There is more and more talk today about the conclusion of a new Riyadh Agreement with the growing desire of the international community and the need within Yemen to stop the constant fighting and for the conflicting parties to enter into comprehensive political negotiations to resolve the conflict between them.
Here the most important question will be repeated in all its ramifications: Is it logical to conclude a political agreement between the two parties of legitimacy and the Houthis based on the current facts on the ground? Does it seem logical to push the Yemeni legitimacy towards a political partnership with an armed group without neutralizing its superior military capability and taking advantage of the international resolution paper to limit it politically? What is the fate of such an agreement based on a distorted reality and based on fragile ground and unbalanced structure?
In principle, no two people disagree about the need to support any political agreement, as long as it provides the humanitarian needs required by it and puts a serious end to the war that has been going on for years. However, that principle does not give. the right to express several fears that are still manifested, and an agreement of “political necessity” could not, until now, dissipate even a part of it. Important of it.
In all cases, it seems that the coming desire to conclude the agreement will pass, and with it will pass the hopes and fears regarding a new phase that the country is entering, and just as the reality of those hopes will remain dependent on the intentions. of the two parties to the agreement and its sponsors, the reality of its fears will remain present and renewed because of what the previous Riyadh agreements led to and the logic that hides behind it. Stack their things one by one; Far from the language of pessimism or discussions about a negative perspective, as some may understand my perception of such dramatic transformations in the conflict file, I find myself here actually forced to repeat a previous conversation to confirm the validity of those fears and the importance of what I refers in the context of this article:
In his book “The Archeology of Knowledge”, the philosopher Michel Foucault says: “Imagine that you see yourself in a dream and that you are made of glass. When you approach a pillar, you avoid it so that it does not break.”
This means that even in a dream, even in madness, there is logic.
I don’t think we need to confirm here the reality of the madness that the liberated areas have been experiencing since the morning of their liberation until today.
It is enough to stand in front of the scene (the difference in the purchase value of the Yemeni currency between the north of the Houthis and the south of the coalition and the legitimacy) to realize the reality of the madness raging within this crisis. However, the question that has never left me, according to what Foucault imagines in his book, is:
Where is the logic of madness hiding during all the years of conflict in Yemen?
How does the coalition justify the crises of liberated geography, which have been under its rule for eight years?
The spheres of influence of the Yemeni legitimacy supported by the coalition never stopped coming out of one crisis until it entered another.. What is the logic of this?
It’s a mistake!
Missing link here!
But in fact, there seems to be a logic that explains all the events that happened and are happening..!
The leadership of the Arab coalition needs strong winds (another madness) to move the surreal scene (the reality of the madness that already exists), the logic that encapsulates the failure and absurdity that is happening.
It has been evident for some time now that the two poles of the coalition are adopting a policy of (starting battles and starting fires) to hide their failure in the management of the conflict.
And in my opinion! It was not better for them during the past period than to hide behind the banner of the “Riyadh Agreement 1” and the conflict that appeared as a result of preventing its implementation as an example of those policies.
The emerging disputes within the Presidential Leadership Council after the strongly supported step of forming it, and the confirmation of the commitment of its various parties to the texts of the new political partnership agreement “Riyadh Agreement 2” is just one of the winds of madness within the scene of the surrealism of the shaky agreement, and unfortunately the sister affirms, as in the scene of the shaky Riyadh Agreement 1, “that this Logic”.
Now, do you think that the eventual “Riyadh Agreement 3” would present another logic that is different from the logic of previous agreements, especially since it emerges from the facts of war, which are not very different from the facts of its predecessors, if not . more complex than them?
My idea here is simple, which is that “the inputs determine the outputs”, meaning that agreements whose inputs are chaotic forces and absurd facts can only lead to more chaotic and absurd outcomes, even if they bear the names of peace demands and conflict resolution. demands, because the outside world is basically only looking for such a reality. And that environment is to ensure the continuity of his being inside, and perhaps it is the clearest reason to understand the logic of the political agreements sponsored by the outside with that stereotypical; approach to each stage of modifying the Yemeni conflict and not actually solving it, as everyone knows.