of the information presented seems to have been lifted from social media and not than gathered from the field.

Reason suggests that one must take this report with a pinch of salt and look beyond what is stated to understand the complete picture. Nabil Abdul Hafeez, Undersecretary of the Human Rights Ministry of Yemen, has raised some pertinent questions. In a symposium organised a few days ago by the UAE

Journalist Association, he questioned the international organisations and the

UN for insisting on using Al Hodaida seaport to transport relief materials. Why are they not using other seaports and other airports in the country? There is an airport in Aden that can be used.

Also, why have human rights organisations not moved out of Sanaa yet? Why do they still have their headquarters there? Are they not willingly putting the lives of their envoys and employees in danger by staying put in Sanaa? We all know the area is prone to threats and attacks by the Houthi militia. Do most of these organisations secretly back the Houthis and therefore keep their regional HQs there? These are the questions worth asking.

In comparison, the human rights organisations affiliated with the legitimate Yemeni government are rather weak.

Martin Griffiths report is biased, and blatantly favours the Houthi militias. Griffiths also chose not to attend the peace talks in Geneva, and later decided to be a mouthpiece of the Houthis in front of the international media.

He justified the claims made by the Houthi delegation and laid down his terms for talks.

The UN envoy, the Houthi media arm and their supporters are tampering with facts.

I think there should be some transparency and all details of the meetings that happen behind closed doors must be made public.

The Saudi-led coalition is committed and will continue doing the humanitarian work in Yemen to support our brothers. We will keep fighting and never stop.

But in light of the recent incidents, we now know who has been tampering with the evidence, and who our enemy is and who is our true ally. —

Most of the information seems to have been lifted from social media and not gathered from the field and sources