The general character of all the UN envoys to Yemen they made great efforts. Most of these efforts were to provide services to the Houthi rebels, where Gamal Ben Omar and Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed are equal in this matter. Ben Omar's mission began with a visit to Saada on 13/12/2011, and his mission did not end only after the fall of the capital Sana'a in the hands of the Houthi rebels in addition to the invasion of the various provinces until Aden. And the mission of Ould Cheikh did not end only after he failed to impose the roadmap adopted by John Kerry, the former US Secretary of State, with Abdul Salam Fleetah, spokesman for the office of rebel leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi.

Martin Griffiths

It was expected that the last UN Secretary-General's envoy to Yemen to commit himself to his limited mission as a mediator between two parties, one of them representing the state's legal authority, while the other representing an outlawed armed rebellion, but he showed a clear bias towards the Houthi rebels.

He has shown respect, admiration and appreciation for the Houthi rebellion and made great efforts to prevent the liberation of Hodeidah and the West Coast in general. He succeeded in ceasing the military operations, and the justification was always the humanitarian aspect, without seeing to the wide tampering practicing by the Houthis at the level of the humanitarian represented in narrowing the diphtheria on the population, digging trenches, damaging water networks, taking civilians as human shields, dealing with populations, using tanks and howitzers amid crowded populated neighborhoods, punishing those who displace and find no shelter, where are forced to return to their homes, tampering with humanitarian aid to the extent burning down a store followed to the World Food program, and with all of these bad actions they committed, the United Nations has not blamed them .

Pampering the insurgency

The international envoy made shuttle visits between Sana'a, Aden, Muscat and Riyadh to persuade the Houthis to agree for starting new consultations until they accepted. More than a month ago, Griffiths announced that the two sides agreeing to come to Geneva on September 6. Action was therefore taken by the United Nations, represented by the same envoy, to start consultations on schedule. The delegation of the legitimate authority had attended ahead of schedule, but the rebel delegation showed its challenge to the United Nations and its envoy by refusing to travel at the last moment, with incredible arguments and unannounced conditions regarding the plane they would fly with to the consultations headquarters, and requested guarantees to return them to Sanaa.

Logically, the reasons for not being present were supposed to have been discussed with Griffith himself, and the allegation with that, at the last-moments, is considered contemptuous of the UN envoy and the United Nations, but Griffiths' handling was shocking and away from all axioms related to his mission!

A clear bias for the rebellion

It is expected in any dealing with insurgents is the presence of the logic of the state, which the UN envoy is well aware of, which means that peace can only be achieved by ending the insurgency and restoring the authority of the state to perform its tasks. That was his message that should have been conveyed to the Houthi rebels, but on the contrary, he made great efforts to raise the stature of the insurgency by equating the rebellion with the legal authority, and to raise the moral of the Houthis in exerting pressure to stop the liberation of Hodeidah.

The origin should be is that after agreement on the date of the consultations, the preparation for that and then the refusal of the rebels to attend is for the UN envoy to announce that the Houthis have broken their pledge to attend the consultations and that they are unwilling to reach peace, but on the contrary (During a press conference held on Saturday, September 8), Griffith stressed that the Houthis wanted to attend consultations and made great efforts to achieve that, but outstanding issues prevented their arrival in Geneva, Switzerland, and he pointed out that this matter does not constitute a principle obstacle to dialogue in the future)!

He said that this does not constitute a principle obstacle, and that conditions that prevented them from coming were an expression of his clear bias for the Houthi rebellion, and encouragement for it to continue the rebellion, because their absence with unconvincing excuses means that they do not want peace.

They accuse him of lying by their behavior; at the same time he shows a clear bias for them that he could not even embellish his behavior. The Houthis made him loses his tact and diplomatic skills, and made him loses his personal status. Here raises a question: Why tends international envoy to this approach?

There is no logical explanation for Griffith's behavior, because logic says that the UN representative must act to implement the Security Council resolutions relating to the situation.

Official position

The position of the official delegation of the Yemeni government recorded clear points. The official position of the delegation was correct, whether by the commitment of the presence before the deadline or by announcing the departure from Geneva through a press conference. Its position was strong by accusing the UN envoy of being biased for the Houthi rebels.

The head of the legitimacy delegation, Khalid al-Yamani, confirms:

• Griffith justified all the actions of the coup.

• The rebels invest the governmental and the international wish for their interests.

• Griffith was in his statements as an advocate for the coup and justifying their acts.

• To make the negotiations fail is not a new behavior to the Houthis.

• We have come on time for the Geneva consultations in the interest of our people.

• We expect the international community to be more serious in dealing with the Houthis.

• The Houthis spoiled Yemen and do not respect any commitment.

The Yemeni government has won this tour with distinction. The Houthi rebels presented the success to the government on a golden plate in return for their failure and the failure of the envoy Griffith to prove that their failure was not a principle obstacle to peace. It was an insult to the UN Secretariat and a personal insult to the UN envoy, which can be summarized as follows:

It is impossible to be a peacemaker for that who is biased for the insurgency.