8 أبريل/نيسان 2010
فاكس: 4879/7055 963 212
السيد بان كى مون
الأمين العام للأمم المتحدة
مبنى الأمانة العامة، غرفة S-3800
نيويورك، 10017
بشأن: مراقبة حقوق الإنسان في الصحراء الغربية وفي مخيمات تندوف بالجزائر
سيادة الأمين العام،
قامت المنظمتان الموقعتان أدناه - هيومن رايتس ووتش ومركز روبرت ف كينيدي للعدالة وحقوق الإنسان - بالعمل بشكل مستفيض على قضايا حقوق الإنسان في الصحراء الغربية. وإذ يساورنا القلق إزاء انتهاكات حقوق الإنسان ضد الصحراويين، فإننا نكتب إليكم لطلب دعمكم، داخل مجلس الأمن الدولي، لإنشاء آلية للأمم المتحدة من شأنها رصد والإبلاغ عن حقوق الإنسان في الصحراء الغربية وفي مخيمات اللاجئين الصحراويين في تندوف بالجزائر. عندما يبت مجلس الأمن ولاية بعثة الأمم المتحدة للاستفتاء في الصحراء الغربية (مينورسو) هذا الشهر، نطلب أن يتم توسيع صلاحياتها لتتضمن رصد حقوق الإنسان في الصحراء الغربية وفي المخيمات في تندوف.
وكان الهدف الرئيسي للمينورسو عند تأسيسها في عام 1991، هو إدارة مقترح التسوية بين المملكة المغربية وجبهة البوليساريو، بما في ذلك الإشراف على وقف إطلاق النار وإجراء استفتاء حول تقرير المصير. ومع ذلك، لما يقرب من عقدين حتى الآن، لم يتم تنفيذ الاستفتاء.
في غضون ذلك، عانى الصحراويون من انتهاكات خطيرة لحقوقهم الفردية والجماعية. وتواصل السلطات المغربية إخضاع هؤلاء الصحراويين، الذين يدعون علنا إلى حق تقرير المصير أو الذين يدينون الانتهاكات المغربية لحقوق الإنسان، لأشكال مختلفة من القمع، بما في ذلك السجن بعد محاكمات غير عادلة، والضرب، وقيود تعسفية على الحق في السفر، والحرمان من الحق في التجمع السلمي وتكوين الجمعيات والتعبير.
إن حالة السيدة أمينتو حيدر، الحاصلة على جائزة روبرت كينيدي لحقوق الإنسان لعام 2008، ذات دلالة. إذ أن السيدة حيدر، الرئيس الحالي لتجمع المدافعين الصحراويين عن حقوق الإنسان، وهي منظمة ترفض السلطات المغربية الاعتراف بها، تعرضت للاختفاء قسرا من عام 1987 حتى عام 1991. وفي 17 يونيو/حزيران 2005، ضربتها الشرطة على رأسها وهي في طريقها إلى مظاهرة، ثم ألقت عليها القبض بينما كانت تغادر المستشفى، حيث تلقت غرزا جراحية، قبل أدانتها من قبل محكمة مغربية في محاكمة غير عادلة بتهمة التحريض على مظاهرات عنيفة والمشاركة فيها، وأمضت سبعة أشهر في السجن قبل الإفراج عنها. وفي 14 نوفمبر/تشرين الثاني 2009، صادر المغرب جواز سفر السيدة حيدر ورحلها إلى جزر الكناري لأنها دوّنت في خانة مكان الإقامة على ورقة دخول الحدود "الصحراء الغربية"، وهي تسمية لا يعترف بها المغرب. ولم يوافق المغرب على عودتها إلى غاية 17 ديسمبر/كانون الأول 2009.
ونشرت منظمات حقوق الإنسان، مثل منظمة العفو الدولية وهيومن رايتس ووتش، منذ فترة طويلة، تقارير عن هذه الانتهاكات لحقوق الإنسان. وأحاط تقرير الأمين العام المؤرخ في 28 يوليو/تموز 2009 المقدم إلى الجمعية العامة علما بمثل هذه التقارير. وعلاوة على ذلك، في عام 2006، أجرى مكتب الأمم المتحدة للمفوضية السامية لحقوق الإنسان بعثة لدراسة حالة حقوق الإنسان في المنطقة، على الرغم من أنها لم تنشر رسميا التقرير الذي أعد بناء على نتائجها.
إن تقريركم الجديد بشأن الصحراء الغربية، بتاريخ أبريل/نيسان 2010، يلاحظ أن "جبهة البوليساريو تدعو إلى آلية رصد للأمم المتحدة [حقوق الإنسان]، وأعرب المغرب عن معارضته للمقترح".
والصحراويون المقيمون في مخيمات اللاجئين النائية التي تديرها البوليساريو في تندوف، يعيشون في حالة من العزلة وسيستفيدون، على غرار سكان الصحراء الغربية، من الحماية الكبيرة التي يمكن أن يوفرها رصد الأمم المتحدة لحقوق الإنسان.
إنه لمن الملائم إلى حد بعيد أن تعطى سلطة مراقبة حقوق الإنسان في الصحراء الغربية وفي مخيمات تندوف لبعثة المينورسو الموجودة بالفعل على أرض الواقع في الصحراء الغربية، وتعمل هناك منذ عام 1991. وتنص أيضا ولاية البعثة صراحة على أنها ستكون محكومة بالمبادئ العامة للأمم المتحدة لحفظ السلام. وتحدد إدارة الأمم المتحدة لعمليات حفظ السلام احترام حقوق الإنسان على أنه عنصر حاسم لتحقيق السلم الدائم وجزء لا يتجزأ من عملياتها. وبالإضافة إلى ذلك، تتيح ولاية البعثة رصد "ضمان القانون والنظام" في الصحراء الغربية. وبالتالي، عدم وجود مراقبة حقوق الإنسان كمكون ضمن البعثة يتعارض مع ولاية البعثة نفسها ومع المبادئ العامة لإدارة عمليات حفظ السلام. علاوة على ذلك، وعلى الرغم من أن رصد حقوق الإنسان هي ميزة معيارية في بعثات حفظ السلام، فإن بعثة المينورسو تعمل ربما كالبعثة المعاصرة لحفظ السلام للأمم المتحدة الوحيدة بدون عنصر مراقبة حقوق الإنسان.
وفي حالة إذا ما قرر مجلس الأمن أن بعثة المينورسو ليست الجهة الأكثر فعالية لتولي هذه الأدوار، فإننا نؤيد تشكيل آلية أخرى للأمم المتحدة للرصد والإبلاغ عن حقوق الإنسان في الصحراء الغربية ومخيمات تندوف. وفي الحالتين، فقد حان الوقت كي تجعل الأمم المتحدة بعثة حفظ السلام هذه متسقة مع بعثات حفظ السلام الأخرى التابعة لها في جميع أنحاء العالم عن طريق ضمان أنها تشمل الرصد والإبلاغ المنتظمين عن انتهاكات حقوق الإنسان.
نشكركم على اهتمامكم بطلبنا.
مع خالص التقدير،
مونيكا كالرا فارما
مديرة مركز روبرت كينيدي لحقوق الإنسان
مركز روبرت ف. كينيدي للعدالة وحقوق الإنسان
سارة ليا ويتسن
المديرة التنفيذية لقسم الشرق الأوسط وشمال أفريقيا
هيومن رايتس ووتش
April 8, 2010
Via Fax: 212 963 7055 / 4879
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General
United Nations
Secretariat Building, Room S-3800
New York, NY 10017
Re: Human Rights Monitoring in Western Sahara and in Camps in Tindouf, Algeria
Your Excellency:
Our organizations, Human Rights Watch and the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice & Human Rights (RFK Center), have an established record of working on human rights issues in Western Sahara. Concerned about human rights violations against the Sahrawi people, we write to urge your support at the UN Security Council for the establishment of a UN mechanism that would monitor and report on human rights in Western Sahara and in the Sahrawi refugee camps in Tindouf, Algeria. When the Security Council reviews the mandate of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) this month, we ask that the mandate be extended to incorporate human rights monitoring in Western Sahara and in the camps in Tindouf.
When founded in 1991, the primary objective of MINURSO was to administer the settlement proposal between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front, including overseeing the ceasefire and the implementation of a referendum on self-determination. However, for almost two decades now, the referendum has not been held.
In the interim, the Sahrawi people have suffered from serious violations of their individual and collective human rights. Moroccan authorities continue to subject those Sahrawis who openly advocate self-determination or who denounce Moroccan human rights violations to various forms of repression, including imprisonment after unfair trials, beatings, arbitrary restrictions on the right to travel, and denial of the right to peaceful assembly, association, and expression.
The case of Ms. Aminatou Haidar, the 2008 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Laureate, is emblematic. Ms. Haidar, currently president of the Collective of Sahrawi Human Rights Defenders, an organization Moroccan authorities have refused to recognize, was forcibly disappeared from 1987 until 1991. On June 17, 2005, police beat her on the head as she was arriving at a demonstration, then arrested her as she left the hospital where she had received stitches for her injury. A Moroccan court then convicted her in an unfair trial on charges of inciting and participating in violent demonstrations. She spent seven months in prison before being freed. On November 14, 2009, Morocco confiscated the passport of Ms. Haidar and summarily deported her to the Canary Islands because she had listed as her place of residence on her border entry form as “Western Sahara”, an appellation Morocco does not recognize. Morocco did not agree to her return until December 17, 2009.
Human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have long reported on these human rights violations. The Secretary-General’s Report of 28 July 2009 to the General Assembly took cognizance of such reports. Further, in 2006, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) conducted a mission to examine the human rights situation in the region, although it never officially published the report it had prepared on its findings.
Your new report on Western Sahara, dated April 2010, notes, “The Frente Polisario called for a United Nations [human rights] monitoring mechanism, and Morocco expressed its opposition.”
Sahrawis residing in the remote Polisario-run refugee camps in Tindouf live in a state of isolation and would, like residents of Western Sahara, benefit from the heightened protection that U.N. human rights monitoring would offer.
It is only fitting that the authority to monitor human rights in Western Sahara and in the camps in Tindouf be given to MINURSO. MINURSO is already present on the ground in Western Sahara, and has operated there since 1991. Also, MINURSO’s mandate explicitly states that MINURSO would be governed by the general principles of United Nations peace-keeping operations. The United Nations Department of Peace-Keeping Operations (DPKO) identifies respect for human rights as a critical component for achieving sustainable peace integral to its operations. The mandate of MINURSO additionally provides for monitoring the “maintenance of law and order” in Western Sahara. The lack of a human rights monitoring component within MINURSO is therefore inconsistent with MINURSO’s own mandate and the general principles of the DPKO. Further, although human rights monitoring is a standard feature in peacekeeping missions, MINURSO operates as perhaps the only contemporary U.N. peacekeeping mission without a human rights component.
In the event that the Security Council determines that MINURSO is not the most effective agency to take on these roles, we would endorse the assignment of another UN mechanism to monitor and report on human rights in Western Sahara and the camps in Tindouf. Either way, it is time for the UN to bring this peacekeeping mission into line with its other peacekeeping missions worldwide by ensuring that includes regular monitoring and reporting of human rights violations.
We thank you for your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
Monika Kalra Varma
Director, RFK Center for Human Rights
Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice & Human Rights
Sarah Leah Whitson
Executive Director, Middle East & North Africa Division
Human Rights Watch
Su Excelencia Ban Ki-Moon
Secretario General
Organización de las Naciones Unidas
Re: Observación de derechos humanos en el Sáhara Occidental y los campamentos de Tinduf, Argelia
Su Excelencia:
Nuestras organizaciones, Human Rights Watch y el Centro Robert F. Kennedy para la Justicia y los Derechos Humanos (RFK Center), han establecido una trayectoria de trabajo en las cuestiones relacionadas con los derechos humanos en el Sáhara Occidental. Movidos por nuestra preocupación acerca de las violaciones de los derechos humanos del pueblo saharaui, nos dirigimos a SE para instarle a que apoye en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU la creación de un mecanismo que observe e informe sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en el Sáhara Occidental y en los campamentos de refugiados saharauis de Tinduf, Argelia. Pedimos que, cuando el Consejo de Seguridad revise este mes el mandato de la Misión de la ONU para el referéndum del Sáhara Occidental (MINURSO), se extienda el mismo para que incorpore la observación de los derechos humanos en el Sáhara Occidental y los campamentos de Tinduf.
Cuando se fundó en 1991, el objetivo principal de la MINURSO era administrar la propuesta de acuerdo entre el Reino de Marruecos y el Frente Polisario, lo que incluía supervisar el alto el fuego y la implementación de un referendo sobre la autodeterminación. No obstante, ya han pasado casi dos décadas y no se ha celebrado el referendo.
Mientras tanto, el pueblo saharaui ha sufrido graves violaciones de sus derechos humanos individuales y colectivos. Las autoridades marroquíes continúan sometiendo a los saharauis que defienden abiertamente la autodeterminación o denuncian las violaciones de los derechos humanos por parte de Marruecos a varias formas de represión, que incluyen el encarcelamiento dictado en juicios injustos, palizas, restricciones del derecho a viajar y negación del derecho de asamblea pacífica, libertad de asociación y libertad de expresión.
El caso de Aminatou Haidar, galardonada con el Premio de Derechos Humanos Robert F. Kennedy de 2008, es emblemático. Haidar, quien preside actualmente el Colectivo de Defensores de los Derechos Humanos Saharauis, una organización que las autoridades marroquíes se han negado a reconocer, desapareció por la fuerza desde 1987 a 1991. El 17 de junio de 2005, la policía la golpeó en la cabeza cuando llegaba a una manifestación, y la arrestó cuando salía del hospital donde habían cosido su herida. Un tribunal marroquí la condenó después en un juicio injusto por incitación y participación en manifestaciones violentas. Pasó siete meses en prisión antes de que la dejaran en libertad. El 14 de noviembre de 2009, Marruecos confiscó su pasaporte y la deportó sumariamente hasta las Islas Canarias, por haber escrito que su lugar de residencia era el "Sáhara Occidental" en el formulario de entrada al país, una denominación que no reconoce Marruecos. Marruecos no aceptó su regreso hasta el 17 de diciembre de 2009.
Las organizaciones de derechos humanos, como Amnistía Internacional y Human Rights Watch, llevan mucho tiempo informando sobre estas violaciones de los derechos humanos. El Informe del Secretario General del 28 de julio de 2009 a la Asamblea General reconoció dichos informes. Es más, en 2006, la Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos (OACDH) realizó una misión para examinar la situación de los derechos humanos en la región, aunque nunca publicó oficialmente el informe que había elaborado sobre sus observaciones.
Su nuevo informe sobre el Sáhara Occidental, con fecha de abril de 2010, señala: "El Frente Polisario solicitó un mecanismo de observación [de derechos humanos] de la ONU, y Marruecos expresó su oposición".
Los saharauis que residen en los remotos campamentos de refugiados de Tinduf viven en condiciones de aislamiento y, al igual que los residentes del Sáhara Occidental, se beneficiarían del aumento de la protección que proporcionaría la observación e informe de los derechos humanos de la ONU.
Lo apropiado es que la autoridad para observar la situación de los derechos humanos en el Sáhara Occidental y en los campamentos de Tinduf resida en MINURSO. La Misión ya tiene presencia sobre el terreno en el Sáhara Occidental, donde lleva operando desde 1991. Además, el mandato de MINURSO declara explícitamente que estará gobernada por los principios generales de las operaciones de mantenimiento de la paz de las Naciones Unidas. El Departamento de Operaciones de Mantenimiento de la Paz (DPKO) de las Naciones Unidas considera que el respeto por los derechos humanos es un componente esencial de sus operaciones para lograr una paz sostenible. El mandato de MINURSO dispone además la observación del "mantenimiento de la ley y el orden" en el Sáhara Occidental. Por lo tanto, la falta de un componente de observación e informe de los derechos humanos dentro de MINURSO es incoherente con su propio mandato y los principios generales del DPKO. Es más, aunque la observación de los derechos humanos es una característica normal de las misiones de mantenimiento de la paz, MINURSO opera quizá como la única misión contemporánea de la ONU sin dicho componente.
En caso de que el Consejo de Seguridad determine que MINURSO no es el organismo más eficaz para asumir estas funciones, respaldaríamos la asignación de otro mecanismo de la ONU para observar e informar sobre la situación de los derechos humanos en el Sáhara Occidental y los campamentos de Tinduf. En cualquiera de los casos, ha llegado el momento de que la ONU armonice esta misión de mantenimiento de la paz con sus otras misiones en todo el mundo asegurándose de que incluya la observación y los informes regulares sobre violaciones de los derechos humanos.
Le agradecemos de antemano su consideración de esta petición.
Atentamente,
Monika Kalra Varma
Directora del Centro RFK de Derechos Humanos
Centro Robert F. Kennedy para la Justicia y los Derechos Humanos
Sarah Leah Whitson
Directora ejecutiva de la División de Oriente Medio y Norte de África
Human Rights Watch
Son Excellence Ban Ki-Moon
Secrétaire général
Nations Unies
Objet : Surveillance des droits humains au Sahara occidental et dans les camps de Tindouf en Algérie
Votre Excellence,
Nos organisations, Human Rights Watch et le Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice & Human Rights (Centre RFK), sont reconnues pour leur travail sur les questions des droits humains au Sahara occidental. Préoccupées par les violations des droits humains à l'encontre des Sahraouis, nous vous écrivons pour solliciter votre soutien au Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU pour la création d'un mécanisme de l'ONU qui surveillerait et rendrait compte de la situation des droits humains au Sahara occidental et dans les camps de réfugiés sahraouis à Tindouf, en Algérie. Au moment où le Conseil de sécurité va réexaminer le mandat de la Mission des Nations Unies pour l'organisation d'un référendum au Sahara occidental (MINURSO) ce mois-ci, nous demandons à ce que ce mandat soit élargi de façon à inclure le contrôle des droits humains au Sahara occidental et dans les camps de Tindouf.
À sa création en 1991, l'objectif principal de la MINURSO était d'administrer la proposition d'accord entre le Royaume du Maroc et le Front Polisario et notamment en veillant au respect du cessez-le-feu et en organisant un référendum sur l'autodétermination. Toutefois, depuis maintenant près de vingt ans, ce référendum n'a toujours pas eu lieu.
Entre-temps, les Sahraouis ont été victimes de graves violations de leurs droits humains individuels et collectifs. Les autorités marocaines continuent de soumettre les Sahraouis, qui plaident ouvertement pour l'autodétermination ou qui dénoncent les violations des droits humains de la part du Maroc, à diverses formes de répression, à savoir des emprisonnements après des procès inéquitables, des passages à tabac, des restrictions arbitraires du droit de voyager et des atteintes aux droits de rassemblement pacifique, d'association et d'expression.
Le cas de Madame Aminatou Haidar, lauréate 2008 du prix Robert F. Kennedy des droits humains, est emblématique. Madame Haidar, actuellement présidente du Collectif des défenseurs sahraouis des droits de l'homme, organisation que les autorités marocaines ont refusé de reconnaître, a été victime de disparition forcée de 1987 à 1991. Le 17 juin 2005, la police l'a frappé à la tête alors qu'elle arrivait sur les lieux d'une manifestation, puis l'a arrêté alors qu'elle sortait de l'hôpital où sa blessure venait d'être recousue. Un tribunal marocain l'a ensuite condamné lors d'un procès inéquitable pour incitation et participation à des manifestations violentes. Elle a passé sept mois en prison avant d'être libérée. Le 14 novembre 2009, le Maroc a confisqué le passeport de Madame Haidar et l'a expulsé de façon sommaire aux Iles Canaries parce que sur son formulaire d'entrée à la frontière elle avait inscrit comme lieu de résidence « Sahara occidental », appellation non reconnue par le Maroc. Le Maroc n'a accepté son retour que le 17 décembre 2009.
Des organisations de défense des droits humains, comme Amnesty International et Human Rights Watch, rendent compte depuis longtemps de ces violations des droits humains. Le rapport du Secrétaire général du 28 juillet 2009 à l'Assemblée générale a pris connaissance de ces rapports. De plus, en 2006, le Haut-commissariat des Nations Unies aux droits de l'Homme (HCDH) a mené une mission pour examiner la situation des droits humains dans la région, bien qu'il n'ait jamais officiellement publié le rapport qu'il avait préparé sur ses conclusions.
Votre nouveau rapport du mois d'avril 2010 sur le Sahara occidental indique : « Le Front Polisario a appelé à un mécanisme de surveillance [des droits humains] des Nations Unies, et le Maroc a exprimé son opposition ».
Les Sahraouis vivant dans les camps de réfugiés reculés gérés par le Polisario à Tindouf sont dans un état d'isolement et ils bénéficieraient, comme les habitants du Sahara occidental, de la protection renforcée que pourrait leur offrir une surveillance des droits humains de l'ONU.
Il n'est que juste que l'autorité pour surveiller les droits humains au Sahara occidental et dans les camps de Tindouf soit attribuée à la MINURSO. La MINURSO est déjà présente sur le terrain au Sahara occidental, et y est active depuis 1991. D'autre part, le mandat de la MINURSO indique de façon explicite qu'elle serait gouvernée par les principes généraux des opérations de maintien de la paix des Nations Unies. Le Département des opérations de maintien de la paix des Nations Unies (DOMP) identifie le respect des droits humains comme une composante cruciale pour atteindre une paix durable, inséparable de ses opérations. Le mandat de la MINURSO prévoit de plus la surveillance de la « maintenance de la loi et de l'ordre » au Sahara occidental. Le manque d'une composante chargée de surveiller les droits humains au sein de la MINURSO est par conséquent en contradiction avec le propre mandat de la MINURSO et les principes généraux du DOMP. De plus, bien que la surveillance des droits humains soit une caractéristique standard des missions de maintien de la paix, la MINURSO fonctionne peut-être comme la seule mission de maintien de la paix de l'ONU contemporaine ne disposant pas d'une composante de défense des droits humains.
Dans l'éventualité où le Conseil de sécurité déterminerait que la MINURSO n'est pas l'agence la plus efficace pour endosser ces rôles, nous approuverions la désignation d'un autre mécanisme de l'ONU pour surveiller et rendre compte des droits humains au Sahara occidental et dans les camps de Tindouf. Quoi qu'il en soit, il est temps pour l'ONU de mettre cette mission de maintien de la paix en accord avec ses autres missions de maintien de la paix dans le monde, en garantissant qu'elle comporte une composante chargée de surveiller et de rendre compte des violations des droits humains.
Nous vous remercions de prendre notre requête en considération.
Veuillez agréer, Votre Excellence, l'expression de notre haute considération.
Monika Kalra Varma
Directrice du Centre RFK pour les droits humains
Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice & Human Rights
Sarah Leah Whitson
Directrice exécutive de la Division Moyen Orient et Afrique du Nord
Human Rights Watch
A Web Site dedicated to the People of Western Sahara and to the Sahrawi Cause.
Pages
▼
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
U.S. Lawmakers Support Illegal Annexation of Western Sahara : By Steven zunes
U.S. Lawmakers Support Illegal Annexation of Western Sahara
Written by Stephen Zunes
Monday, 05 April 2010
Source: Foreign Policy in Focus
In yet another assault on fundamental principles of international law, a bipartisan majority of the Senate has gone on record calling on the United States to endorse Morocco's illegal annexation of Western Sahara, the former Spanish colony invaded by Moroccan forces in 1975 on the verge of its independence. In doing so, the Senate is pressuring the Obama administration to go against a series of UN Security Council resolutions, a landmark decision of the International Court of Justice, and the position of the African Union and most of the United States' closest European allies.
More disturbingly, this effort appears to have the support of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), head of the Senate Intelligence Committee and principal author of the recent Senate letter supporting Moroccan aggrandizement, claims that the two "are on the same wavelength" on the issue.
The letter, signed by 54 senators, insists that the United States endorse Morocco's "autonomy" plan as the means of settling the conflict. As such, the Senate opposes the vast majority of the world's governments and a broad consensus of international legal scholars, who recognize the illegality of such an imposed settlement. More than 75 countries recognize the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), which represents the people of Western Sahara under the leadership of the Polisario Front. The SADR is also a full member state of the African Union, and has governed nearly half of the people in liberated zones in Western Sahara as well as refugee camps in Algeria for nearly 35 years. The majority of Congress, however, wants the United States to pressure Polisario to surrender the Western Saharan people's right to self-determination and accept the sovereignty of a conquering power.
How Much "Autonomy"?
The autonomy plan is based on the assumption that Western Sahara is part of Morocco rather than an occupied territory, and that Morocco is somehow granting part of its sovereign territory a special status. This is a contention that the United Nations, the World Court, the African Union, and a broad consensus of international legal opinion have long rejected. To accept Morocco's autonomy plan would mean that, for the first time since the founding of the UN and the ratification of the UN Charter nearly 65 years ago, the international community would be endorsing the expansion of a country's territory by military force, thereby establishing a very dangerous and destabilizing precedent.
If the people of Western Sahara accepted an autonomy agreement over independence as a result of a free and fair referendum, it would constitute a legitimate act of self-determination. Outstanding UN Security Council resolutions explicitly call for such a referendum (which the Senate letter ignores). However, Morocco has explicitly stated that its autonomy proposal "rules out, by definition, the possibility for the independence option to be submitted" to the people of Western Sahara, the vast majority of whom favor outright independence.
International law aside, there are a number of practical concerns regarding the Moroccan proposal. For instance, centralized autocratic states have rarely respected the autonomy of regional jurisdictions, which has often led to violent conflict. In 1952, the UN granted the British protectorate of Eritrea autonomous status federated with Ethiopia. In 1961, however, the Ethiopian emperor revoked Eritrea's autonomous status, annexing it as his empire's 14th province. The result was a bloody 30-year struggle for independence and subsequent border wars between the two countries. Similarly, the decision of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic to revoke the autonomous status of Kosovo in 1989 led to a decade of repression and resistance, culminating in the NATO war against Yugoslavia in 1999.
Moreover, the Senate-backed Moroccan proposal contains no enforcement mechanisms. Morocco has often broken its promises to the international community, such as in its refusal to allow the UN-mandated referendum for Western Sahara to go forward. Indeed, a close reading of the proposal raises questions about how much autonomy Morocco is even initially offering, such as whether the Western Saharans will control the territory's natural resources or law enforcement beyond local matters. In addition, the proposal appears to indicate that all powers not specifically vested in the autonomous region would remain with the kingdom. Indeed, since the king of Morocco is ultimately vested with absolute authority under Article 19 of the Moroccan constitution, the autonomy proposal's insistence that the Moroccan state "will keep its powers in the royal domains, especially with respect to defense, external relations and the constitutional and religious prerogatives of His Majesty the King" appears to give the monarch considerable latitude in interpretation.
In any case, the people of Western Sahara will not likely accept autonomy rather than independence. For years, they have engaged in largely nonviolent pro-independence protests only to be subjected to mass arrests, beatings, torture, and extra-judicial killings. The Moroccan authorities would not likely change their ways under "autonomy."
That did not stop Clinton from apparently endorsing Morocco's "autonomy" plan during a visit to Morocco last November, a controversial statement cited by the Senate letter's authors to bolster their case. Just days after Clinton's visit, the emboldened Moroccan authorities expelled Aminatou Haidar, Western Sahara's leading pro-independence activist. Haidar's resulting month-long hunger strike nearly killed her before President Barack Obama pressured Morocco to allow her to return.
The Senate Letter
There has long been concern that Morocco's ongoing illegal occupation of Western Sahara, its human rights abuses, and its defiance of the international community has jeopardized attempts to advance the Arab Maghreb Union and other efforts at regional economic integration and security cooperation. However, the Senate letter turns this argument on its head, arguing that the international community's failure to recognize Morocco's annexation of the territory is the cause of the "growing instability in North Africa." The letter ominously warns that "terrorist activities are increasing" in the region, ignoring the fact that the Polisario Front has never engaged in terrorism, even during the years of guerrilla warfare against Moroccan occupation forces between 1975 and 1991. The Polisario has scrupulously observed a ceasefire ever since, despite Morocco breaking its promise to allow for a UN-sponsored referendum. Furthermore, Islamist radicals have little sympathy for the secular Polisario and the relatively liberal version of Islam practiced by most Western Saharans.
The letter's signatories included 24 Republicans, including ranking Intelligence Committee member Kit Bond (R-MO), Assistant Minority Leader Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and John McCain (R-AZ). There were also 30 Democratic signatories of the letter, including such erstwhile liberals as Ron Wyden (D-OR), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Carl Levin (D-MI), and Mark Udall (D-CO). Not surprisingly, most of the signers have also gone on record defending Israel's occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory, and previously supported Indonesia's occupation of East Timor. A majority of the signatories also voted to authorize the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. When a majority of the Senate goes on record calling on the administration to pursue a policy that fundamentally denies an entire nation its right to self-determination, undermines the UN Charter and other basic principles of international law, and challenges a series of UN Security Council resolutions, it shows just how far to the right this Democratic-controlled body has become.
U.S. support for Indonesia's occupation of East Timor didn't end until human rights activists made it politically difficult for the Clinton administration and members of Congress to continue backing it. Similarly, voters who care about human rights and international law must make it clear they won't support any lawmaker who favors the right of conquest over the right of self-determination.
Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy in Focus senior analyst, is a professor of Politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco. He is the author, along with Jacob Mundy, of the forthcoming Western Sahara: War, Nationalism, and Conflict Irresolution (Syracuse University Press).
Written by Stephen Zunes
Monday, 05 April 2010
Source: Foreign Policy in Focus
In yet another assault on fundamental principles of international law, a bipartisan majority of the Senate has gone on record calling on the United States to endorse Morocco's illegal annexation of Western Sahara, the former Spanish colony invaded by Moroccan forces in 1975 on the verge of its independence. In doing so, the Senate is pressuring the Obama administration to go against a series of UN Security Council resolutions, a landmark decision of the International Court of Justice, and the position of the African Union and most of the United States' closest European allies.
More disturbingly, this effort appears to have the support of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), head of the Senate Intelligence Committee and principal author of the recent Senate letter supporting Moroccan aggrandizement, claims that the two "are on the same wavelength" on the issue.
The letter, signed by 54 senators, insists that the United States endorse Morocco's "autonomy" plan as the means of settling the conflict. As such, the Senate opposes the vast majority of the world's governments and a broad consensus of international legal scholars, who recognize the illegality of such an imposed settlement. More than 75 countries recognize the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), which represents the people of Western Sahara under the leadership of the Polisario Front. The SADR is also a full member state of the African Union, and has governed nearly half of the people in liberated zones in Western Sahara as well as refugee camps in Algeria for nearly 35 years. The majority of Congress, however, wants the United States to pressure Polisario to surrender the Western Saharan people's right to self-determination and accept the sovereignty of a conquering power.
How Much "Autonomy"?
The autonomy plan is based on the assumption that Western Sahara is part of Morocco rather than an occupied territory, and that Morocco is somehow granting part of its sovereign territory a special status. This is a contention that the United Nations, the World Court, the African Union, and a broad consensus of international legal opinion have long rejected. To accept Morocco's autonomy plan would mean that, for the first time since the founding of the UN and the ratification of the UN Charter nearly 65 years ago, the international community would be endorsing the expansion of a country's territory by military force, thereby establishing a very dangerous and destabilizing precedent.
If the people of Western Sahara accepted an autonomy agreement over independence as a result of a free and fair referendum, it would constitute a legitimate act of self-determination. Outstanding UN Security Council resolutions explicitly call for such a referendum (which the Senate letter ignores). However, Morocco has explicitly stated that its autonomy proposal "rules out, by definition, the possibility for the independence option to be submitted" to the people of Western Sahara, the vast majority of whom favor outright independence.
International law aside, there are a number of practical concerns regarding the Moroccan proposal. For instance, centralized autocratic states have rarely respected the autonomy of regional jurisdictions, which has often led to violent conflict. In 1952, the UN granted the British protectorate of Eritrea autonomous status federated with Ethiopia. In 1961, however, the Ethiopian emperor revoked Eritrea's autonomous status, annexing it as his empire's 14th province. The result was a bloody 30-year struggle for independence and subsequent border wars between the two countries. Similarly, the decision of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic to revoke the autonomous status of Kosovo in 1989 led to a decade of repression and resistance, culminating in the NATO war against Yugoslavia in 1999.
Moreover, the Senate-backed Moroccan proposal contains no enforcement mechanisms. Morocco has often broken its promises to the international community, such as in its refusal to allow the UN-mandated referendum for Western Sahara to go forward. Indeed, a close reading of the proposal raises questions about how much autonomy Morocco is even initially offering, such as whether the Western Saharans will control the territory's natural resources or law enforcement beyond local matters. In addition, the proposal appears to indicate that all powers not specifically vested in the autonomous region would remain with the kingdom. Indeed, since the king of Morocco is ultimately vested with absolute authority under Article 19 of the Moroccan constitution, the autonomy proposal's insistence that the Moroccan state "will keep its powers in the royal domains, especially with respect to defense, external relations and the constitutional and religious prerogatives of His Majesty the King" appears to give the monarch considerable latitude in interpretation.
In any case, the people of Western Sahara will not likely accept autonomy rather than independence. For years, they have engaged in largely nonviolent pro-independence protests only to be subjected to mass arrests, beatings, torture, and extra-judicial killings. The Moroccan authorities would not likely change their ways under "autonomy."
That did not stop Clinton from apparently endorsing Morocco's "autonomy" plan during a visit to Morocco last November, a controversial statement cited by the Senate letter's authors to bolster their case. Just days after Clinton's visit, the emboldened Moroccan authorities expelled Aminatou Haidar, Western Sahara's leading pro-independence activist. Haidar's resulting month-long hunger strike nearly killed her before President Barack Obama pressured Morocco to allow her to return.
The Senate Letter
There has long been concern that Morocco's ongoing illegal occupation of Western Sahara, its human rights abuses, and its defiance of the international community has jeopardized attempts to advance the Arab Maghreb Union and other efforts at regional economic integration and security cooperation. However, the Senate letter turns this argument on its head, arguing that the international community's failure to recognize Morocco's annexation of the territory is the cause of the "growing instability in North Africa." The letter ominously warns that "terrorist activities are increasing" in the region, ignoring the fact that the Polisario Front has never engaged in terrorism, even during the years of guerrilla warfare against Moroccan occupation forces between 1975 and 1991. The Polisario has scrupulously observed a ceasefire ever since, despite Morocco breaking its promise to allow for a UN-sponsored referendum. Furthermore, Islamist radicals have little sympathy for the secular Polisario and the relatively liberal version of Islam practiced by most Western Saharans.
The letter's signatories included 24 Republicans, including ranking Intelligence Committee member Kit Bond (R-MO), Assistant Minority Leader Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and John McCain (R-AZ). There were also 30 Democratic signatories of the letter, including such erstwhile liberals as Ron Wyden (D-OR), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Carl Levin (D-MI), and Mark Udall (D-CO). Not surprisingly, most of the signers have also gone on record defending Israel's occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory, and previously supported Indonesia's occupation of East Timor. A majority of the signatories also voted to authorize the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. When a majority of the Senate goes on record calling on the administration to pursue a policy that fundamentally denies an entire nation its right to self-determination, undermines the UN Charter and other basic principles of international law, and challenges a series of UN Security Council resolutions, it shows just how far to the right this Democratic-controlled body has become.
U.S. support for Indonesia's occupation of East Timor didn't end until human rights activists made it politically difficult for the Clinton administration and members of Congress to continue backing it. Similarly, voters who care about human rights and international law must make it clear they won't support any lawmaker who favors the right of conquest over the right of self-determination.
Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy in Focus senior analyst, is a professor of Politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco. He is the author, along with Jacob Mundy, of the forthcoming Western Sahara: War, Nationalism, and Conflict Irresolution (Syracuse University Press).