Thursday, December 23, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Sahara occidental : la France contre les droits de l'homme ?
http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2010/12/22/sahara-occidental-la-france-contre-les-droits-de-l-homme_1456151_3232.html
Sahara occidental : la France contre les droits de l'homme ?
Le Monde, 22.12.2010
Les événements qui ont embrasé El-Ayoun, la capitale du Sahara occidental, le 8 novembre, devraient convaincre la diplomatie française de changer de cap sur un dossier peu connu, mais qui embarrasse jusqu'aux plus aguerris de ses diplomates. Depuis plusieurs années, à l'abri des portes closes du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU, la France use du pouvoir de dissuasion que lui confère son droit de veto pour tenir les Nations unies à l'écart des questions touchant au respect des droits de l'homme dans le territoire annexé par son allié marocain en 1975.
Faute d'un mandat approprié, la mission de l'ONU au Sahara Occidental (Minurso) est restée aveugle tout au long des événements qui ont opposé le mois dernier les forces de l'ordre marocaines aux militants sahraouis – les troubles les plus graves depuis le cessez-le-feu de 1991. Le Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU, en charge de la paix internationale, s'est vu dans l'incapacité de faire la part des choses entre le mouvement indépendantiste du Front Polisario, qui a dénoncé sans preuve le massacre de 36 manifestants pacifiques, et le Maroc qui prétendait, sans plus de crédibilité, libérer les milliers de civils sahraouis soi-disant retenus en otage par des " criminels " dans un camp érigé en signe de protestation à proximité de El-Ayoun.
Si ces événements s'étaient déroulés en République démocratique du Congo, en Haïti ou au Soudan, des experts en droits de l'homme de l'ONU auraient immédiatement été dépêchés sur place pour établir une version objective des événements et informer le Conseil de sécurité, contribuant ainsi à apaiser les tensions. La présence d'observateurs de l'ONU aurait aussi pu s'avérer dissuasive pour les forces de sécurité marocaines qui ont à plusieurs reprises, selon notre enquête, passé à tabac des personnes arrêtées à la suite des troubles.
Toutes les missions de maintien de la paix de l'ONU établies depuis 1991 disposent de ces mécanismes, qui reposent sur le constat que toute paix durable s'appuie sur le respect des droits de l'homme. Partout ailleurs, du Darfour au Timor Leste, en passant par le Kosovo, la France soutient pleinement l'intégration croissante des questions touchant aux droits de l'homme dans les missions de l'ONU. Il n'y a que sur le dossier sahraoui que Paris s'arc-boute, persistant à défendre une anomalie historique.
Cette obstination française a un coût. L'ambassadeur de France à l'ONU, Gérard Araud, l'a appris à ses dépens, le 30 avril dernier, lorsqu'il a dû faire face aux pays du Conseil de sécurité tels que le Royaume-Uni, l'Autriche, l'Ouganda, le Nigeria ou le Mexique, qui sont favorables à un élargissement du mandat de la Minurso aux questions de droits de l'homme. A quelques heures de l'expiration du mandat de la mission de l'ONU, selon plusieurs témoins, le ton est monté.
Comment la France, qui se prétend le berceau des droits de l'homme, pouvait-elle s'opposer à toute mention des droits de l'homme dans la résolution, a demandé un ambassadeur occidental ? Son homologue chinois, un rien ironique, s'est réjoui de constater que Paris partageait désormais les réserves de Pékin sur tout débat des droits de l'homme au Conseil de sécurité. Après une vive réponse de l'ambassadeur français, suivie d'excuses toutes diplomatiques, la France a obtenu gain de cause, non tant par la force de ses arguments que par celle de son droit de veto.
Les diplomates français se défendent en affirmant que la question des droits de l'homme est devenue un chiffon rouge pour le Maroc, qui y voit une ruse du Polisario et de son soutien officiel algérien, pour embarrasser le Royaume chérifien. A en croire Paris, cette question est une diversion, qui ne fait que braquer Rabat, sans faire avancer les pourparlers entre les deux camps, par ailleurs enlisés depuis des années.
Mais au lieu de s'aligner sur Rabat, la France devrait convaincre le Maroc qu'il a tout à gagner à améliorer les conditions dans lesquelles vivent les Sahraouis sous son contrôle, souvent muselés et harcelés par les forces de l'ordre marocaines lorsqu'ils osent se prononcer pour l'indépendance. Les observateurs onusiens seraient aussi d'un grand secours pour les réfugiés sahraouis qui vivent près de Tindouf, en Algérie, dans des camps où le Front Polisario règne en maître et intimide ceux qui soutiennent le plan d'autonomie marocain – une situation mainte fois dénoncée par Rabat.
Le renouvellement du mandat de la Minurso, en avril 2011, offre à la diplomatie française une chance de corriger la situation. Il est temps que Paris reconnaisse que, sans un strict respect des droits des Sahraouis, garanti par l'ONU, les deux camps continueront à se livrer à des campagnes de désinformation qui ne font que compliquer les efforts du Conseil de sécurité en faveur d'une solution politique.
Philippe Bolopion, directeur ONU de Human Rights Watch
Sahara occidental : la France contre les droits de l'homme ?
Le Monde, 22.12.2010
Les événements qui ont embrasé El-Ayoun, la capitale du Sahara occidental, le 8 novembre, devraient convaincre la diplomatie française de changer de cap sur un dossier peu connu, mais qui embarrasse jusqu'aux plus aguerris de ses diplomates. Depuis plusieurs années, à l'abri des portes closes du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU, la France use du pouvoir de dissuasion que lui confère son droit de veto pour tenir les Nations unies à l'écart des questions touchant au respect des droits de l'homme dans le territoire annexé par son allié marocain en 1975.
Faute d'un mandat approprié, la mission de l'ONU au Sahara Occidental (Minurso) est restée aveugle tout au long des événements qui ont opposé le mois dernier les forces de l'ordre marocaines aux militants sahraouis – les troubles les plus graves depuis le cessez-le-feu de 1991. Le Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU, en charge de la paix internationale, s'est vu dans l'incapacité de faire la part des choses entre le mouvement indépendantiste du Front Polisario, qui a dénoncé sans preuve le massacre de 36 manifestants pacifiques, et le Maroc qui prétendait, sans plus de crédibilité, libérer les milliers de civils sahraouis soi-disant retenus en otage par des " criminels " dans un camp érigé en signe de protestation à proximité de El-Ayoun.
Si ces événements s'étaient déroulés en République démocratique du Congo, en Haïti ou au Soudan, des experts en droits de l'homme de l'ONU auraient immédiatement été dépêchés sur place pour établir une version objective des événements et informer le Conseil de sécurité, contribuant ainsi à apaiser les tensions. La présence d'observateurs de l'ONU aurait aussi pu s'avérer dissuasive pour les forces de sécurité marocaines qui ont à plusieurs reprises, selon notre enquête, passé à tabac des personnes arrêtées à la suite des troubles.
Toutes les missions de maintien de la paix de l'ONU établies depuis 1991 disposent de ces mécanismes, qui reposent sur le constat que toute paix durable s'appuie sur le respect des droits de l'homme. Partout ailleurs, du Darfour au Timor Leste, en passant par le Kosovo, la France soutient pleinement l'intégration croissante des questions touchant aux droits de l'homme dans les missions de l'ONU. Il n'y a que sur le dossier sahraoui que Paris s'arc-boute, persistant à défendre une anomalie historique.
Cette obstination française a un coût. L'ambassadeur de France à l'ONU, Gérard Araud, l'a appris à ses dépens, le 30 avril dernier, lorsqu'il a dû faire face aux pays du Conseil de sécurité tels que le Royaume-Uni, l'Autriche, l'Ouganda, le Nigeria ou le Mexique, qui sont favorables à un élargissement du mandat de la Minurso aux questions de droits de l'homme. A quelques heures de l'expiration du mandat de la mission de l'ONU, selon plusieurs témoins, le ton est monté.
Comment la France, qui se prétend le berceau des droits de l'homme, pouvait-elle s'opposer à toute mention des droits de l'homme dans la résolution, a demandé un ambassadeur occidental ? Son homologue chinois, un rien ironique, s'est réjoui de constater que Paris partageait désormais les réserves de Pékin sur tout débat des droits de l'homme au Conseil de sécurité. Après une vive réponse de l'ambassadeur français, suivie d'excuses toutes diplomatiques, la France a obtenu gain de cause, non tant par la force de ses arguments que par celle de son droit de veto.
Les diplomates français se défendent en affirmant que la question des droits de l'homme est devenue un chiffon rouge pour le Maroc, qui y voit une ruse du Polisario et de son soutien officiel algérien, pour embarrasser le Royaume chérifien. A en croire Paris, cette question est une diversion, qui ne fait que braquer Rabat, sans faire avancer les pourparlers entre les deux camps, par ailleurs enlisés depuis des années.
Mais au lieu de s'aligner sur Rabat, la France devrait convaincre le Maroc qu'il a tout à gagner à améliorer les conditions dans lesquelles vivent les Sahraouis sous son contrôle, souvent muselés et harcelés par les forces de l'ordre marocaines lorsqu'ils osent se prononcer pour l'indépendance. Les observateurs onusiens seraient aussi d'un grand secours pour les réfugiés sahraouis qui vivent près de Tindouf, en Algérie, dans des camps où le Front Polisario règne en maître et intimide ceux qui soutiennent le plan d'autonomie marocain – une situation mainte fois dénoncée par Rabat.
Le renouvellement du mandat de la Minurso, en avril 2011, offre à la diplomatie française une chance de corriger la situation. Il est temps que Paris reconnaisse que, sans un strict respect des droits des Sahraouis, garanti par l'ONU, les deux camps continueront à se livrer à des campagnes de désinformation qui ne font que compliquer les efforts du Conseil de sécurité en faveur d'une solution politique.
Philippe Bolopion, directeur ONU de Human Rights Watch
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
WikiLeaks documents support Polisario’s goal of self-determination : By Dr. Suzanne Scholte
At a time when tensions between the Polisario and Morocco in their fight over Western Sahara, Africa’s last colony, are at the highest point since the 1991 ceasefire, WikiLeaks documents have enhanced the cause of the Polisario by revealing that the supporters of the Polisario are the good guys in this fight.
One of the difficulties the Polisario has had to overcome is a well-financed Moroccan lobby that spends millions of dollars annually to obscure the facts in this conflict. Ten lobbying firms are currently registered to do King Mohamed VI’s bidding and spread outright lies and distortions about the Sahrawi refugee camps near Tindouf, Algeria, where 165,000 Sahrawis live, having fled when Morocco invaded Western Sahara in 1975; about the motivation of Algeria in giving them refuge; and about the nature of the Sahrawi Republic itself — a democratic, pro-Western exile government recognized by over eighty nations as the legitimate government of Western Sahara.
The Polisario, formed by the Sahrawis in 1973 as a liberation movement against their Spanish colonizers, is now dedicated to one goal: ensuring the Sahrawis get their vote on self-determination, first called for by the United Nations in 1966, promised by Spain, reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice in 1975, and promised by the United Nations in 1991 as part of the ceasefire between Morocco and the Polisario. Among the outlandish claims that the Kingdom of Morocco and those on the King’s payroll are spreading: the Polisario is holding the Sahrawi refugees against their will in these camps; the Polisario is involved in illegal activities from human trafficking to terrorism; the Polisario is restricting access to the camps; and the camps are a breeding ground for al Qaeda.
The truth is that the Polisario long for visitors to the refugee camps, and there are regular visitors from Spain as well as a constant UN presence. I have personally organized delegations of Americans to visit the camps, and this Christmas thousands of Spanish citizens will travel there to celebrate this holy Christian day with their Muslim friends.
Not only do the Polisario welcome visitors, but their embrace of Western ideals including religious freedom and women’s equality, their intolerance of extremism, and their severe punishments for traffickers and anyone associated with terrorism have caused Islamic extremists to label the Sahrawi as “too close to the West and not pious enough.”
U.S. Ambassador–at-Large for Counterterrorism Daniel Benjamin affirmed there are no links between al Qaeda and the Western Sahara in a press conference last month.
Morocco has also tried to cast suspicion on the motivations of Algeria. Algeria saved thousands of Sahrawi women and children by allowing them to enter Algeria when the Moroccan air force was dropping napalm and phosphorus on them as they were fleeing from the invading Moroccan army. Today, Algeria allows the Sahrawis to govern and oversee their refugee camps, which are located in northwest Algeria, without interference. When former Secretary of State James Baker served as UN Special Envoy on Western Sahara, he attempted to spur a settlement by offering Algeria part of Western Sahara, believing the Algerians would sell out their friends for a land route to the Atlantic. The Algerians were offended that such an offer would even be made. WikiLeaks has revealed the consistency of Algeria’s position. WikiLeaks has also revealed that Algeria’s support of the Polisario is based on principle. Algeria has no interest in stealing the Sahrawis’ land, as Morocco has done, and only wants the people of Western Sahara to have the opportunity to exercise their fundamental right to self-determination, as Algeria President Abdelaziz Bouteflika has strongly argued to U.S. officials.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/20/wikileaks-documents-support-polisarios-goal-of-self-determination/#ixzz18ll7oob0
One of the difficulties the Polisario has had to overcome is a well-financed Moroccan lobby that spends millions of dollars annually to obscure the facts in this conflict. Ten lobbying firms are currently registered to do King Mohamed VI’s bidding and spread outright lies and distortions about the Sahrawi refugee camps near Tindouf, Algeria, where 165,000 Sahrawis live, having fled when Morocco invaded Western Sahara in 1975; about the motivation of Algeria in giving them refuge; and about the nature of the Sahrawi Republic itself — a democratic, pro-Western exile government recognized by over eighty nations as the legitimate government of Western Sahara.
The Polisario, formed by the Sahrawis in 1973 as a liberation movement against their Spanish colonizers, is now dedicated to one goal: ensuring the Sahrawis get their vote on self-determination, first called for by the United Nations in 1966, promised by Spain, reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice in 1975, and promised by the United Nations in 1991 as part of the ceasefire between Morocco and the Polisario. Among the outlandish claims that the Kingdom of Morocco and those on the King’s payroll are spreading: the Polisario is holding the Sahrawi refugees against their will in these camps; the Polisario is involved in illegal activities from human trafficking to terrorism; the Polisario is restricting access to the camps; and the camps are a breeding ground for al Qaeda.
The truth is that the Polisario long for visitors to the refugee camps, and there are regular visitors from Spain as well as a constant UN presence. I have personally organized delegations of Americans to visit the camps, and this Christmas thousands of Spanish citizens will travel there to celebrate this holy Christian day with their Muslim friends.
Not only do the Polisario welcome visitors, but their embrace of Western ideals including religious freedom and women’s equality, their intolerance of extremism, and their severe punishments for traffickers and anyone associated with terrorism have caused Islamic extremists to label the Sahrawi as “too close to the West and not pious enough.”
U.S. Ambassador–at-Large for Counterterrorism Daniel Benjamin affirmed there are no links between al Qaeda and the Western Sahara in a press conference last month.
Morocco has also tried to cast suspicion on the motivations of Algeria. Algeria saved thousands of Sahrawi women and children by allowing them to enter Algeria when the Moroccan air force was dropping napalm and phosphorus on them as they were fleeing from the invading Moroccan army. Today, Algeria allows the Sahrawis to govern and oversee their refugee camps, which are located in northwest Algeria, without interference. When former Secretary of State James Baker served as UN Special Envoy on Western Sahara, he attempted to spur a settlement by offering Algeria part of Western Sahara, believing the Algerians would sell out their friends for a land route to the Atlantic. The Algerians were offended that such an offer would even be made. WikiLeaks has revealed the consistency of Algeria’s position. WikiLeaks has also revealed that Algeria’s support of the Polisario is based on principle. Algeria has no interest in stealing the Sahrawis’ land, as Morocco has done, and only wants the people of Western Sahara to have the opportunity to exercise their fundamental right to self-determination, as Algeria President Abdelaziz Bouteflika has strongly argued to U.S. officials.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/20/wikileaks-documents-support-polisarios-goal-of-self-determination/#ixzz18ll7oob0
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
So much for human rights
http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2010/12/13/jeremy-harding/so-much-for-human-rights/
So much for human rights
Jeremy Harding 13 December 2010
Tags: western sahara | wikileaks
Two things we can learn about Morocco’s illegal occupation of Western Sahara from the US embassy in Rabat, courtesy of WikiLeaks: 1) it’s a source of personal revenue for Moroccan army officers but 2) everything’s fine really.
Western Sahara used to be a Spanish possession, which Madrid was due to hand over to the indigenous population in 1975. King Hassan II of Morocco took advantage of the chaos in Spain at the time of Franco’s death and annexed the territory. The UN deplored the move; the Polisario Front embarked on a liberation war, which resulted in stalemate and a ceasefire in 1989. By this time Morocco controlled most of the territory and was pouring in settlers to outnumber indigenous Sahrawis.
Under UN auspices, both parties – the kingdom of Morocco and Polisario – agreed to a referendum on independence. Twenty years later, the vote is a lost hope: the Moroccans have driven it into the ground with Byzantine objections, year on year. The UN mission has been sidelined; the settler colonial project continues; there are hundreds of thousands of refugees in Algeria and a population inside the territory that’s punished when it calls for independence.
These are trifling matters for Ambassador Thomas T. Riley, filing from Rabat in 2008. What counts is America’s ‘robust military relationship’ with Morocco, confirmed by ‘the purchase of sophisticated weapons from the US to include 24 F-16s this year’. The regime, Riley announces,
has also increased its activities under a partnership arrangement with the Utah National Guard, which regularly deploys to Morocco to conduct joint training and humanitarian relief operations.
Even so, he’s disturbed by corruption in the Moroccan army (total numbers 218,000; between ‘50 and 70 per cent… preoccupied with operations in the Western Sahara region’). Riley cites Lieutenant Geneneral Abdelaziz Bennani, commander of the Southern Section – i.e. the annexed territory. Apparently, Bennani has used his position to
skim money from military contracts and influence business decisions. A widely believed rumour has it that he owns large parts of the fisheries in Western Sahara… There are even reports of students at Morocco’s military academy paying money… to obtain positions in lucrative military postings.
Top of the list: Western Sahara.
Riley walked into a top job at Savvis, the communications company, after the Republicans lost the White House. Move on to summer 2009: another pair of hands is at the laptop in Rabat – the chargé d’affaires, Robert P. Jackson – pounding out a dispatch he’s pleased to call ‘Western Sahara Realities’. He repeats Riley’s estimate – about 150,000 Moroccan soldiers are deployed in Western Sahara – and says, correctly, that there are now 385,000 people living in the annexed area. (Only a marginal ‘liberated’ strip of desert is still controlled by Polisario, and the ceasefire has held.)
Jackson is also right that settlers from Morocco now account for ‘well over half’ that figure. Here is a territory, then, whose indigenous population is only slightly larger than the number of soldiers deployed by Rabat: the ratio is close to one on one. If this isn’t repression, what is it? Mentoring, possibly? Is the army holding door-to-door seminars on Mormon genealogy with assistance from the Utah National Guard? Yet Jackson says that ‘respect for human rights in the territory has greatly improved’. He admits that indigenous people aren’t allowed to advocate independence: perhaps human rights for Sahrawis is like animal rights for foxes – go to ground and hope someone’s speaking out on your behalf. Only it won’t be Jackson, who’s now ambassador to Cameroon.
Eight weeks ago near Layoune, the capital of Western Sahara, a camp set up by Sahrawis to protest against the Moroccan occupation was brought under military siege and in November it was broken up; 60 people were injured and the usual round of detentions followed. So much for human rights.
There are even more worrying passages about the nature of the conflict in Jackson’s cable. He wonders why Polisario (which operates a ‘Cuba-like system’ in his view) has never claimed areas of Morocco proper, Mauritania or Algeria, where large numbers of Sahrawis can be found, as part of the independent state they seek. He takes this to signify the absence of ‘a larger nationalism’, from which it follows that the dispute must be narrowly territorial – an expression of older border tensions between Morocco and Algeria, with Polisario acting as an Algerian stooge.
Well yes, it is about territory, but only inasmuch as the decolonisation of Spanish Sahara should have conferred a right to independence. The ethnicity of its inhabitants, or others outside the borders, has nothing to do with it. Whatever Algeria’s role in this conflict, Polisario could never have compromised its aims by challenging the OAU on the inviolability of colonial boundaries and hoping for a ‘larger’, expanded Western Sahara. Had it done so, the International Court of Justice would not have advised in its favour, the UN would not have called for a referendum on independence, and the notional government of what is now Africa’s only colonised territory (the SADR) would not be a member of the African Union or be recognised by 81 states
But there you have it: a chargé d’affaires in Rabat snorts dismissively at the independence movement because it’s played by the book. Morocco, by contrast, violates sovereign boundaries, tramples Sahrawi aspirations, stuffs its annexed land with soldiers and settlers, and gets two dozen fighter aircraft for its pains
So much for human rights
Jeremy Harding 13 December 2010
Tags: western sahara | wikileaks
Two things we can learn about Morocco’s illegal occupation of Western Sahara from the US embassy in Rabat, courtesy of WikiLeaks: 1) it’s a source of personal revenue for Moroccan army officers but 2) everything’s fine really.
Western Sahara used to be a Spanish possession, which Madrid was due to hand over to the indigenous population in 1975. King Hassan II of Morocco took advantage of the chaos in Spain at the time of Franco’s death and annexed the territory. The UN deplored the move; the Polisario Front embarked on a liberation war, which resulted in stalemate and a ceasefire in 1989. By this time Morocco controlled most of the territory and was pouring in settlers to outnumber indigenous Sahrawis.
Under UN auspices, both parties – the kingdom of Morocco and Polisario – agreed to a referendum on independence. Twenty years later, the vote is a lost hope: the Moroccans have driven it into the ground with Byzantine objections, year on year. The UN mission has been sidelined; the settler colonial project continues; there are hundreds of thousands of refugees in Algeria and a population inside the territory that’s punished when it calls for independence.
These are trifling matters for Ambassador Thomas T. Riley, filing from Rabat in 2008. What counts is America’s ‘robust military relationship’ with Morocco, confirmed by ‘the purchase of sophisticated weapons from the US to include 24 F-16s this year’. The regime, Riley announces,
has also increased its activities under a partnership arrangement with the Utah National Guard, which regularly deploys to Morocco to conduct joint training and humanitarian relief operations.
Even so, he’s disturbed by corruption in the Moroccan army (total numbers 218,000; between ‘50 and 70 per cent… preoccupied with operations in the Western Sahara region’). Riley cites Lieutenant Geneneral Abdelaziz Bennani, commander of the Southern Section – i.e. the annexed territory. Apparently, Bennani has used his position to
skim money from military contracts and influence business decisions. A widely believed rumour has it that he owns large parts of the fisheries in Western Sahara… There are even reports of students at Morocco’s military academy paying money… to obtain positions in lucrative military postings.
Top of the list: Western Sahara.
Riley walked into a top job at Savvis, the communications company, after the Republicans lost the White House. Move on to summer 2009: another pair of hands is at the laptop in Rabat – the chargé d’affaires, Robert P. Jackson – pounding out a dispatch he’s pleased to call ‘Western Sahara Realities’. He repeats Riley’s estimate – about 150,000 Moroccan soldiers are deployed in Western Sahara – and says, correctly, that there are now 385,000 people living in the annexed area. (Only a marginal ‘liberated’ strip of desert is still controlled by Polisario, and the ceasefire has held.)
Jackson is also right that settlers from Morocco now account for ‘well over half’ that figure. Here is a territory, then, whose indigenous population is only slightly larger than the number of soldiers deployed by Rabat: the ratio is close to one on one. If this isn’t repression, what is it? Mentoring, possibly? Is the army holding door-to-door seminars on Mormon genealogy with assistance from the Utah National Guard? Yet Jackson says that ‘respect for human rights in the territory has greatly improved’. He admits that indigenous people aren’t allowed to advocate independence: perhaps human rights for Sahrawis is like animal rights for foxes – go to ground and hope someone’s speaking out on your behalf. Only it won’t be Jackson, who’s now ambassador to Cameroon.
Eight weeks ago near Layoune, the capital of Western Sahara, a camp set up by Sahrawis to protest against the Moroccan occupation was brought under military siege and in November it was broken up; 60 people were injured and the usual round of detentions followed. So much for human rights.
There are even more worrying passages about the nature of the conflict in Jackson’s cable. He wonders why Polisario (which operates a ‘Cuba-like system’ in his view) has never claimed areas of Morocco proper, Mauritania or Algeria, where large numbers of Sahrawis can be found, as part of the independent state they seek. He takes this to signify the absence of ‘a larger nationalism’, from which it follows that the dispute must be narrowly territorial – an expression of older border tensions between Morocco and Algeria, with Polisario acting as an Algerian stooge.
Well yes, it is about territory, but only inasmuch as the decolonisation of Spanish Sahara should have conferred a right to independence. The ethnicity of its inhabitants, or others outside the borders, has nothing to do with it. Whatever Algeria’s role in this conflict, Polisario could never have compromised its aims by challenging the OAU on the inviolability of colonial boundaries and hoping for a ‘larger’, expanded Western Sahara. Had it done so, the International Court of Justice would not have advised in its favour, the UN would not have called for a referendum on independence, and the notional government of what is now Africa’s only colonised territory (the SADR) would not be a member of the African Union or be recognised by 81 states
But there you have it: a chargé d’affaires in Rabat snorts dismissively at the independence movement because it’s played by the book. Morocco, by contrast, violates sovereign boundaries, tramples Sahrawi aspirations, stuffs its annexed land with soldiers and settlers, and gets two dozen fighter aircraft for its pains
Resolution on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories
Resolution on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories
The General Assembly adopted a resolution on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories by which the Assembly reaffirmed the right of peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories to self-determination in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, as well as their right to enjoy and dispose of their natural resources in their best interest.
Also according to the text, the Assembly called once again on all Governments that had not yet done so to take legislative, administrative or other measures to put an end to enterprises in the Territories — undertaken by those Governments’ nationals or corporate bodies under their jurisdiction — that were detrimental to the interests of the inhabitants. It called upon the administrating Powers to ensure that the exploitation of the marine and other natural resources in the Non-Self-Governing Territories under their administration were not in violation of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations and did not adversely affect the interests of the peoples of those Territories. The text was aproved by a recorded vote:
The Vote
The resolution on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories was adopted by a recorded vote of 173 in favour to 2 against, with 2 abstentions,
Against: Israel, United States.
Abstain: France, United Kingdom.
http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2010/12/un-general-assembly-approves-third.html
The General Assembly adopted a resolution on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories by which the Assembly reaffirmed the right of peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories to self-determination in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, as well as their right to enjoy and dispose of their natural resources in their best interest.
Also according to the text, the Assembly called once again on all Governments that had not yet done so to take legislative, administrative or other measures to put an end to enterprises in the Territories — undertaken by those Governments’ nationals or corporate bodies under their jurisdiction — that were detrimental to the interests of the inhabitants. It called upon the administrating Powers to ensure that the exploitation of the marine and other natural resources in the Non-Self-Governing Territories under their administration were not in violation of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations and did not adversely affect the interests of the peoples of those Territories. The text was aproved by a recorded vote:
The Vote
The resolution on economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories was adopted by a recorded vote of 173 in favour to 2 against, with 2 abstentions,
Against: Israel, United States.
Abstain: France, United Kingdom.
http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2010/12/un-general-assembly-approves-third.html
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Western Sahara and Wiki Leaks
First Sahara Wikileak leak: Sarkozy inked deal with OCP
First cable from US embassy mentions 3 billion Euro deals for Sarkozy, as French Western Sahara policy leans towards Moroccan position. Among the agreements signed by Sarkozy, was the nuclear deal with Moroccan phosphate plunderer OCP.
01.12 - 2010 15:34 Printer version
"Sarkozy and entourage completed nearly 3 billion Euros worth of commercial deals and military sales during the visit, including a naval frigate", notes the embassy in the document dated 29 October 2007, in relation to Sarkozy's visit to Morocco.
The letter mentions specifically the agreement signed by French nuclear group Areva and National Phosphate Company (OCP). The deal was to extract uranium from Moroccan phosphoric acid.
OCP carries out the illegal mining in Western Sahara, taking place in violation of the UN legal opinion from 2002.
At the same time, the US embassy noted how Sarkozy annoyed the representatives of the Sahrawi people:
"Sarkozy’s remarks on Sahara appeared to move France closer toward the Moroccan position, and were embraced as such by most of the Moroccan press, which characterized the president’s remarks as a breakthrough for French policy on the Sahara question. (We understand the Polisario leadership has protested Sarkozy’s remarks.)", writes the US embassy in the first confidential letter on Western Sahara published on Wikileaks today.
The Moroccan proposition on the Western Sahara dispute, is to include the territory of Western Sahara into the Moroccan kingdom, without giving a voice to the people of Western Sahara.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)