The Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdulwahid Abo Ras was reached August 16, 2026 in his office in Sanáa, Yemen, by Ulf Sandmark, Chairman of the Schiller Institute in Sweden also Board member of the Swedish Association Yemen Solidarity.
(Here is an article about the interview. The full transcript in English follows.)
The minister explained why the Ansar Allah Movement under leadership of the Yemeni Revolutionary leader Al-Sayyid Abdul Malik Badruddin Al-Houthi became a part of the government of Yemen and the rescue process for the continuity of the government of the Republic of Yemen. The Parliament, the Judiciary and other services of the Government are in function in Sanáa to this day in spite of revolutionary changes and the genocidal war by the Saudiled Coalition and the USA and UK.
The Saudi aggression in early 2015 incited the Yemen President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi and his Prime Minister to resign and move to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia where he established in exile another “Republic of Yemen Government”, which then became the “internationally recognized government”.
The Minister explained that “the intention of this by the foreign aggressors was to create a complete political vacuum so the country would slide into chaos, but there was a Constitutional Declaration and a Revolutionary Committee to manage the country’s affairs until a joint government was formed by Ansar Allah and their allies, alongside [the former President´s party ed.] the General People’s Congress and its allies. This government was named the ‘Salvation Government’ to lift the overall situation from a tragic state to a normal one.”
However, the Military attack on Yemen then came as a shock March 26th, 2015, by the “Saudi Coalition” of twenty nations with the support of USA, UK and EU. It started the genocidal war causing the, at the time, biggest humanitarian crisis in the world. The exile Hadi government officially ordered this war against their own countrymen. The Gulf Cooperation Council plan to divide Yemen into six parts, was included in the UN Resolution 2216 enabling the war.
The minister: “First, regarding the regions or the structure of the state, there was a drive toward dividing Yemen, but they wanted this division to appear as if it stemmed from within Yemen; because attempting to impose the division of Yemen from the outside is something they knew would never succeed. … We stated that this project leads the country toward fragmentation and the creation of small statelets similar to what exists now in some Gulf states whose areas are smaller than some Yemeni governorates. That was the drive, which we rejected, and there was widespread popular rejection of it.”
The continuity of the earlier governments is ensured.
Minister: “Regarding the state institutions operating in the country, all institutions were indeed targeted during this period, but they have now returned to functioning in a practical, organized, and institutional manner. For instance, the Parliament is located in Sana’a and is fully operational; it held a session and active proceedings just yesterday. Similarly, the Shura Council continues its work with its full membership, and the judicial authority is present with all its organs. Furthermore, all state institutions—including media organizations and civil society institutions—are present. Despite difficult circumstances and scarce resources, these authorities, institutions, and components operate from their primary headquarters in Sana’a, where they were established decades ago.”
Minister: “Lift the blockade on our airports and ports, enable the Yemenis to access their monetary, gas, and natural resources, and the humanitarian suffering caused by the blockade and aggression will be resolved. Instead, the blockade continued and tightened even further during the de-escalation phase. The American side intervened directly, placed Yemenis and Yemeni companies operating in the economic sector on sanctions lists, and civilian infrastructure and civilian objects were targeted by Israeli, American, and British aviation, following earlier attacks by Saudi aviation. As the suffering worsened, Yemenis arrived at the decision that the blockade must be lifted—even by force. Because the party leading this harsh stance was the Saudi side, Yemenis announced a reciprocal blockade on Saudi ports in response to the blockade on Yemen, while remaining ready to lift our measures as soon as the blockade on Yemen is lifted.”
This is what happened when the U.S. and Yemen had the ceasefire in the Red Sea earlier this year.
Minister: “There was no mutual understanding. When we declared our clear stance targeting Israeli ships and Israeli ports in support of the people of Gaza, the American side intervened through aggression. When they reached the conviction that they could not achieve results—that they could not halt our operations, secure Israeli ships, or restore activity to Israeli ports—they were forced to stop.”
“They sent a message through the Omani side stating that they would halt operations. We responded that as long as they cease their attacks, we have no issue and will cease targeting their ships. That was the entirety of the matter; we were not targeting the American side initially, but rather the Israeli side. It was the U.S. that intervened with attacks, so when their aggression stopped, we stopped. There were no direct understandings; we received a message via Oman, and our response was delivered through Oman as well. There is no direct communication with the American side.” …
“We are certain that the U.S. will return to the Red Sea and resume attacks because the core issue remains unresolved. In our view, the core issue in the region is the Palestinian cause. If this cause is not resolved and the Palestinian people are not granted their full rights, the problem will persist. The issue lies in the hostile stance and Israeli expansionist ambitions in the region; unless these ambitions are checked and this presence is ended, the conflict will continue. U.S. actions in the region follow Israeli interests. The U.S. as a nation in the Americas has no inherent conflict with Iran or anyone else; their current conflict with Iran and the Axis of Resistance exists because these forces pose a threat to Israeli ambitions in the region. That is the reality of the situation and the accurate description of events.”
Question: “Your Excellency. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and the president of the International Schiller Institute, has proposed the Extended Oasis Plan, initiating corridors of development across the entire region of West Asia as the basis for peace agreements for all the wars there. How do you evaluate the principle ‘peace through development’?”
Minister: “Yes. In truth, development requires stability, security, and an end to conflicts and military confrontations. However, the problem in our region lies in external interventions. We fully believe that development is an essential path toward peace, stability, and social welfare, but this cannot be achieved amid continuous American ambitions and ongoing Israeli aggression against the wider region.
“Otherwise, we support the path of development, endorse these ideas, and strive toward them. Our peoples need a stable economic environment, secure livelihoods, and all these essentials. Yet, in light of the prevailing situation, Zionist intervention, and the Zionist project in the region, the area is kept distant from this path.”
“We hope that all influential nations, led by China as a pioneer in this field, play an active role in enforcing a path to peace through development projects. We push in this direction and welcome such steps.”
Close cooperation with Oman
Question: “The Foreign Minister His Excellency Badr Albusaidi of your neighbor country, Oman, has put forward a peace solution initiative based on infrastructure development for the whole region. Do you agree with Omani peace proposal? Does Yemen reach out to the nations in the region for peace proposals, especially including the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea shipping and trade? How do you see the integration of the Belt and Road corridors into Southwest Asia and Africa as stepping stones for peace?
Minister: “Yes, yes. First, as explained in the previous answer, we support this path. However, amid these ongoing interventions, we see no real horizon for such initiatives, nor a foundation upon which these projects can rise, unless external interference—primarily American intervention—ceases, and unless the Palestinian issue is resolved as a matter of global justice.”
“There cannot be development while daily killings and blockades continue in Palestine, where the Palestinian people lack the basic necessities of life, let alone talking about regional development. This simply cannot happen in reality. If this issue is not addressed holistically, the problem will persist, and other tracks—primarily the development track—will remain stalled.”
“We support any constructive initiatives. Even regarding the initiative proposed by the Omani Foreign Minister, there was a general welcome from all sides. But the obstacle lies in continuous American aggression. Whenever the Omani side engages with the Iranian side to establish fundamental solutions regarding the Strait of Hormuz and a regional security system, U.S. interventions disrupt these steps. We see this as a calculated, systematic strategy designed to derail any rapprochement among the nations of the region. We in this region are capable of cooperating; we extend our hands to the Omani side and all regional parties, asking them to cease providing a platform for external attacks on our region. We are fully prepared to coordinate on security frameworks, upon which all other development tracks can be built.” …
Closing statement by the Minister: “We thank you very much, and we are ready for future meetings, God willing, regarding any new developments, as well as providing continuous clarifications. We appreciate your practical spirit and your ongoing efforts, which we hope will bear fruit.”
End
The interview was recorded in two videos that soon will be merged into one. Here is a preliminary publication of the first part of the interview: https://youtu.be/v5kNHk72Dc8
The second part is here: https://youtu.be/-JRglTiP4do
Video alternative address of first part: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15bHpL0r_rbqWNqworvgh3wruPLemDylS/view?usp=drivesdk
See the full transcript of the interview below:
Transcript of interview with HE Acting Foreign Minister Abdulwahid Abo Ras, Sanáa, Yemen
By Ulf Sandmark, August 16, 2026, Chairman of the Schiller Institute in Sweden also Board member of the Swedish Association Yemen Solidarity
HE Acting Foreign Minister Abdlwahid Abo Ras here explains why the Ansar Allah Movement under leadership of the Yemeni Revolutionary leader Al-Sayyid Abdul Malik Badruddin Al-Houthi became a part of the government of Yemen and the rescue process for the continuity of the government. The Parliament, the Judiciary and other services of the Government are in function to this day in spite of revolutionary changes and the genocidal war by the Saudiled Coalition and the USA and UK.
The interview was recorded in two videos that soon will be merged into one. Here is a preliminary publication of the first part of the interview: https://youtu.be/v5kNHk72Dc8
The second part is here: https://youtu.be/-JRglTiP4do
Video alternative address of first part: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15bHpL0r_rbqWNqworvgh3wruPLemDylS/view?usp=drivesdk
((Question 1))
Mr. Ulf Sandmark:
Your Excellency Abdulwahid Abo Ras, I thank you very much for this opportunity to talk to you. My question is in the beginning, about a Swedish Public Radio news journalist, as an example. She said on August 8th, she described the Houthis as “an armed group from northern Yemen who took over the capital Sana’a in 2014, which was the beginning of the civil war that was going on for many years,” she said. What is your view of that typical statement in Western media? And why was the government formed then in Sana’a called the Salvation Government?
Minister:
Yes. First, if we want to answer this question, we must go back a little bit into history to understand the background from which Ansar Allah and many components of the Yemeni people moved, and why they took up arms in the first place.
The movement at the beginning of the millennium, in 2002 and 2003, was a purely cultural movement; there was no military activity whatsoever. However, the regime—the authority at that time—launched many wars and arrests, targeting remote villages that lacked basic services from this authority. It launched a very fierce military war against them, to the extent that it did not open roads for the residents of these areas except to allow military campaigns of tanks, armored vehicles, and tracks to pass.
Eventually, the revolutionaries at that time were forced to take up arms to defend themselves. These aggressions continued — and you can review the history of this conflict and these continuous attacks—over six consecutive wars. Initially, parts of the Sa’dah Governorate were targeted, and then the aggression expanded. It initially targeted a specific segment of the Yemeni people, and the circle widened until wars were launched against nearly three or four governorates: Sa’dah Governorate, parts of Hajjah Governorate, parts of ‘Amran Governorate, and Al-Jawf Governorate.
These attacks continued until the regime itself fell into internal dilemmas as a result of its hostile orientation, policies, and activities that targeted the general Yemeni population.
After that, the popular revolution emerged in 2011. Ansar Allah were part of this revolution; they were not the whole or the only component, but rather a part of the revolutionary movement that began in 2011. This revolution continued until 2014, when the government at that time lifted subsidies on many basic necessities amid difficult living conditions and falling income levels for the general Yemeni populace.
Following that, a widespread popular revolution erupted involving all spectra and components of the Yemeni people, with Ansar Allah leading this movement. When the government fell at that time, the target was not even the regime as a whole—it was only the government, through the revolution. The government fell while the existing system remained: the President of the Republic, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, remained in office; the legislative Parliament remained as it was; the judiciary remained intact; and many state institutions remained standing.
The situation continued in this manner, and the Peace and National Partnership Agreement was signed, which encompassed all components of the Yemeni people. It was later agreed to have a collective management of the country’s affairs headed by President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi.
When foreign interventions began prior to the military intervention—meaning political intervention and pressure on the President at that time and on the Prime Minister to submit their resignations and create a complete political vacuum so the country would slide into chaos—there was a Constitutional Declaration and a Revolutionary Committee to manage the country’s affairs until a joint government was formed by Ansar Allah and their allies, alongside [the former President´s party ed.] the General People’s Congress and its allies.
This government was named the “Salvation Government” to lift the overall situation from a tragic state to a normal one. In that moment the aggression was launched against it by the Saudi-American coalition, and we entered a new phase.
((Question 2))
Mr. Ulf Sandmark:
Thank you very much. What, in your view, is—what is your view of the Gulf Cooperation Council plan to divide Yemen into six parts, which is also included in the UN Resolution 2216? The Swedish Public Radio News also said that the Saudi government started the blockade against Yemen 2015 when they went into support of the exile government. What, in your view, of the launching March 26th, 2015, of the bombing campaign “Decisive Storm” by a coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates with the support of United States and United Kingdom causing the starvation crisis in Yemen, which at the time was the worst humanitarian crisis in the world? What is your view of the legitimacy of the UN Security Council Resolution 2216 from April 14, 2015?
Minister:
First, regarding the regions or the structure of the state, there was a drive toward dividing Yemen, but they wanted this division to appear as if it stemmed from within Yemen; because attempting to impose the division of Yemen from the outside is something they knew would never succeed. Such a state structure—regarding the federal dimension of the country—normally comes under a strong central government, significant common ground among the citizens, and the absence of ongoing political issues or conflicts. However, adopting regions amidst existing problems and external intervention will inevitably lead the country toward partition and the secession of these regions.
At the time, we rejected this project entirely. We stated that this project leads the country toward fragmentation and the creation of small statelets similar to what exists now in some Gulf states whose areas are smaller than some Yemeni governorates. That was the drive, which we rejected, and there was widespread popular rejection of it.
There was a real issue —the Southern Issue—that needed to be addressed, and we still believe it requires a solution, but within a national framework away from external interference. Based on that, the shape of the state can be built in a way that fulfills the aspirations and desires of the Yemeni people and remedies past grievances.
As for what is called “Operation Decisive Storm,” which launched the aggression against Yemen on the night of March 26th through the statement of the Saudi Ambassador from Washington, the underlying dimension of this attack was clear. There was a popular revolution that succeeded, and the issue was purely internal. Internal agreements were being reached—to the extent that the UN Envoy at the time, Jamal Benomar, explicitly declared that the Yemenis were on the verge of signing a comprehensive political agreement, but the Saudi aggression thwarted it.
Therefore, this aggression began and continued, plunging the country into a new turn and ongoing suffering. As you mentioned, there is immense humanitarian suffering, and UN and international humanitarian organizations have pointed out that this suffering represents one of the largest humanitarian crises globally. But the problem was that while the crisis was being described, no actual solutions were sought or pursued.
We told them: lift the blockade on our airports and ports, enable the Yemenis to access their monetary, gas, and natural resources, and the humanitarian suffering caused by the blockade and aggression will be resolved. Instead, the blockade continued and tightened even further during the de-escalation phase. The American side intervened directly, placed Yemenis and Yemeni companies operating in the economic sector on sanctions lists, and civilian infrastructure and civilian objects were targeted by Israeli, American, and British aviation, following earlier attacks by Saudi aviation.
As the suffering worsened, Yemenis arrived at the decision that the blockade must be lifted—even by force. Because the party leading this harsh stance was the Saudi side, Yemenis announced a reciprocal blockade on Saudi ports in response to the blockade on Yemen, while remaining ready to lift our measures as soon as the blockade on Yemen is lifted.
Regarding your last question on our stance on UN Security Council Resolution 2216, we view the matter as needing clarification from two aspects:
First Aspect: The Security Council and its Resolutions.
We see that the Security Council often takes a neutral or passive stance when permanent members commit violations or launch wars outside the scope of Security Council resolutions, international community consensus, and the UN system. This is seen in the continuous American aggressions that persist to this day, the unilateral aggression against the Islamic Republic outside the Security Council, the aggression against Venezuela including the abduction of its constitutional president, and the ongoing blockade on Cuba to the point where its people lack basic services. We see no role for the Security Council here because the aggressing party holds veto power within the Council itself. There is a fundamental flaw in this system, and people worldwide are protesting this current setup.
Second Aspect: Reflection on Internal Yemeni Affairs.
Internally, Yemenis do not view this resolution as having legitimate weight because the events were mischaracterized. The revolutionary groups that saved the country from its tragic state were treated as if they were an external party, whereas the external parties that launched the aggression against the Yemeni people were not cited or held accountable at all.
Therefore, we believe this system is flawed and requires reform. We are not alone in holding this view; voices around the world are protesting these actions taken by this organization against certain countries, while crimes and violations—such as what is happening in Gaza and past and ongoing violations of human values, standards, and international laws—take place without any effective or real role from the Security Council.
((Question 3))
Mr. Ulf Sandmark:
Thank you. I want to hear a little bit more about this. Western media calling the Yemeni government as “Houthis”. As you explained, the Ansar Allah movement under the leadership of His Excellency Abdul-Malik al-Houthi is only a prominent party of the government. The government of Yemen is a coalition of more parties. Could you name —what are the—other parties in your government? And what national movements have been made, as you explained, also the institutions that are all now part of the government? And also maybe you could say something about the ancient national institutions that is now part of the Yemeni government and tradition?
Yes, you explained that some of the institutions are now part of the government institutions, and judiciary as you explained and others, are there also other institutions now part of the government like the army, and also even ancient institutions that are and ancient traditions that you are preserving with your government?
Minister:
Yes, yes. The first Yemeni government in Sana’a following the success of the September 21 Revolution was formed by several political forces, most notably Ansar Allah and their allies and partners, alongside the General People’s Congress (GPC) and its allies. The General People’s Congress is an established, long-standing party on the Yemeni political scene and is well-known to all. Consensus was reached regarding the distribution of duties and full power-sharing between these forces and parties.
Regarding the state institutions operating in the country, all institutions were indeed targeted during this period, but they have now returned to functioning in a practical, organized, and institutional manner. For instance, the Parliament is located in Sana’a and is fully operational; it held a session and active proceedings just yesterday. Similarly, the Shura Council continues its work with its full membership, and the judicial authority is present with all its organs. Furthermore, all state institutions—including media organizations and civil society institutions—are present. Despite difficult circumstances and scarce resources, these authorities, institutions, and components operate from their primary headquarters in Sana’a, where they were established decades ago.
((Question 4))
Mr. Ulf Sandmark:
Thank you. Your Excellency, you mentioned Gaza and the Palestinian situation already, but could you say what should be done for the Palestinians? What is your proposal?
Minister:
Yes. First, the injustice in Gaza and the suffering experienced by the Palestinian people generally, and the people of Gaza in particular, is a collective, shared human responsibility for all individuals of conscious conscience, with you at the forefront. We thank you for your noble stances in this regard.
Our responsibility is defined according to our capabilities. Your presence in societies where you can convey this message to your governments is vital. Governments in the West and Europe have contributed very negatively by entrenching this suffering, providing cover for the enemy Israeli entity, and supplying arms and continuous political support. Therefore, your role—and the role of all free individuals—is to spread awareness regarding this injustice and to demand that European governments cease this negative role, which contradicts all human values and universal principles. That is your primary role.
As for our role as peoples of the region, it is to maintain continuous pressure. For example, when Yemen took its honorable stance and imposed a blockade to the best of its ability on Israeli ports, preventing Israeli ships from passing through the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab in an effort to pressure for an end to the genocide, the blockade on Gaza and the suffering nonetheless continue. The voice in Europe needs to be louder and clearer so that everyone hears it and achieves a tangible impact. We believe this is the most effective role for you within your societies at this stage.
((Question 5))
Mr. Ulf Sandmark:
Thank you, Your Excellency. Regarding the Red Sea shipping and international trade, there was also an understanding in the conflict with the United States about it, where you had an understanding with the United States which led to the withdrawal of the US naval forces and a pause in the conflict. What, in concrete terms, did your government agree to, and what did you receive in return from the United States? Can your government’s understanding with the United States about the Red Sea in some ways serve as a model for an agreement between the United States and Iran about the Persian Gulf?
Minister:
Yes. First, there was no mutual understanding. When we declared our clear stance targeting Israeli ships and Israeli ports in support of the people of Gaza, the American side intervened through aggression. When they reached the conviction that they could not achieve results—that they could not halt our operations, secure Israeli ships, or restore activity to Israeli ports—they were forced to stop.
They sent a message through the Omani side stating that they would halt operations. We responded that as long as they cease their attacks, we have no issue and will cease targeting their ships. That was the entirety of the matter; we were not targeting the American side initially, but rather the Israeli side. It was the U.S. that intervened with attacks, so when their aggression stopped, we stopped. There were no direct understandings; we received a message via Oman, and our response was delivered through Oman as well. There is no direct communication with the American side.
Regarding the U.S. position in the region, it is not as though they lack a strategy or are without a plan to navigate this crisis. The U.S. remains committed to providing cover for Israel to execute its plans in the region. This project starts in Palestine and Gaza to eliminate the Palestinian cause, and it is now expanding toward Lebanon and parts of Syria, with further ambitions beyond. We are all aware of the “Greater Israel” project and plans to reshape the Middle East; that is why the U.S. is present in the region. They may pause briefly in one area only to finish a battle elsewhere before returning.
We are certain that the U.S. will return to the Red Sea and resume attacks because the core issue remains unresolved. In our view, the core issue in the region is the Palestinian cause. If this cause is not resolved and the Palestinian people are not granted their full rights, the problem will persist. The issue lies in the hostile stance and Israeli expansionist ambitions in the region; unless these ambitions are checked and this presence is ended, the conflict will continue. U.S. actions in the region follow Israeli interests. The U.S. as a nation in the Americas has no inherent conflict with Iran or anyone else; their current conflict with Iran and the Axis of Resistance exists because these forces pose a threat to Israeli ambitions in the region. That is the reality of the situation and the accurate description of events.
((Question 6))
Mr. Ulf Sandmark:
Thank you, Your Excellency. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and the president of the International Schiller Institute, has proposed the Extended Oasis Plan, initiating corridors of development across the entire region of West Asia as the basis for peace agreements for all the wars there. How do you evaluate the principle “peace through development”?
Minister:
Yes. In truth, development requires stability, security, and an end to conflicts and military confrontations. However, the problem in our region lies in external interventions. We fully believe that development is an essential path toward peace, stability, and social welfare, but this cannot be achieved amid continuous American ambitions and ongoing Israeli aggression against the wider region.
Otherwise, we support the path of development, endorse these ideas, and strive toward them. Our peoples need a stable economic environment, secure livelihoods, and all these essentials. Yet, in light of the prevailing situation, Zionist intervention, and the Zionist project in the region, the area is kept distant from this path.
We hope that all influential nations, led by China as a pioneer in this field, play an active role in enforcing a path to peace through development projects. We push in this direction and welcome such steps.
((Question 7))
Mr. Ulf Sandmark:
Thank you, Your Excellency. Helga Zepp-LaRouche has proposed a new architecture for the security and development of all nations in the world, similar to what you referred to the Chinese President’s proposals of four global initiatives, especially the latest the Global Governance Initiative. And I understand you, you are in favor of that, especially now in the upcoming UN General Assembly in New York. But how would you describe Yemen’s role in the wider regional landscape at this point? The Foreign Minister, His Excellency Badr Albusaidi, of your neighbor country, Oman, has put forward a peace solution initiative based on infrastructure development for the whole region. Do you agree with Omani peace proposal? Does Yemen reach out to the nations in the region for peace proposals, especially including the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea shipping and trade? How do you see the integration of the Belt and Road corridors into Southwest Asia and Africa as stepping stones for peace?
Minister:
Yes, yes. First, as explained in the previous answer, we support this path. However, amid these ongoing interventions, we see no real horizon for such initiatives, nor a foundation upon which these projects can rise, unless external interference—primarily American intervention—ceases, and unless the Palestinian issue is resolved as a matter of global justice. There cannot be development while daily killings and blockades continue in Palestine, where the Palestinian people lack the basic necessities of life, let alone talking about regional development. This simply cannot happen in reality. If this issue is not addressed holistically, the problem will persist, and other tracks—primarily the development track—will remain stalled.
We support any constructive initiatives. Even regarding the initiative proposed by the Omani Foreign Minister, there was a general welcome from all sides. But the obstacle lies in continuous American aggression. Whenever the Omani side engages with the Iranian side to establish fundamental solutions regarding the Strait of Hormuz and a regional security system, U.S. interventions disrupt these steps.
We see this as a calculated, systematic strategy designed to derail any rapprochement among the nations of the region. We in this region are capable of cooperating; we extend our hands to the Omani side and all regional parties, asking them to cease providing a platform for external attacks on our region. We are fully prepared to coordinate on security frameworks, upon which all other development tracks can be built.
Just a brief clarification: there was a Saudi-Iranian agreement brokered by China, which represented a good starting point for resolving many regional files and building cooperation. However, ongoing American attacks launched from Saudi territory and elsewhere damaged that agreement. That is the true picture of the situation. Thank you very much.
((Closing Remarks))
Mr. Ulf Sandmark:
Thank you, Your Excellency, for this extensive interview. I hope we will be able to enlighten the world about the stance of the Yemeni government. And I thank you so much for giving me the time for this, the extensive time.
Minister:
Thank you.
Mr. Ulf Sandmark:
Yeah, شكراً.
Minister:
We thank you very much, and we are ready for future meetings, God willing, regarding any new developments, as well as providing continuous clarifications. We appreciate your practical spirit and your ongoing efforts, which we hope will bear fruit. Thank you very much.
—
