Why did the WFP decide to stop its aid to Yemen, and what is the relationship between America and the military defeat of the coalition?
The WFP’s decision to reduce aid to Yemen is part of the American pressures on Sana’a and the use of starvation as a political card after the coalition failed to achieve a military victory, according to the Supreme Council for Humanitarian Affairs in Sana’a, North Yemen.
Follow-up / Al-Khabar Al-Yemeni:
The UN recognition that there are still 21 million Yemenis in need of humanitarian aid, with 18 million of them needing it urgently, according to Talaat Al-Sharjabi, the official spokesman for the Supreme Council for Humanitarian Affairs. This is particularly important in light of the ongoing conflict and siege because it is the right of the people affected, and any reduction in aid will make their suffering worse and turn the group that is currently under average conditions into a state of high need.
Regarding the reasons for the WFP’s insistence on pressuring Sana’a to sign a reduction in humanitarian aid, Al-Sharjabi said, The WFP is pressured and did not make decisions in a state of awareness, as there were UN promises that during the escalation period Yemen would witness an increase in humanitarian assistance and providing access to the largest number of beneficiaries, and there are UN reports and briefings that still talk about malnutrition, hunger, and an increase in the humanitarian gap.”
He pointed out that “the WFP’s step doesn’t align with the statements and efforts of the UN to create a suitable environment for extending the truce, and the program realizes that this decision is not correct, so it is trying to find legitimacy for this decision by involving the authorities in Sana’a to make it appear more valid and portray to the world that the authority in Sana’a is the one who made it. This step is irrational and illogical, so it was rejected.”
Al-Sharjabi continued, referring to the WFP’s objectives in making this decision: “The program’s actions align with the current American policy of using starvation as a means of war and pressuring the authorities in Sana’a to pass certain agreements and make concessions, especially since we witnessed the coalition’s military defeat, as they have started using this card as a means of pressure, and this is a distinctly American approach.”