Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Briefing to the Security Council Personal Envoy of the Secretary General for Western Sahara November 28, 2012 --As delivered---- Mr. President, Distinguished Members of the Council, It is with more than my customary sense of honor and pleasure that I join you to brief on developments in the search for a mutually acceptable political solution, which will provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara, since passage of the Council’s latest resolution on April 24, 2012. After a period of reflection, I embarked on a long-delayed trip to North Africa from October 25 to November 11 and held consultations in Madrid and Paris from November 12 to 15 on my way home. I had three objectives in the region: first, to evaluate the past five years of negotiating efforts and identify the reasons for the stalemate; second, to look ahead at how the process might be modified to enhance the prospects of progress; and, third, to gauge the impact of events in the Sahel on the Western Sahara dossier. Beyond these objectives, I introduced two innovations: first, I met with political leaders and representatives of civil society in addition to meeting with officials; second, I paid my first visit to Western Sahara itself. The governments of Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania, and France, as well as the Polisario and MINURSO, extended full cooperation, and I thank them. Special thanks are due as well to the government of Spain, which generously provided an aircraft to facilitate my travel. Without going into a detailed account of each stop, let me present my overall findings and impressions. First, everywhere, the highest authorities confirmed their commitment to working with the UN to pursue a political solution for the final status of Western Sahara, while at the same time reiterating their attachment to their own proposals. In Morocco, King Mohammed VI reaffirmed his country’s willingness to continue to work with me within the framework of its proposal for autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty. In Tindouf, Polisario Secretary-General Abdelaziz reiterated the readiness of the Polisario Front to intensify its engagement in the expectation that the solution would include a genuine referendum of self-determination. In Algeria, President Bouteflika again stated that, while Algeria is not and will never be a party to the conflict, it remains willing to accompany the parties in their search for a solution. That said, he added, any settlement that does not include a genuine referendum is not a settlement at all. In Mauritania, Prime Minister Laghdaf reaffirmed his country’s desire to be helpful on the basis of “positive neutrality.” Second, in looking back at the reasons for the continuing stalemate, it was evident that, as the parties’ frustration has grown, each has attributed the failure to make progress not only to the other party’s refusal to negotiate on the basis of its proposal, but more pointedly to the absence of decisive action by the international community, the Council, the Secretary-General, and his Personal Envoy. The parties do not accept that the principal responsibility for making progress rests with the parties themselves, although others can provide encouragement and ideas. I stressed this point repeatedly in my contacts with political parties and representatives of civil society, as well as with officials, pointing out that, since the UN is dealing with the conflict under Chapter VI of the Charter, and in the absence of an international consensus, no one can impose anything on the parties and that it is up to them first and foremost to find a way forward within the framework provided by UN mediation. Nonetheless, over and over, at every stop, I was told that the UN should take this action or that action – always in the direction of bringing one side to accept the proposal of the other. In my role as mediator, I cannot be an advocate for a specific proposal. I advocate for the negotiating process. Third, in looking ahead at how best to proceed, senior officials agreed with my judgment that it is futile to convene more meetings of the parties any time soon in the absence of a change in the equation. After four rounds of official negotiations and nine rounds of informal talks, to hold yet another meeting would highlight the stalemate, further weakening the credibility of the process. In preparation for further meetings, formal or informal, I proposed to engage in further consultations with key international stakeholders followed by a period of quiet shuttle diplomacy with the parties and neighboring states. My interlocutors accepted this approach, but some cautioned that periodic meetings remain important in maintaining contact, minimizing miscalculation, and giving visible evidence that the process continues. Fourth, in examining the impact of the rising tension in the Sahel and the dangers this presents to all parties, I found that, while all agree that these factors argue for an early solution to the Western Sahara conflict, no one seems ready to take the first step. Instead, I found that the common reaction to events in the Sahel has been to bolster local defenses against any possible spillover. On another aspect of the issue, it was confirmed to me that, in the absence of a settlement, individuals from all over the region have been enticed into joining one or another of the groups in northern Mali. In Morocco, the media continued to speak of a connection between the Polisario and these groups, but senior officials in Rabat and in Nouakchott were clear in saying that no such linkage exists. Fifth, my visit to Western Sahara merits special mention. As promised, Morocco, as the de facto administering power, provided full facilitation, and I will make additional visits in due course. I had meetings with a wide range of pro-independence and pro-autonomy Sahrawis, as well as with the local authorities. There was clearly a hunger to speak with me, since the list of those I did not have time to meet greatly exceeded the list of those I did meet. All spoke with evident sincerity, but it should come as no surprise that I was unable to determine where the balance of opinion lies. All I can say for sure is that there are articulate spokespersons on both sides of the political divide. The pro-autonomy Sahrawis emphasized the development of Laayoune and other localities under Moroccan administration, as well as the numerous other benefits that they see in this administration. The pro-independence Sahrawis highlighted what they described as the tense relations between the indigenous Sahrawi population and the residents from Morocco, the violations of human rights that they see in police repression and in conditions of arrest, detention, trial, and incarceration, the illegal exploitation of natural resources, and the absence of jobs. Pro-independence demonstrations and attendant police responses did in fact occur at some distance from me during and after my visit. In this regard, I was struck by the fact that almost none of the security forces in Laayoune and presumably elsewhere in Western Sahara are Sahrawis from the territory, but are instead from Morocco proper, and I used my meetings with Moroccan officials during a second visit to Rabat to argue for a shift in the balance and for better training in managing demonstrations. Sixth, during my visit to the refugee camps, I had occasion to meet with members of the Polisario’s women’s, student, and youth organizations. Those present underscored the frustration that the Polisario leadership itself has reported in the past. Some in attendance argued that, after 25 years of unsuccessful UN efforts, it is time to return to armed struggle. Others suggested that, having failed to broker a settlement, the UN should simply give up and withdraw. Meanwhile, in Nouakchott, I met with some critics of the Polisario who had left the organization and were anxious to air their grievances with me. Seventh, I was dismayed at the degree to which the parties used my visit to score points. My public statements were too often shortened or lengthened to serve the agenda of one or another of the parties. In Rabat, Moroccan television edited my remarks to remove my citation of the Council text calling for “a political solution, which will provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.” In Tifariti, where I visited a MINURSO team site on the east side of the berm, the Polisario’s military chief unexpectedly appeared and sought to have me review an honor guard. In the refugee camps, my remarks to a women’s group were edited to add praise for the role of women in quote “the struggle to liberate Western Sahara” unquote. I made no such statement. Eighth, while SRSG Weisbrod-Weber will be briefing you on MINURSO operations shortly, I must applaud the high degree of professionalism and commitment that I observed during my visit to MINURSO headquarters and to the team sites in Mahbes and Tifariti and in my meeting with the UN Mine Action Service team. Both MINURSO and UNMAS are in need of more resources if they are to discharge their duties more fully. MINURSO patrols an area larger than the United Kingdom, while UNMAS is working in what has recently been called one of the most mine-infested regions of the world. Beyond this, I want to highlight the respect in which the SRSG is held both within MINURSO and by his Moroccan and Sahrawi contacts. His is not an easy task. In addition to supervising MINURSO, he is the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Western Sahara. As such, he is expected to provide the Secretary-General and this Council with independent information on MINURSO’s working environment in Western Sahara. This territory remains a non-self-governing territory in the well-being of whose population the UN must, in accordance with Article 73 of the Charter, show an interest, while recognizing that Morocco is the de facto administering power west of the berm and that the Polisario plays a similar role east of the berm. It was precisely because of the SRSG’s role in this regard that I invited him to attend all of my meetings in Western Sahara. Ninth, on UNHCR’S program of humanitarian assistance, I heard concern that both governmental and private contributions to refugee aid have decreased significantly because of the ongoing economic crisis, and I was reminded that additional contributions are sorely needed. On the individual registration of refugees, which was raised again in Rabat, Polisario and Algerian officials told me that UNHCR is satisfied with the refugee estimates that they have provided and that those who argue for individual registration are motivated by political considerations. At a donors’ meeting in Algiers, I found no eagerness to pursue the issue. Tenth, on confidence-building measures, there was universal praise for UNHCR’s superb work in expanding family visits and organizing inter-Sahrawi seminars, the second of which, on the role of women in Sahrawi society, took place in the Azores with the generous help of the government of Portugal in July. Shortly thereafter, a session on CBMs was held in Geneva at which the parties, neighboring states, and UNHCR reviewed their implementation in a very cordial atmosphere. The only advice I give when asked is to think creatively about expanding CBMs, particularly more seminars, family visits on special occasions, and youth exchanges. Sahrawis of all political persuasions, both in Western Sahara and in the camps, told me over and over that they are eager for more contact across the berm, and ways must be found to encourage this, because over time it has the potential to change perceptions even in the absence of movement in the negotiating process. One impediment is the lack of funding, and I once again urge past and potential donors to contribute to UNHCR to make more such activities possible. Eleventh, on human rights, each side used my visit to register complaints about the practices of the other. There have been many visits related to human rights in the past year, including two special rapporteurs, who visited Western Sahara but not the refugee camps, and at least one non-governmental organization. In addition, the Laayoune branch of Morocco’s National Council for Human Rights told me that it has received large numbers of complaints and conducted numerous investigations, but is still awaiting responses from the administering authorities. Human rights are not part of my mandate, but my advice, when sought, has been to state that it is up to this Council and to the High Commissioner for Human Rights to decide whether the information that is developed warrants attention and, if so, how best to do so, bearing in mind that any approach to this issue must look at the human rights situation not only in Western Sahara, but also in the refugee camps. Finally, let me say a word about my informal mandate of promoting more normal relations between Algeria and Morocco. In Rabat, King Mohammed VI authorized me to carry a message to President Bouteflika, who then authorized me to carry back a message in response. Both messages confirmed the desire of the two heads of state to continue the process of improving relations by expanding the bilateral ministerial visits that had previously been agreed. Each identified priority issues that should be addressed at an early stage, and I will be following up to encourage engagement on these issues. With regard to the Maghreb Arab Union and Tunisia’s call for an early summit, I explored the advancement of regional integration with UMA Secretary-General Ben Yahia and with the three member states that I visited. All agreed in principle that a summit should be held, but Algeria cautioned that, to ensure success, it should be well prepared through the series of sectoral meetings that are underway but not yet complete. In Algeria’s view, to hold a summit without adequate preparation would lead to certain failure. These, then, are my main findings and impressions as I return from my latest trip to the region and my first visit to Western Sahara and as I look ahead to a period of consultation with key international stakeholders, quiet diplomacy with the parties and neighboring states, and further visits to the region, including Western Sahara, in preparation for the resumption of face-to-face meetings of the parties. As I stated in Madrid, the conflict over the final status of Western Sahara has gone on for far too long. While some may believe that the status quo is stable and that it is risky to take chances for peace, I believe that this is a serious miscalculation now that the region is threatened by extremist, terrorist, and criminal elements operating in the Sahel. In these new circumstances, this conflict could, if left to fester, spark renewed violence or hostilities that would be tragic for the peoples of the region. It must be resolved, and I ask the members of the Council and of the wider international community to encourage the parties to enter into serious negotiations to bring it to an end. Thank you.
Friday, November 16, 2012
Thursday, November 08, 2012
memory of Gdeim Izik camp: Khalil Asmar.
By: Khalil Asmar
In memory of Gdeim Izik camp of occupied Western Sahara. The sparkle of the
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
تحليل: العلاقات المغربية الأمريكية على ضوء إعادة انتخاب أوباما .الأربعاء, 07 تشرين2/نوفمبر 2012 16:04 علي أنوزلا . . عرفت العلاقات المغربية الأمريكية حالة من الجمود طيلة فترة ولاية باراك أوباما، تراجع خلالها مستوى التعاون بين البلدين إلى أدنى مستوياته منذ وصول الملك محمد السادس إلى الملك عام 1999. فالمغاربة مازالوا يتذكرون حضور الرئيس الأمريكي الأسبق بنفسه لجنازة الملك الراحل الحسن الثاني عندما سار مشيا على الأقدام طيلة أكثر من ثلاث كيلومترات في الموكب الجنائزي لتشييع الملك الراحل إلى متواه الأخير. رد الجميل ويتذكر أحد المقربين آنذاك من دائرة القرار في المغرب كيف اختلى الرئيس الأمريكي بالملك الشاب وعرض عليه مساعدة أقوى دولة في العالم، كرد للجميل لمواقف والده الملك الراحل المؤيدة للإدارة الأمريكية، فما كان من الملك محمد السادس إلا أنه طلب منه تسليم المغرب شخص مغمور هو هشام المنظري الذي كان يعيش في أمريكا ويهدد القصر الملكي بالكشف عن أسرار ظل يبتز بها المحيط الملكي في المغرب حتى مقتله الغامض في مرآب بإحدى الإقامات بمدينة مربية الاسبانية منتصف العشرية الأولى من القرن الحالي. ورغم استغراب الرئيس الأمريكي آنذاك لطلب الملك المغربي، إلا أنه حافظ على علاقة جيدة مع الرباط وخلال ولايته خص الملك محمد السادس بزيارة دولة إلى واشنطن عام 2001، ونادرا ما تخص الإدارة الأمريكية رئيس دولة أجنبية من العالم الثالث بهذا النوع من الزيارات الذي يتخذ طابع "زيارة دولة"، وهو ما اعتبر آنذاك عربون على متانة العلاقة بين واشنطن والرباط. وفي عهد جورج بوش الإبن، الرئيس الجمهوري الذي خلف بيل كلينتون، بدأت العلاقة بين البلدين باردة، بسبب انكفاء الرئيس الأمريكي الجديد آنذاك على نفسه وتركيزه على السياسة الداخلية لبلاده وعدم اهتمامه بما كان يجري في العالم نتيجة ضعف ثقافته. لكن أحداث 11 سبتمبر 2001، ستغير نظرة الرئيس الأمريكي إلى العالم وستغير معها سياسته الخارجية التي بناها على مبدئه القائل "من ليس معنا فهو ضدنا"، وذلك في حربه العالمية التي أعلنها على ما يسمى بـ "الإرهاب". التعاون "القذر" التقطت الأجهزة الأمنية المغربية في عهد الجنرال المتقاعد حميدو لعنيكري، الرسالة الأمريكية، وأعلن المغرب رسميا انخراطه وراء أمريكا وحلفائها في حربهم العالمية ضد ما يسمونه بـ "الإرهاب". وستكشف تقارير المنظمات الحقوقية وتقارير الصحافة الأمريكية، وبعد ذلك قصاصات موقع "ويكيليكس" "تورط" المغرب في التعاون مع أمريكا في حربها "القذرة" ضد "الإرهاب"، لدرجة أن مخابراته كانت، إلى جانب مخابرات دول عربية وأخرى من اوروبا الشرقية، تقوم باعتقال واستنطاق معتقلين من قبل أجهزة المخابرات الأمريكية، في إطار تعاونهم في حربهم ضد ما يسمونه "الإرهاب". وستتم مكافئة المغرب على هذا التعاون بزيارة رسمية للملك محمد السادس إلى البيت الأبيض لملاقاة جورج بوش الإبن، والتوقيع في عهده على اتفاقيات التبادل الحر مع أمريكا، وهي الاتفاقيات التي قال عنها رئيس الحكومة الحالية عبد الإله بنكيران أمام البرلمان بأنها كانت في صالح الطرف القوي، أي في صالح أمريكا. ورغم طابع "الود" الظاهر الذي كان يطبع العلاقات الأمريكية المغربية في عهد الرئيس الجمهوري بوش الإبن، إلا أن قصاصات "ويكيليكس"، ستكشف الوجه الآخر لصورة المغرب لدى الإدارة الأمريكية. فالوثائق المسربة عن المغرب في موقع جوليان أسانج والتي أرسلت في عهد السفير الأمريكي السابق طوماس رايلي، الذي كان يقدم نفسه للمسئولين المغاربة بأنه سفير دولة صديقة للمغرب، ستكشف أن أجهزة سفارته كانت تتهم نفس المسؤولين المغاربة في مراسلاتها السرية بالفساد والجشع... القاهرة بدلا من الرباط ومع مجيء الرئيس الأمريكي الحالي باراك أوباما، جرى الحديث في بداية عهدته بأنه سيختار المغرب لتوجيه رسالته الشهيرة إلى العالمين العربي والإسلامي، إلا أن خيارة سيقع على مصر بحكم ثقلها التاريخي والرمزي في محيطها العربي والإسلامي، وليس بحكم ثقل قيادتها في عهد رئيسها المخلوع حسنى مبارك الذي خصه أوباما بزيارة مجاملة دامت عدة دقائق فقط قبل أن يتوجه إلى الجامعة المصرية لإلقاء خطابه الذي كان واضحا فيه وضوح الشمس في كبد السماء عندما أوضح موقفه من الديمقراطية وحقوق الإنسان بالقول: " يلازمني اعتقاد راسخ أن جميع البشر يتطلعون لامتلاك قدرة التعبير عن أفكارهم وآرائهم فى أسلوب الحكم المتبع فى بلدهم ، ويتطلعون للشعور بالثقة فى حكم القانون وفى الالتزام بالعدالة والمساواة فى تطبيقه، ويتطلعون كذلك لشفافية الحكومة وامتناعها عن نهب أموال الشعب ويتطلعون لانتخاب حكوماتهم بالصورة المناسبة. و بالتأكيد فإن الحكومات التي تحمى هذه الحقوق وتطبقها هي التي تتمتع بالاستقرار والنجاح." كانت رسالة أوباما واضحة موجهة إلى حكومات الدول التي لاتحترم ولاتحمي حقوق شعوبها، وأبر بوعده ببداية علاقة جديدة مع شعوب المنطقة عندما وقفت الولايات المتحدة إلى جانب الشارع العربى في بدايات ثورات الربيع العربي التي فاجأت حتى الإدارة الأمريكية. حاول المغرب مرة أخرى أن يركب موجة "الربيع العربي" وتبنى "إصلاحات سياسية"، كان يطمح أن تجعل منه نموذجا يحتدى به في الشرق ويتم التنويه به في الغرب. لكن موقف امريكا من "إصلاحات المغرب" هو ما سيعبر عنه سفيرها بالرباط عندما صرح مؤخرا قائلا: "حتى أكون صريحا، من الصعب جدا توقع ما ستؤول إليه الأمور بالمغرب، التغيير العميق الذي نتحدث عنه يستلزم سنوات عدة لكي يتحقق.. وهو ما سيتطلب الكثير من الصبر من كل الأطراف المشاركة في الحكومة". تنويه شفهي وماعدا بضع كلمات من "التنويه" الشفهي لم يجازى المغرب كما كان ينتظر إلا بوعود بدعم مادي ما زال ينتظره من الاتحاد الأوروبي، وبحوار سمي استراتيجيا مع الإدارة الأمريكية. وكان لافتا للانتباه أنه في نهاية هذا الحوار الذي وصف بالاستراتيجي اختتم بمكالمة هاتفية بين الملك محمد السادس وكاتبة الدولة الأمريكية هيلاري كلنتون وليس مع الرئيس الأمريكي باراك أوباما كما تقتضي الأعراف الدولية ويفرض ذلك البروتوكول. مكالمة هيلاري كلنتون للملك محمد السادس، ستلفت الانتباه إلى أنه لم يسبق للرئيس الأمريكي الذي تم تجديد ولايته لأربع سنوات قادمة أن اتصل هاتفيا بالملك المغربي، وأكثر من ذلك لم يسبق له أن وجه له أية دعوة لزيارة البيت الأبيض في واشنطن. وحتى عندما طار الملك محمد السادس إلى نيويورك عام 2010 لحضور الاجتماع السنوي للجمعية العامة للأمم المتحدة، كان متوقعا أن يلتقي بالرئيس الأمريكي باراك أوباما. وحسب مصادر مطلعة من الوفد المرافق للملك، فإن بروتوكول البيت الأبيض رد على الملك بأن اللقاء الذي تسمح به أجندة الرئيس مع الملك هو على هامش حفل الاستقبال الكبير الذي تقيمه الأمانة العامة للأمم المتحدة، احتفاء برؤساء الدول والحكومات الحاضرين لإجتماع الجمعية العام للأمم المتحدة، وهو ما جعل الملك الذي كان يطمح إلى عقد قمة مغربية أمريكية بنيويورك إلى صرف النظر عن لقائه بأوباما وإلغاء جميع مواعيد أجندته آنذاك بنيويورك ليقفل عائدا إلى المغرب. لقد بدا منذ البداية أن علاقات المغرب بأمريكا في عهد أوباما لن تكون على عهد ما كانت عليه في فترة من سبقوه إلى البيت الأبيض، وتجلى ذلك منذ البداية في تأخير استقبال سفير أوباما بالرباط، صامويل كابلان، من قبل الملك ليسلمه أوراق اعتماده. فقد ظل السفير الأمريكي يقيم في الرباط عدة أسابيع كان يتحرك خلالها بصفة غير رسمية وغير قانونية في العديد من مناطق المغرب بما أن الملك تأخر في تحديد موعد لاستقباله حتى يتسلم منه أوراق اعتماده كسفير رسمي ومعترف به من أعلى سلطة في البلاد. ظلت علاقات الرباط بواشنطن، تتأرجح في مكانها، رغم محاولة المغرب بعث دماء جديدة في شريان هذه العلاقات عبر تعيين سفير جديد للرباط في واشنطن عام 2011، خلفا للسفير السابق الذي ظل يحتل منصبه منذ عهد الملك الراحل الحسن الثاني. لكن ضعف شخصية السفير المغربي الجديد بواشنطن، رشاد بوهلال، الذي كان موظفا بالخارجية المغربية، سيزيد من برودة هذه العلاقات. منعرج خطير ومع التطورات الأخيرة التي سيشهدها ملف الصحراء، ستمر العلاقات المغربية الأمريكية بمنعرج خطير، عبر عنه وزير الخارجية المغربي الحالي سعد الدين العثماني، عندما أسر في اجتماع مع أعضاء حزبه بأنه واشنطن قلقة من الرباط، على إثر قرار هذه الأخيرة الأحادي القاضي بسحب ثقة المغرب من الدبلوماسي الأمريكي كريستوفر روس، الذي يقود المفاوضات بين المغرب والبوليساريو في قضية الصحراء. وحسب معلومات استقاها الموقع من مصادر متطابقة فإن طريقة إعلان المغرب من جانب واحد سحب ثقته من كريستوفر روس، فاجأت الإدارة الأمريكية التي لم تستوعب موقف المغرب ولم تريد أن تفهم دواعي قراره ومبرراته ولا توقيته. وكان رد الإدارة الأمريكية على قرار المغرب صارما وهو التشبث بكريستوفر روس. وقد بدا موقف الإدارة الأمريكية حازما عندما رفضت كاتبة الدولة في الخارجية الأمريكية، هيلاري كلينتون استقبال وزير الخارجية المغربي سعد الدين العثماني الذي طار إلى واشنطن لشرح أسباب إقدام المغرب على سحب ثقته من المبعوث الأممي. وحضي العثماني آنذاك باستقبال من مساعد لوزيرة الخارجية الأمريكية، ولم يصدر عن الخارجية الأمريكية آنذاك ما يدعم أو يساند الموقف المغربي. وطبقا لذات المصادر فالإدارة الأمريكية تعتبر روس، وهو دبلوماسي أمريكي سابق، إبن "المؤسسة" (الاستابليشمنت) الحكومية الأمريكية، وعلاقاته الوطيدة مع زملاء نافذين داخل الإدارة الأمريكية زادت من عطفها عليه، زيادة على كونه يعتبر اليوم المبعوث الأممي الوحيد، من جنسية أمريكية، في نزاع ترعاه الأمم المتحدة. آخر خطوط دفاع المغرب وبالنسبة لمهتمين بالعلاقات المغربية الأمريكية، فإن آخر خطوط دفاع المغرب داخل إدارة أوباما شكلتها هيلاري كلينتون، التي تربطها علاقات قديمة مع المغرب تعود إلى عهد زوجها الرئيس الأمريكي الأسبق بيل كلينتون، الذي زارت معه المغرب أول مرة في منتصف التسعينات في عهد الملك الراحل الحسن الثاني. وفي حالة ذهاب كلينتون من منصبها في العهدة الثانية للرئيس الذي أعيد انتخابه فإن العلاقلات المغربية الأمريكية ستكون مرشحة لتطورات يصعب التنبؤ بها قبل الإعلان عن تشكيلة رموز الإدارة الأمريكية الجديدة مطلع العام المقبل. تعهد الملك في رسالة تهنئته إلى أوباما بمناسبة إعادة انتخباه على رأس الإارة الأمريكية كتب له الملك محمد السادس متعهدا بوقوف المغرب إلى جانب "ترسيخ قيم الحرية والعدل٬ والمساواة والكرامة٬ والحكامة الجيدة والتقدم المشترك٬ ونصرة القيم الإنسانية المثلى للتسامح والتعايش بين الديانات والحضارات٬ ونبذ كافة أشكال العنف والتطرف والانغلاق٬ وبذل كل الجهود الكفيلة بانبثاق عالم أفضل٬ أكثر أمنا وسلاما٬ وعدلا وتضامنا٬ والتزاما بالشرعية الدولية". وفي انتظار أن يصل رد الرئيس الأمريكي على تعهد الملك المغربي سيبقى الباب مفتوحا أمام كل الاحتمالات، أقلها سوءا عدم رد أوباما على رسالة الملك. فخلال ثلاث سنوات لم يبرق الرئيس للملك في مناسبات مهمة مثل احتفالات عيد العرش، حيث كانت رسائل التهنئة البروتوكولية تأتي من الخارجية الأمريكية ممهورة بتوقيع وزيرة الخارجية وليس من البيت الأبيض كما كان الشأن مع من الرؤساء الذين سبقوا أوباما...
Sunday, November 04, 2012
Friday, November 02, 2012
An Independent Western Sahara State is the Solution Capitalism Nature Socialism Volume 23, Issue 4, 2012 Malainin Lakhal* pages 40-51 Version of record first published: 02 Nov 2012 On December 14, 1960, nations of the world adopted a historical resolution to end an era of colonization. The “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,” or Resolution 1514 (XV) (UNHCR 1960), passed by the General Assembly that year was, in fact, heralded as the Magna Carta of the decolonization process in the world and the second most important step adopted by the international community after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The next year, the UN constituted the Special Committee on the Situation of Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, known as the Committee of the 24. The whole process enabled the emergence of new independent countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America after decades of bitter sacrifices and struggles against their oppressors and plunderers. Fifty-two years later, the job of this Committee remains unfinished, since the UN still registers sixteen territories as Non-Self-Governing territories and colonies, including Western Sahara, “the last colony in Africa” (UN 2012). From the very first day of the adoption of the Declaration, big powers and multinationals decided to find ways to overturn the will of the people and their struggle for freedom. They have done this by tying up emerging countries with economic and political constraints and starting what can rightly be described as a re-colonization (or neo-colonialism) process. Nevertheless, the strong winds of liberation and anti-colonialist feelings have pushed more and more adoptions of texts that confirm the people's innate rights to fight for their freedom. On December 20, 1965 for example, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2105 (XX), stating it: Recognizes the legitimacy of the struggle by the peoples under colonial rule to exercise their right to self-determination and independence and invites all States to provide material and moral assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial Territories (UN 1965, no. 10). That same year, Western Sahara, then commonly known as “Spanish Sahara,” was registered in the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Spain, the colonizing power at the time, adopted all possible delaying tactics, including trying to annex the territory by creating fake representations of the Saharawi people and proposing an autonomy to the country that the people of Western Sahara never accepted, exactly as Morocco is trying to do today. Map of Western Sahara The Saharawi people today are under violent and brutal repression by Morocco, which encloses those remaining in Saharawi territory in designated areas surrounded by military barriers and millions of landmines. The Saharawi struggle began in 1884, the first year that Spain claimed their country as a colony. Saharawi warriors first attacked the invaders in Dakhla. Between 1884 and 1958, freedom fighters fought many battles not only against the Spanish army but also the French, who were colonizing Morocco, Algeria, and Mauritania. To the Saharawi resistance, Spain and France were just two faces of the same coin. In 1958 these two colonial powers organized a huge military operation, called Ecouvillon, with the support of the army of Morocco, which had gained its independence just two years before. The goal was to destroy both all Saharawi armed resistance and the Moroccan liberation army that was still fighting the French colonial presence in their own country. Ecouvillon succeeded, and soon after it ended, Spain rewarded Morocco for its assistance. In an agreement between the two countries signed by Moroccan King Mohamed V, Madrid gave him the province of Tarfaya, which was part of Spanish Sahara until that time. The resistance, however, never stopped. In 1967, a young Saharawi teacher and journalist, Sidi-Brahim Basiri, organized the first Saharawi political organization, the Vanguard Movement of the Liberation of the Sahara, whose first open action was a vast peaceful popular uprising in 1970 (Zemla Intifada) in the occupied capital of Western Sahara, El Aaiun. Despite the nonviolent nature of the protest, the Spanish response was brutal. Many Saharawis were killed or injured by the Spanish army, and others were arrested, including the leader of the movement, Basiri. Despite strong suggestions that he was killed by the army shortly after he was arrested and tortured, to this date Basiri remains officially missing, because the Spanish government refuses to reveal the truth about his fate. The violence against the Saharawis peaceful national liberation movement triggered the birth of another liberation movement, which adopted armed struggle. The Frente Por la Liberacion del Sahara Occidental y Rio de Oro (POLISARIO, also known as Frente Polisario and the Polisario Front) was formed on May 10, 1973 by young Saharawi students, older veterans of the fifties, and members of the dismantled peaceful Movement. This new organization was led by a dynamic 22-year-old student, El Wali Mustapha Sayed. Ten days later, on May 20, 1973, POLISARIO succeeded in its first military operation against a small Spanish military post in Al Khanga, declaring the start of a new stage of resistance. Disturbed by the continuous unrest in Western Sahara, the UN, which continued to pressure Spain to decolonize its colony, sent a fact-finding mission to the territory in October 1975. At that time, neighboring Morocco and Mauritania were calling for a ruling from the International Court of Justice to challenge Spain's declared “willingness” to allow a self-determination referendum for the Saharawis by 1975. The UN fact-finding mission found and clearly stated that POLISARIO was the main political actor in the territory, and it recognized that POLISARIO represented the Saharawi majority, which refused any kind of annexation of their homeland by Spain, Morocco, or Mauritania. The International Court of Justice, meanwhile, studied the issue of sovereignty over Western Sahara for a month with the presence of representatives from the three countries who were holding claims in Western Sahara. Although Saharawis were excluded from the debate, on October 16, 1975, the ICJ found that: The materials and information presented to it [by Spain, Morocco and Mauritania] do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity. Thus the Court has not found legal ties of such a nature as might affect the application of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 in the decolonization of Western Sahara and, in particular, of the principle of self-determination through the free and genuine expression of the will of the people of the Territory. (ICJ 1975) Decolonization Unfinished, Re-colonization Begins Jump to section Decolonization Unfinished,... A Military Aggression Treated Under... Crimes Against Humanity and Human Rights... Military Enclosure and the Demographic... Natural Resources and European Greed Political Refugees: A Nation in Exile A Saharawi Vision for the Future Despite this clear ruling and a Spanish promise to implement the UN's resolutions calling for the organization of a self-determination referendum for the people of Western Sahara, Spain, succumbing to pressure from France and the U.S., signed a tripartite agreement with Morocco and Mauritania. Under this agreement, known as the Madrid Agreement, Spain abandoned its North African colony to a brutal double military invasion from both the north and south. Following the “deal,” Morocco and Mauritania moved to annex the territory, dividing it in two “portions.” In return for withdrawing, Spain was guaranteed privileged access to Saharawi natural resources, especially fisheries and phosphate. U.S. documents first published in 2006, reveal that in the 1970s, Henry Kissinger and the American government had given Moroccan King Hassan II the green light to invade.1 Hassan immediately put his plans into action by announcing what he called a “Green March,” which would take place on November 6, 1975. Generously covered by the Western and Arab media as a major “peaceful” event of liberation, the march included more than 350,000 Moroccan civilians. But behind the scenes far from the cameras, as early as October 31 (six days before the “civilian” march), the Moroccan army had started the invasion in coordination with the Spanish authorities. They attacked the northeastern territories of Western Sahara, killing large numbers of the Saharawi population. Aside from having to face both the Moroccan and the Mauritanian armies, The Polisario Front now had to protect civilians from genocide after the Moroccan air forces started bombarding them with napalm, cluster bombs, and white phosphorous bombs. The Saharawi movement also had to develop a diplomatic and political struggle to force the international community to assume its responsibility. American and French support along with the Arab countries’ money was crucial to the success of the Moroccan invasion, which faced fierce armed resistance by the Saharawi guerillas that cost the Moroccan army thousands of casualties and significant amounts of military equipment. American, French, and Arab backing hindered any kind of intervention by the UN, despite the fact that Morocco was committing a clear military aggression and annexing another territory by force. Under normal circumstances, Chapter VII in the UN Charter, titled “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression,” would have been invoked to deal with the situation. But Morocco's influential allies never allowed this to happen. A Military Aggression Treated Under Chapter VI Jump to section Decolonization Unfinished,... A Military Aggression Treated Under... Crimes Against Humanity and Human Rights... Military Enclosure and the Demographic... Natural Resources and European Greed Political Refugees: A Nation in Exile A Saharawi Vision for the Future Jacob Mundy, an American scholar who has extensively studied the Western Sahara issue, written many articles about it, and recently co-authored a book with Stephen Zunes (Zunes, et al. 2010), summed up the situation this way: Morocco's forceful attempt to annex Western Sahara constitutes one of the most egregious violations of the international order codified in the wake of World War Two. The United Nations was founded to prevent the aggressive expansion of territory by force. Yet in Western Sahara, the Security Council has turned a blind eye to Morocco's blatant contravention of the UN Charter (Mundy 2007). Instead of treating the case of Western Sahara under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Morocco's powerful allies pressured the Security Council to handle it under Chapter VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes) (UN Charter, Chapter VI). As a consequence, the UN is unable to impose the implementation of any resolution it adopts on any parties to the conflict, including the aggressor because Chapter VI calls for “negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, [and] resort[ing] to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice” (UN Charter, Chapter VI, Article 33). In this case, more than 100 resolutions have been adopted in vain by the Security Council and the General Assembly because Morocco consistently refuses to implement them. This state of affairs has prevented the exercise of self-determination for Western Sahara and allowed Morocco and its allies to violate the human rights of its people and plunder their natural resources with total impunity. The political dynamics of the situation remain entrenched; under continuing pressure from France and the U.S. along with Spain's failure to assume its legal responsibility to decolonize the territory, the UN is now trying to resolve the conflict in a way that would favor Morocco's illegal annexation of the last colony in Africa. Testimonies and studies by different UN officials and researchers reveal that the UN's brokered settlement plan of 1991 and subsequent peace plans were all designed to force increasing concessions from the Saharawis instead of forcing Morocco to respect international law, which recognizes the Saharawi people's rights to self-determination, independence, and sovereignty over their territory (Zunes, et al. 2010). Furthermore, UN officials, especially former UN Secretary General, Perez De Cuellar, systematically and purposefully deceived the Saharawi liberation movement, including giving it false information and documents, to convince it to adhere to the peace plan (Zunes, et al. 2010). Now the UN is little by little pushing the weakest party in the conflict, the oppressed Saharawi people, to give up their right, cease fighting, and accept autonomy within Morocco. However, these “efforts” have not succeeded because the Saharawi resistance never stopped championing the right to independence. After accepting the UN's involvement and respecting a cease-fire in 1991, the Saharawi population adopted new tactics of struggle. Peaceful resistance began as early as 1992, a few months after the deployment of the UN Mission for the Organization of a Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). In 1999 and 2005, different Saharawi occupied cities were sites of massive peaceful popular uprisings that transcended the recognized geographic borders of Western Sahara to reach the southern region of Morocco, which was historically Saharawi. Nevertheless, the UN continues to: [c]all upon the parties to continue negotiations under the auspices of the Secretary-General without preconditions and in good faith, taking into account the efforts made since 2006 and subsequent developments, with a view to achieving a just, lasting, and mutually acceptable political solution, which will provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara in the context of arrangements consistent with the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, and noting the role and responsibilities of the parties in this respect. (UNSC 2010). That is to say, that the UN is waiting for the oppressor, Morocco, to abandon its expansionist plans and give Saharawis their land back. Because Morocco refuses to allow the Saharawis to vote democratically in any referendum that includes independence as one of the three obligatory choices for self-determination (independence, autonomy or integration), the solution remains out of reach. Meanwhile, the Moroccan occupation forces continue to oppress any Saharawi demonstration or uprising that champions independence or demands Saharawi people's rights, while the UN mission continues its role as a passive witness to human rights violations committed by Moroccan authorities and primarily documented by international human rights organizations. MINURSO is not only failing to implement its main mandate, organizing a referendum, it is also the only UN peacekeeping mission in the world that is not officially mandated to monitor and protect human rights. Crimes Against Humanity and Human Rights Violations: The French Connection Jump to section Decolonization Unfinished,... A Military Aggression Treated Under... Crimes Against Humanity and Human Rights... Military Enclosure and the Demographic... Natural Resources and European Greed Political Refugees: A Nation in Exile A Saharawi Vision for the Future In 2006, the UN dispatched a mission from the Office of the UN Human Rights Commissioner to Western Sahara and the Saharawi Refugee Camps in southwest Algeria. In May and June 2006, mission representatives met with victims of violations and human rights defenders on both sides and concluded that: 1. As has been stated in various UN fora, the right to self-determination for the people of Western Sahara must be ensured and implemented without any further delay. As underlined above, the delegation concludes that almost all human rights violations and concerns with regard to the people of Western Sahara, whether under the de facto authority of the Government of Morocco or of the Frente Polisario, stem from the non-implementation of this fundamental human right. 2. The efforts by the international community through the Security Council and the Secretary-General aiming at assisting the parties to achieving a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution consistent with the right to self-determination of the people of Western Sahara should be fully supported and upheld. (OHCHR 2006) This report was embargoed from 2006 because France pressured the Security Council to prevent its publication; however, it was recently leaked to the media and NGOs. It's particularly interesting that the same French government that openly declares support for the illegal Moroccan occupation of the territory also opposes any kind of enlargement of MINURSO's mandate to include the protection and monitoring of human rights in Western Sahara. French representatives also made it clear in the Security Council in 2010 and 2011 that France will veto any Security Council mandate for the UN Mission in Western Sahara to protect civilians against Moroccan violations—a position France neglected to adopt recently regarding Libya and Syria. In those cases Paris “vehemently” campaigned for the “protection of civilians” from the violence of the authorities in those two countries. Morocco's brutality in the invasion and occupation constitutes crimes against humanity and war crimes, especially during the first years of the invasion (Hanga, et al. 2010). Morocco continues to commit unspeakable human rights’ violations, such as the systematic practice of torture against peaceful demonstrators and prisoners, including children, forced disappearance, and arbitrary detention, in addition to plundering the natural resources of Western Sahara against the will of the population. Morocco also built and maintains the longest military wall ever constructed by a colonial power. This wall divides Saharawi families in two parts, making it impossible for them to reunite or even meet. The invasion also generated one of the longest political refugee situations in the world. Since 1976, approximately 200,000 Saharawi political refugees have been based in southwest Algeria living on basic international humanitarian aid. The camps are run by the refugees themselves under the administration of the Polisario Front and the Saharawi Republic, and thus provide a rare experience of refugees’ self-administration. Military Enclosure and the Demographic Invasion Jump to section Decolonization Unfinished,... A Military Aggression Treated Under... Crimes Against Humanity and Human Rights... Military Enclosure and the Demographic... Natural Resources and European Greed Political Refugees: A Nation in Exile A Saharawi Vision for the Future Between 1980 and 1987, the Moroccan Royal Army built approximately 4,000 km of sand-walls in six stages. Today, 2,700 km remain in active use.2 This endeavor could not have succeeded without strong political support from Israel, France, and the U.S. along with money from Gulf Arab states to engineer and construct it. More than 120,000 Moroccan troops are stationed in posts and military bases every 2 to 3 km, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Beyond the wall, Morocco maintains live minefields and barbed-wire fences and other military devices and obstacles, making it impossible for people and animals to move around in the once-free desert. According to the most conservative estimate, Morocco deployed more than 5 million landmines it received from European countries, the U.S., and Israel, making Western Sahara one of the ten most landmine-laden countries in the world. Like Israel, Morocco continues to refuse to sign the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. The military sand-wall, or berm, and network of landmines make the occupied zones of Western Sahara the biggest open sky prison in the world, keeping the Saharawi population confined to their cities unable to move freely in their territory as they could before the invasion. Dozens of victims are maimed or killed by the landmines every year. The military wall also undermines the Saharawi traditional nomadic life, a campaign Morocco engaged in from the beginning of the invasion, when the Moroccan army began forcing all nomads to go to the cities. Survivors tell stories from the 1970s of extermination of complete families and groups of nomads, including groups who have been buried alive or bombed and killed with their livestock. Morocco has engaged in enormous efforts to change the demography in Western Sahara. In addition to the massacres, detention, intimidation, harassment, and forced impoverishment against Saharawis, all of which has pushed thousands to flee Western Sahara, Moroccan authorities, similar to Israel's policy in the occupied Palestinian territories, have encouraged Moroccan settlers to move to Western Sahara. The Moroccan government generously encourages settlement, providing housing, double salaries, subsidized food, and jobs. The governent also provides all the facilities and infrastructure that are needed to exploit the natural resources of the North African territory; though this is desert land, it is rich in resources. Natural Resources and European Greed Jump to section Decolonization Unfinished,... A Military Aggression Treated Under... Crimes Against Humanity and Human Rights... Military Enclosure and the Demographic... Natural Resources and European Greed Political Refugees: A Nation in Exile A Saharawi Vision for the Future Western Sahara, which is around the size of the U.K., has one of the world's richest fisheries off of its coast, one of the largest high-quality phosphate reserves, possible deposits of oil and gas, iron, gold, diamonds, and other rare minerals. But most important is its richness in terms of renewable energy: 300 sunny days per year, strong winds, as well as additional potential with 1,200 km of Atlantic coastline.3 Besides this, the people of Western Sahara—in the occupied zones, in the camps, and in the Diaspora in Mauritania, Algeria, Spain and elsewhere—number less than one million, though most are well educated and politically active. Morocco started exploiting the phosphate and the fishing resources immediately after it took control of the western part of the territory; it built the military wall to protect this exploitation. Western Sahara brings Morocco billions of dollars every year, but it also provides it with a vast territory for 120,000 troops and hundreds of thousands of Moroccan settlers. Moreover, it was recently proved that the Moroccan king is personally exploiting the potential of the territory around the southern city of Dakhla where he has a vast agricultural plantation dedicated to growing high-quality tomatoes, melons, bananas and other products specifically for export to European markets (WSRW 2012). But the Moroccan king's money isn't the only foreign plunderer. French multinational firms own big plantations in the same region and are developing a colonial agriculture that doesn't provide any profit to the region or its inhabitants. Even the seasonal workers are Moroccans who are brought in mainly from the north. According to a recent report by Western Sahara Resource Watch, an international NGO, in 2010, agricultural production totaled around 60,000 tons, 95 percent of which was sent to foreign markets. The Moroccan Ministry of Agriculture estimates the cultivable area of the southern parts of Western Sahara at about 1,000,000 hectares, and there are hundreds of thousands hectares in the north of the territory that can be exploited. A significant problem in this exploitation is the abuse of precious water resources by the Moroccan state and the multinationals. WSRW points to French plantation owner Tawarta, which has “two deep wells, both more than 500 meters deep, pumping up water reserves from non-renewable underground water basins at a speed of 13–14 liters per second” (WSRW, Conflict Tomatoes 2012). Although Western Sahara currently has huge underground water resources, in the larger context of escalating global water scarcity, these resources should be conserved, used responsibly, and not squandered to irrigate luxury products that go to European hotels and markets to enrich the Moroccan king and French multinationals. Even the Saharawi sand is plundered. All Spanish Canary Island and Madeira beaches are permanent clients. They import thousands of tons of pristine dune sand every year to attract more and more tourists. Despite all the richness of the Saharawi territory, the Saharawi population continues to suffer joblessness, poverty, and a variety of abuses. In October 2010, some 20,000 Saharawis of all ages and generations walked out of the capital of Western Sahara 12 km to build a tent protest camp, Gdeim Izik camp, and demand respect for their social, economic, cultural, and political rights. On November 8, 2010, the Moroccan army attacked the camp, arresting hundreds of people and turning the city into a theater of confrontation for days. Noam Chomsky declared in several interviews that this protest action and confrontation was the prelude to the Arab spring that followed a little more than a month later in mid-December (Chomsky 2011). Political Refugees: A Nation in Exile Jump to section Decolonization Unfinished,... A Military Aggression Treated Under... Crimes Against Humanity and Human Rights... Military Enclosure and the Demographic... Natural Resources and European Greed Political Refugees: A Nation in Exile A Saharawi Vision for the Future Although the Saharawi people have lived in refugee camps for the past 36 years, they refuse to be seen as poor and helpless victims. They have always been resistant, which is why they are still fighting the invaders as well as resisting the pressures of Morocco's powerful allies. Saharawis have had to fight against Spain's immoral treason4; they have had to deal with the U.S.'s “pragmatic policies,” which favored the interests of Morocco over respect for international law; they have had to face France's blatant support of the occupation and human rights abuses; they have had to confront the Arab denial of their right to be treated as equals, as an African-Arab-moderate Muslim nation that longs to live in peace with its neighbors and believes in an emancipated and unified Africa. In their quest to manifest their dream of independence, the Saharawis have had to fight a bitter sixteen-year war to earn international recognition of their rights. They also have had to build a state from scratch, because Spain didn't leave them a single national institution. So, the refugee camps were built to secure the lives of thousands of women and children, but also to empower them with education and skills to be the human pillars upon which a nation-state has been built, thus farm, in exile. While men were in the front confronting the Moroccan and Mauritanian armies, Saharawi women assumed the duty of building institutions, such as schools and hospitals. They had to build a life in harsh desert conditions and at the same time learn from the experience, because they were newly transitioning out of a nomadic life and a horrific war situation. Saharawi women currently hold 25 percent of the seats in the Saharawi Parliament. They have a strong political and social organization within POLISARIO devoted to protecting women's rights, and women make up 10 percent of POLISARIO's highest political leadership. Women account for around 14 percent of the government workforce, which includes three women ministers (of culture, education, and social care), and more than 60 percent of those working in health and education. They also have an important presence in the diplomatic corps and in other sectors. A Saharawi Vision for the Future Jump to section Decolonization Unfinished,... A Military Aggression Treated Under... Crimes Against Humanity and Human Rights... Military Enclosure and the Demographic... Natural Resources and European Greed Political Refugees: A Nation in Exile A Saharawi Vision for the Future For the majority of the Saharawis: “there is no other alternative to self-determination,” the common refrain at most demonstrations. The solution can only be a free and democratic vote that would allow the Saharawi people to decide the future of their land. This is what the UN Charter recognizes, this is the International Court of Justice ruling, and this is what all international covenants say. Any other “solution,” no matter how “mutually accepted” by the big powers, would never end the struggle of the Saharwi people, who cherish freedom more than their own lives and who time and again have proved their willingness to die for it. Yet, the Saharawi people know they cannot survive on their own. This is why they have struggled since the seventies to adhere to the dream of a truly self-governing African Union. Now the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic, proclaimed since February 27, 1976, is a full-fledged member of the African Union, recognized by some 80 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The Saharawis continue to hold the vision for their independent Republic, as evidenced by the slogan they adopted in the Congress of POLISARIO in December 2011: “The Independent Saharawi State is the Solution.” Notes 1For further reading on this, see Mundy 2006. 2 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Western_sahara_walls_moroccan_map-en.svg. This map represents the seven stages of building the Moroccan military wall. British archaeologist, Sal Garfi, who was interested in landscape and 20th century conflict, studied the Moroccan walls using satellite images. He concluded that the six major walls Morocco built from 1980 to 1987 are around 4,000 km long. The active part of the wall is now 2,700 km going from north to the south, as shown in the map. 3For more information on natural resources, visit Western Sahara Resource Watch at http://www.wsrw.org. 4The Saharawis consider the Spanish signature of the tripartite agreement with Morocco and Mauritania as treason because of the promises Spain gave to both the UN and the Saharawis to organize a referendum on Saharawi independence in 1975. The Saharawis were taken by surprise by the Moroccan invasion, because to the last moment, Spain was promising them decolonization. References 1. Chomsky , N. 2011 . The genie is out of the bottle: Assessing change in the Arab world . February 21 . http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/empire/2011/02/20112211027266463.html . 2. International Court of Justice . 1975 . Advisory opinion: Western Sahara . Oct 16 . http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=69&case=61&code=sa&p3=4 . 3. Hanga , S. , M. Klamberg , and Y.L. Lennartsson . 2010 . Crimes against humanity in Western Sahara: The case against Morocco . Jurisidisk Publikation http://www.juridiskpublikation.se/2b/library/files/113/S%C3%A1ntha,_Lennartsson_Hartmann_och_Klamberg.pdf . 4. Mundy , J. 2006 . How the U.S. seized Spanish Sahara . Le Monde Diplomatique . Jan . Online at: http://mondediplo.com/2006/01/12asahara . 5. Mundy , J. . 2007 . The legal status of Western Sahara and the laws of war and occupation . http://uswsf.org/images/Legal_status.pdf . 6. UNHCR . 1960 . Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and Peoples’ Resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960 . http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/independence.htm . 7. United Nations . 1965 . Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples’ Resolution 2105 (XX) . http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/218/68/IMG/NR021868.pdf?OpenElement . 8. United Nations . 2012 . List of non-self-governing territories . http://www.un.org/en/events/nonselfgoverning/nonselfgoverning.shtml#2 . 9. UN Charter . 1945 . Chapter VI: Pacific settlements of disputes . http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter6.shtml . 10. UN Charter . 1945 . Chapter VII: Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression . http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml . 11. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights . 2006 . Report of the OHCHR mission to Western Sahara and the refugee camps in Tindouf 15/23 May and 19 June . http://www.arso.org/OHCHRrep2006en.pdf . 12. UN Security Council . 2010 . Mandate of the UN mission for referendum in Western Sahara: Resolution 1920 . http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/sc9917.doc.htm . 13. Western Sahara Resource Watch . 2012 . WSRW report reveals massive agri-industry in occupied Western Sahara . http://www.wsrw.org/a105x2246. Also see report, Conflict Tomato. WSRW. Feb. 14. 2012. http://www.scribd.com/doc/81553687/Conflict-Tomatoes-The-Moroccan-agriculture-industry-in-occupied-Western-Sahara-and-the-controversial-exports-to-the-EU-market . 14. Zunes , S. and J. Mundy . 2010 . Western Sahara: War, nationalism and conflict resolution (Studies on Peace and Conflict Resolution) . Syracuse , NY : Syracuse Univ. Press .
تقرير ميداني من العيون المحتلة حول التحدي الأسمى شهدت العيون المحتلة عشية الفاتح نونبر 2012 مظاهرات متفرقة بعدة أحياء تطالب بالحرية والاستقلال، وذلك تزامنا مع الزيارة غير المسبوقة التي قام بها مبعوث الأمم المتحدة السيد كريستوفر روس إلى المناطق المحتلة رغم التطويق والحصار الأمني والعسكري والاستخباراتي الذي شدد أيام قبل الزيارة باستقدام عناصر( شماكرية) الشرطة والقوات المساعدة الياف