segunda-feira, 29 de dezembro de 2008

Cuando los "accidentes de carretera" ocultan asesinatos


La oposición al poder aumenta el riesgo de sufrir accidentes de circulación. Muchos lo hemos visto en las películas de "James Bond", pero si alguno piensa que eso sólo ocurre en la ficción, se equivoca. Otro ejemplo del juego siniestro en el que los "malos" hacen de "buenos". En el Reino Unido, un prestigioso diario, el Daily Telegraph recoge la hipótesis de que el general Patton no muriera víctima de un "accidente". En Marruecos un oficial del Ejército exiliado denuncia algo ya más sabido, que el ex-número 2 de Hassán II, Dlimi, tampoco murió en un "accidente".

La edición de The Daily Telegraph de hoy domingo se hace eco del libro "Target Patton" (Objetivo Patton) escrito por el historiador militar Robert Wilcox.
La tesis es que la Office of Strategic Services (OSS), servicio secreto antecedente de lo que hoy es la CIA (la interesante película "El buen pastor" habla de esa etapa), liquidó a Patton porque éste, coherente con los principios que defendía, se oponía a un entendimiento con la Unión Soviética comandada entonces por Stalin. Wilcox reconoce (¡Oh, sorpresa!) que los restos del "accidente" que sufrió Patton fueron manipulados.

Lo anterior resulta escandaloso, porque, al fin y al cabo, hablamos de una democracia. Menos extraño, más que nada porque es bastante habitual, es que los servicios secretos marroquíes se dediquen a asesinar. Dejando al margen los crímenes de activistas diversos, son varios los personajes importantes que fueron liquidados cuando empezaron a hacer sombra al sultán marroquí: Ben Barka, Dlimi, Mandari (a Ufkir no lo asesinaron los servicios secretos marroquíes sino Hassan II en persona)....
Un antiguo oficial del Ejército marroquí que publicó un importante libro para conocer los entresijos de éste, Majyub Tobyi, declara que:

- para mí (Dlimi) fue liquidado por un equipo de especialistas reclutado en el extranjero. En mi opinión, Dlimi había pecado de arrogancia. En un cierto momento, ni siquiera respondía a las llamadas telefónicas del rey (Hassán II).
-¿Descarta usted la tesis oficial del accidente, incluso si las carreteras marroquíes son las más asesinas del mundo?
- No se puede circular a más de 40 o 50 km/h en la carretera donde se encontró el vehículo de Dlimi. A esa velocidad es imposible tener un accidente mortal.

Para evitar estas cosas es para lo que se requiere que haya un adecuado control de los servicios secretos.

sexta-feira, 26 de dezembro de 2008

Un poco de humor venido del sur


El "Corcas", es un órgano marroquí que, supuestamente, "asesora" a Mohamed VI sobre los asuntos del Sahara Occidental. De vez en cuando se reúne y, como no tiene competencias para decidir sobre ningún aspecto, concluye su reunión con un comunicado que trata de complacer al individuo que les ha nombrado a todos ellos. Los comunicados del Corcas no tienen desperdicio.

El Corcas ha publicado hoy uno de esos comunicados que producen una amarga hilaridad. Son hilarantes, ciertamente, pero cuando uno piensa en toda la corrupción política, económica y moral que rodea la monarquía alauita no deja de sentir un poso de amargura.

Se ve que los del Corcas andan muy ocupados y no han tenido tiempo de leer el informe de Human Rights Watch porque no deja de ser curioso que "denuncien", por ejemplo, "clima de presión, coacción y ausencia total de toda forma de libertad de expresión" de los refugiados de Tinduf, y que los llame 'secuestrados', cuando apenas unos días antes el informe de Human Rights Watch dijo todo lo contrario.

Pero hay un punto donde se superan. Un punto que, curiosamente, aparece en el comunicado de prensa publicado en francés, pero no en español.

Dice así:

Nos frères 'séquestrés' dans les camps de Tindouf vivent dans un climat de 'pression', de 'contrainte' et en l'absence totale de 'toute' forme de liberté d'expression, une des composantes des droits de l'homme universels, outre la 'peur' et le 'désespoir' résultant de l'absence des conditions 'les plus élémentaires' de la vie digne, de la liberté de circulation et de 'jouissance' de l'identité marocaine.


El pasaje entre cursivas puede ser traducido como que

nuestros hermanos 'secuestrados' viven (...) en la ausencia (...) del 'disfrute' de la 'identidad marroquí'

Esto lo dicen, justo después de que se destituyera al secretario de Estado del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores marroquí por solicitar y obtener la nacionalidad española.... y lo dicen cuando ¡un importantísimo número de miembros del Corcas igualmente han solicitado y obtenido la nacionalidad española!

Si tanta dicha produce el "disfrute" de la "identidad marroquí" no sé muy bien por qué todos intentan obtener la nacionalidad española.... y por qué ningún español (¡ni siquiera Goytisolo!) intenta obtener la nacionalidad marroquí...

Demoledor informe de HRW para Marruecos: rueda la primera cabeza


El 19 de diciembre la prestigiosa organización norteamericana de derechos humanos Human Rights Watch (HRW) publicó un informe sobre "La situación de los derechos humanos en el Sahara Occidental y los campamentos de refugiados de Tinduf" que ha sido demoledor para Marruecos. Y tendrá consecuencias. En el majzén ya ha rodado la primera cabeza, la del secretario de Estado del Ministerio de Asuntos exteriores marroquí, Ahmed Lekhrif.

El informe de HRW sobre el Sahara Occidental [puede verse el texto íntegro en inglés aquí y un resumen en español aquí] ha sido un acontecimiento.

Son dos los aspectos fundamentales del informe: la verificación de que Marruecos viola los derechos humanos en el Sahara... y la constatación de que se trata de un territorio ocupado.

1. Los comentarios en la prensa española, se han fijado en el primer aspecto, a saber:
- que Marruecos viola de forma sistemática e impune los derechos humanos en el territorio ocupado del Sahara Occidental.
- que en los campamentos de refugiados de Tinduf no existen las violaciones de derechos humanos que Marruecos y sus antenas (también en España) dicen que se producen.

Ambas cosas ya se sabían por cualquier observador imparcial, pero el interés del informe es que se publica en un momento en el que Marruecos está invirtiendo grandes cantidades dinero en:
- vender la imagen de que en Marruecos se producen "reformas"
- crear una falsa imagen del Frente Polisario como organización "terrorista" que viola los derechos humanos.

Con este informe, todo el dinero gastado por Marruecos en estas campañas queda destinado directamente a la basura.

2. A estas comprobaciones se une otra que, a mi juicio, es incluso más importante. La premisa del informe es que:

La situación del Sahara Occidental es la de una ocupación bajo las normas del Derecho de los conflictos armados

Por cierto, esta es la tesis que defendió la profesora Christine Chinkin en su intervención en el importante congreso sobre el Sahara Occidental celebrado en Pretoria y del que se informó aquí.

¿Qué conclusiones se extraen de este informe?
Básicamente dos:

1. La influyente organización norteamericana descalifica automáticamente el proyecto de llamada "autonomía" para el Sahara Occidental porque ese proyecto parte de la base de que el Sahara es marroquí, cuando el informe deja claro que el Sahara es un territorio ocupado. Fallando la premisa, todo el proyecto marroquí se derrumba.

2. HRW descalifica igualmente el proyecto de "estatuto avanzado" para Marruecos tal y como se ha presentado pues:
- por un lado, niega que haya en el Sahara ocupado por Marruecos el nivel de "democracia" y "derechos humanos" que se exige para otorgarle este status privilegiado
- por otro lado, obliga a que la UE tenga en cuenta que el Sahara Occidental es un territorio ocupado y, por tanto, no puede extender la vigencia de dicho "Estatuto avanzado" al Sahara Occidental.

Vista la trascendencia del informe no es de extrañar que el sultán marroquí se encolerizara. Y la primera cabeza en caer ha sido la del secretario de Estado del Ministerio de Asuntos exteriores marroquí, Ahmed Lekhrif.

- Algunos han apuntado como causa de su cese el que este individuo, nacido en el Sahara Español, haya pedido y obtenido la nacionalidad española.
Pero esta explicación no es convincente. Y no lo es porque hay otros ministros y consejeros marroquíes que también tienen doble y hasta triple nacionalidad, en algunos casos la española, en otras la francesa.

- La explicación es bien otra. Lekhrif estaba encargado en el Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores de la vertiente "académica" del asunto del Sahara. El informe HRW, que al fin y al cabo es un profundo estudio, habría entrado en su esfera de responsabilidad. Lekhrif no supo o no pudo minimizar los perjuicios que para la estrategia marroquí iba a significar el informe HRW. Y ha sido destituido.

En el majzén existe un miedo difícil de disimular: ¿puede seguir siendo la política de USA hacia Marruecos y el Sahara Occidental la misma que hasta ahora después de la publicación de este informe?

quarta-feira, 24 de dezembro de 2008

Politics and search for a winning cause


Rarely do countries get an opportunity to distinguish themselves over particular issues that capture public imagination at the global level, one that becomes their winning cause.

The number of countries that actually gauge the right moment to take a position and be seen to be principled is limited to a few, although the opportunities are many.

Those few that know when to seize an opportunity would often sacrifice some comfort and take positions that might not be very pleasing to powerful forces. Their guiding principle is that it is in their interest to correct a clear wrong. They in the end come out as prescient.

Anti-colonialism has been one of those causes that is attractive to promote and be seen to be in the forefront of promoting it. Initially those who do it risk a lot in terms of material comfort and even personal safety.

Thus the men who met at Manchester in 1945 to strategise on how to wipe out colonialism were risking the unknown in that the British and French empires, though weakened by World War II, were still very strong and could easily kill the agitators.

Not finding a meeting place in London because the big shots occupied most of the facilities, they had moved a little north to Manchester where the mayor was kind enough to open the meeting of anti-colonial troublemakers.

The act of the mayor of Manchester opening the meeting indicated that even within the imperial power centres there are many people who do not support the exploitation conducted in their name.

The men at Manchester included Jomo Kenyatta, who represented a banned organisation in Kenya, the Kikuyu Central Association, and Francis Kwame Nkrumah who forgot about graduate studies to engage in anti-colonialism.

They issued a statement committing themselves to eradicating colonialism even if it meant global commotion. In Kenya, the good cause was the Mau Mau War that increased Kenyatta’s reputation as a "revolutionary" in anti-colonialist circles. Other settler colonies would later emulate Kenya.

The Gold Coast also captured imagination with Nkrumah being elected while he was in jail. On the Gold Coast becoming independent Ghana in 1957, Nkrumah made liberation and unity of Africa his priority.

He, however, had problems with his neighbours, particularly Togo, because of supposed irredentist proclivities which put him in the same camp as Somalia. His calls for African unity, however, became identifying ideology for which he got credit. It was Nkrumah’s winning cause.

Suspicion for the intentions of the irredentist states was responsible for the decision, at the founding of the OAU in 1963, that while supporting decolonisation of the remaining territories, colonial boundaries should remain sacrosanct.

Thereafter, symbolic African decolonisation leadership shifted from Nkrumah, who was overthrown in 1966, to Julius Nyerere of Tanzania. In the midst of its ujamaa experiments, Tanzania persevered additional hardships of hosting and training anti-colonialists that targeted recalcitrant settler colonies in Rhodesia, Mozambique, Angola, and South Africa. Subsequently, the Portuguese were forced to leave Mozambique and Angola in 1975. Five years later, in 1980, Rhodesia became Zimbabwe.

That left South Africa and it took another 10 years before apartheid agreed to abolish itself in 1990. The liberation of Southern Africa had been Tanzania’s winning cause.

Having received the support of other African countries, South Africa seems to be in search of its own winning cause. The only remaining colony in Africa is Western Sahara whose independence from Spain in 1976 was aborted by Morocco which became the new colonial power.

In the same way that Tanzania took liberation of southern Africa as its winning cause, pressing for Sahrawi’s independence appears like a winning cause for South Africa.

Munene is a professor of history and international relations at USIU.
http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11908&Itemid=5848

segunda-feira, 22 de dezembro de 2008

Sahara Occidental: la traición de Felipe, una losa para ZP


Felipe González concluyó con Hassán II en 1991 dos pactos secretos que son una alta traición y que pesan como una losa sobre el presidente actual. El Presidente Zapatero tiene varios retos para la posteridad, pero en materia de política exterior el reto es si será el ejecutor de la traición pactada por González o tendrá un criterio propio y coherente con el que dice ser su pensamiento.

El Tratado de "Buena vecindad" entre España y Marruecos impulsado por Felipe González y Hassán II tiene una parte escrita (la publicada en el BOE), y otra no publicada, la compuesta por los acuerdos secretos entre ambos. Esos acuerdos secretos tienen un común denominador: la traición. El primero de los acuerdos es renunciar a apoyar la independencia del pueblo saharaui; el segundo, la entrega de Ceuta y Melilla a Marruecos tomando como preámbulo la creación de una "célula de reflexión" conjunta hispano-marroquí.

Marruecos decidió provocar una crisis bilateral ante la negativa del presidente Aznar a dar curso a los dos pactos secretos suscritos por González. En efecto, contra lo que se afirma en interpretaciones interesadas, el desencadenante de la crisis no fue el referendum popular sobre la independencia que celebraron asociaciones pro-saharauis en Andalucía. Quien afirma esto, o no sabe, o lo que es peor, quiere ocultar la realidad. El desencadenante, repito, fue que Aznar no quiso impedir la independencia del Sahara Occidental y se negó a crear la citada "célula de reflexión". En octubre de 2001, en la Comisión de Descolonización de la Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas se discutió si se apoyaba el llamado "proyecto de acuerdo marco" que estipulaba la anexión del Sáhara Occidental a Marruecos con la excusa de otorgarle una supuesa "autonomía". Francia pretendía que toda la UE votara a favor de esa propuesa, pero el gobierno de Aznar se opuso. Aquella medida de Aznar supuso dar el golpe de gracia a la propuesta "autonómico"-anexionista.

La Visita que hizo a Rabat el entonces jefe de la oposición, Rodríguez Zapatero se produjo en diciembre de 2001, apenas unos meses después. Y estuvo acompañado de Trinidad Jiménez, una "protegida" de Felipe González. En aquel momento quedó claro que si Marruecos apoyaba a Rodríguez Zapatero para alcanzar el poder el precio era asumir los pactos secretos de González con Hassán.
Ahora, eliminado Aznar del escenario después del atentado del 11-M, Marruecos ha vuelto exigir el cumplimiento de aquellos pactos secretos.

En relación con Ceuta y Melilla, Marruecos ha visto con sorpresa cómo Rodríguez Zapatero, ha tenido una postura ambigua: si es cierto que no ha protestado la ocupación marroquí de parte del territorio y de las aguas de Melilla, sin embargo, ha apoyado con su visita y la de los Reyes la soberanía española sobre esos territorios.

En relación con el Sáhara Occidental, Marruecos constata que Rodríguez Zapatero apoya sus pretensiones, pero no lo hace con el entusiasmo que Felipe González y Marruecos desearían.

¿Es que Rodríguez Zapatero está "despegándose" de Felipe González? Es una hipótesis. ZP reaccionaría así a los desprecios y conspiraciones de Felipe contra él.
Rodríguez Zapatero tiene ante sí un grave reto: el de determinar cómo quiere pasar a la historia. Puede ser el ejecutor de la traición pactada por González o puede tomar otro camino.
De él depende.

sexta-feira, 19 de dezembro de 2008

Morocco:Suppressing Rights in Western Sahara



Population of Polisario-Run Refugee Camps Remain Vulnerable

The repression has eased somewhat, and today dissidents are testing the red lines. But Moroccan authorities - to their credit - ask us to judge them not against their own past record, but against their international human rights engagements. By that standard, they have a long way to go.

Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch



(Rabat, December 19, 2008) - Morocco violates the rights to expression, association, and assembly in Western Sahara, Human Rights Watch said in a new report issued today, revealing stark limits to the progress that Morocco has made in protecting human rights overall. Human rights conditions have also improved in the Sahrawi refugee camps managed by the Polisario Front in Algeria, although the Polisario marginalizes those who directly oppose its leadership.

Human Rights Watch called on both Morocco and Polisario to take specific steps to improve the human rights situation in the territories under their de facto control, and on the United Nations Security Council to ensure regular human rights monitoring in both Western Sahara and Tindouf.

"The repression has eased somewhat, and today dissidents are testing the red lines," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "But Moroccan authorities - to their credit - ask us to judge them not against their own past record, but against their international human rights engagements. By that standard, they have a long way to go."

The 216-page report, "Human Rights in Western Sahara and in the Tindouf Refugee Camps," focuses on the present-day situation rather than on past abuses. Human Rights Watch documents how Morocco uses a combination of repressive laws, police violence, and unfair trials to punish Sahrawis who advocate peacefully in favor of independence or full self-determination for the disputed Western Sahara.

"The Western Sahara is an international problem that has been on the back burner for decades," said Whitson. "But through this conflict, the world can also understand and address the broader human rights challenges that remain for Morocco."

In Western Sahara, Moroccan authorities consider all opposition to their rule of the disputed territory as illegal attacks on Morocco's "territorial integrity," and use this as a basis to ban or disperse peaceful demonstrations and to deny legal recognition to human rights organizations. The problem goes well beyond repressive laws, however: police beat peaceful pro-independence demonstrators and sometimes torture persons in their custody, Human Rights Watch said. Citizens file formal complaints about police abuse that the justice system routinely dismisses without conducting serious investigations, reinforcing a climate of impunity for the police.

While Sahrawi demonstrations sometimes involve acts of protester violence that Moroccan authorities have a responsibility to prevent and punish, this cannot justify blanket bans on peaceful assemblies. Moroccan courts have convicted Sahrawi human rights activists of inciting or participating in violence based on dubious evidence, in trials that were patently unfair.

In preparing this report, Human Rights Watch interviewed scores of people living in Western Sahara as well as present and former residents of the Tindouf refugee camps. Both Moroccan and Polisario authorities received the Human Rights Watch delegation, imposed no significant obstacles on its work, and provided extensive answers to questions from Human Rights Watch that are reflected in the report.

In the Tindouf refugee camps, the Polisario Front allows refugees to criticize its management of daily affairs, but effectively marginalizes those who directly oppose its leadership. Residents are able to leave the camps if they wish to, including to resettle in Moroccan-controlled Western Sahara. The fact that most take the main road to Mauritania rather than a clandestine route shows their confidence in being allowed to travel. Yet, those headed to Western Sahara tend to hide their plans, fearing both official obstacles and the disapproval of other camp residents if their final destination becomes known.

The population of the camps remains vulnerable to abuses due to the camps' isolated location, the lack of any regular independent human rights monitoring and reporting, and Algeria's claim that the Polisario, rather than Algeria itself, is responsible for protecting the human rights of the camps' residents.

"The refugees in Tindouf have, for more than 30 years, lived in exile from their homeland, governed by a liberation movement in an environment that is physically harsh and isolated," said Whitson. "Regardless of the current state of affairs, both the Polisario and the host country, Algeria, have responsibilities to ensure that the rights of these vulnerable refugees are protected."

Human Rights Watch said that the UN Security Council should ensure that the UN presence in the region includes regular human rights monitoring. Virtually all UN peacekeeping missions around the world include a human rights component and, with MINURSO forces operating in a peacekeeper capacity in Western Sahara, this region should be no exception. In this, France and the United States, as the permanent Security Council members with the strongest interests in this region, have a critical role to play.

Among its many recommendations, Human Rights Watch urges Morocco to:

* Revise or abolish laws that criminalize speech and political or associative activities deemed affronts to Morocco's "territorial integrity" and that are used to suppress nonviolent advocacy in favor of Sahrawi political rights;

* End impunity for police abuses by ensuring serious investigations into civilian complaints and, where warranted, charges or disciplinary measures against abusive agents;

* Allow independent human rights associations to follow the procedure for obtaining legal recognition; and

* Ensure that courts reach verdicts based on the impartial weighing of all relevant evidence. Judges and prosecutors should give effect to suspects' right under Moroccan law to demand medical examinations, and reject as evidence any statement that is established to have been made as a result of police torture.

Human Rights Watch urges the Polisario Front to:

* Take pro-active measures so that all camp residents know that they are free to leave the camps, including to settle in Moroccan-controlled Western Sahara;

* Ensure that camp residents are free to challenge peacefully the leadership of the Polisario Front and to advocate options for Western Sahara other than independence; and

* Eliminate or restrict broadly worded articles of the Polisario penal code that, for example, criminalize the printing of publications or participating in demonstrations deemed "likely to disturb the public order."

Morocco has ruled Western Sahara de facto since its troops moved in following Spain's withdrawal from its former colony in 1976. Morocco officially refers to the region as its "southern provinces," but the United Nations does not recognize Moroccan sovereignty.

Morocco opposed as unworkable a UN-brokered plan for a referendum on the territory's future and has proposed autonomy for the Sahara under Moroccan sovereignty. Morocco has made clear, however, that the plan envisages no rollback of laws criminalizing "attacks on territorial integrity." Thus, Moroccan-granted autonomy will not give Sahrawis their right to demand independence or a referendum to decide the region's future.

"Sahrawis differ on how to resolve the conflict," said Whitson. "But wherever they live, authorities must allow them peacefully to express and act on behalf of those views. Any proposed solution for the Western Sahara that does not guarantee these rights is no solution at all."

Human Rights Watch takes no position on the issue of independence for Western Sahara or on Morocco's proposal for regional autonomy.

quinta-feira, 18 de dezembro de 2008

¿Autonomía en el Sahara? No hay comparación posible con España


El presidente español, Rodríguez, ha afirmado que la experiencia española de autonomía es una "muy buena experiencia" para trasladar al Sáhara Occidental ocupado por Marruecos. Una de dos, o el presidente ignora el Derecho Constitucional marroquí o, si lo conoce, está intentando justificar la violación del Derecho Internacional. Su responsabilidad, por negligencia o culpa, es ineludible.

Según recoge la prensa de hoy:

El presidente José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero brindó ayer un apoyo moderado a la propuesta de Rabat de resolver el conflicto del Sáhara Occidental otorgando a la ex colonia española una autonomía, pero bajo la soberanía de Marruecos.
(...)
El Gobierno español asume, en el comunicado final de la reunión, que Rabat ha hecho "esfuerzos serios y creíbles" -utiliza los mismos términos que el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU-, pero añade que su oferta "constituye una contribución positiva".
El presidente abogó en la rueda de prensa conjunta por "un acuerdo entre las partes, en el que hay que tener capacidad de ceder posiciones (...)", pero señaló también que "la experiencia autonómica española es una muy buena experiencia".
Su respaldo al proyecto marroquí, más nítido que el que expresó en Rabat en 2007, es significativo en estos momentos.

Me permito sugerir al presidente Rodríguez la lectura de un artículo que acabo de publicar (perdón por la autocita) en el número 7 de la Revista de Estudios Autonómicos y Federales:
"La propuesta marroquí de autonomía para el Sáhara Occidental de 2007: una antigua propuesta sin credibilidad"

Ahí demuestro que la autonomía en el Sáhara Occidental es imposible. Y lo es porque la propuesta marroquí dice que en el territorio del Sáhara Occidental el rey tiene todos los poderes que le da el artículo 19 de la Constitución marroquí... ¡¡¡que son poderes absolutos!!! En consecuencia, reconocer que el rey tiene el Sahara Occidental los poderes que le da ese artículo 19 es incompatible con cualquier forma de autonomía. Hasta un simpatizante crítico de la causa marroquí, Bernabé López García, lo reconoce en un artículo publicado hoy.

Por eso resulta ridículo el argumento de algunos analistas marroquíes que llegan a comparar la propuesta que Marruecos ha presentado en 2007 de "autonomía" para el Sahara Occidental ¡con la autonomía que tiene el archipiélago de las islas Aaland!. Y es que, para que la "autonomía" del Sahara Occidental fuera comparable con la del archipiélago Aaland... ¡Marruecos tendría que ser comparable a Finlandia! Una comparación así sólo puede calificarse como de insulto a la inteligencia.

quarta-feira, 17 de dezembro de 2008

Western Saharan minister: `Only one solution -- our return to our sovereign homeland'


The Saharawi refugee camps have now existed for close to 33 years in extremely inhumane surroundings. What has led to the Saharawis becoming refugees and what are the challenges facing the Saharawi people?

First, I would like to thank you very much for your visit. It shows us that we are not alone. This is important support that international community can give us.

All along, the Saharawi community has been conscious of its historic responsibility and the sacrifice it has made and still has to make in its fight for national sovereignty. Our sacrifices have been necessary to preserve the history of our people and liberate our territories from Moroccan occupation.

Western Sahara was invaded in 1975, by a monarch who needed to stabilise his throne and expand his territory.

Living as refugees is a disgrace and is marked by scarcity — in all senses of the word. The biggest impact of displacement is on health.

During the first years after the Moroccan invasion, we not only lost many lives during the resistance war but we also had to come to terms with moving away from our natural habitat. We were overwrought with a lack of perspective on how to survive in this new environment, a very hard geographic space without natural life — no vegetation or animals.

We have had no experience in how to live in such inhumane conditions.

We had many deaths in the camps from 1975 to 1983 that were related to the difficulty of adapting psychologically and physiologically to a radically different and highly stressful terrain. To resolve this critical problem we needed to employ all the material resources available to us.

In the face of massive adversity, the main moral, political and sociological task of Saharawi society was to draw strength from the little available to restructure itself and mature against all odds.

And I can confidently say that we managed this task with excellence.

When we started to organise the Saharawi state in the camps, we were conscious that health is one of the main vulnerabilities. That’s why especially the first years of restructuring in the camps, one fifth of Saharawis were employed in the health field, focusing on prevention.

Health prevention today is still one our main political tools.

We started with the promotion of health issues in all its aspects initially, because the only thing we had available at that time was human resources.

Our society, which was predominantly Bedouin and nomadic, had to undergo a brutal change once we arrived at the camps. People had to settle and face unhealthy dietary change.

Saharawi diet was based on milk, meat, malt, rice and some wheat breads. In the camps, which concentrated big social groups in restrictive areas, the refugees suddenly had to survive from emergency food aid, which comprised mainly legumes, adding to the already adverse and stressful circumstances

However, due to our strategy of health prevention, we managed to make some important improvements rather quickly.

Humans never know their capabilities until they reach a point were problems have to be confronted; as much on an individual as a societal level. Saharawi Bedouins’ life is very tough, but they still like this kind of life.

A Saharawi is not very interested in comfort, such as sofas or television. These are not big attractions. The Bedouin adores nature and appreciates coexistence with his animals, like the camels.

We are close to our animals, because they are our means of subsistence.

Our society needed a total reorganisation. We had to create administrations in order to manage every district and municipality of the camps according to their specific necessities.

We decided to prioritise schooling and community health clinics over individual family needs. Sometimes we had three to four families share one tent so there was a tent for each school and clinic available.

Saharawis have had to live for over 30 years on emergency food aid. How are you dealing with the consequences?

The characteristic of any refugee camps is health vulnerability, and nutrition is an important part of that.

We have achieved some very good results. In more than 20 years we have had no type of disease epidemic, even though we have had to live in drastic climatic circumstances where we face massive temperature changes from a high of 58°C in summer to -6°C in winter.

On top of this, our diet is hyper glutei — made up of 95% of carbohydrates — because it is the cheapest and easiest accessible form of aid available for the camps. This diet is highly deficient for our immune system.

It also creates a different human organism to normal. Women and men are born into this state of scarcity — which is impacting especially on the mother but also the child.

We not only develop general health programs, but also diagnostic programs that look at the health risks and causes. We create workshops with all the Saharawi health professionals, and our specialist friends and sympathisers, to arrive at a good scientific diagnosis.

At the moment we are working with Norwegian health professionals on a four-day nutrition seminar. We identified this as a priority because in February we did a nutritional study that looked at levels of anemia and malnutrition, especially in the most vulnerable sectors; women of childbearing age and children under 15.

We found alarmingly high levels of anemia and malnutrition.

These findings compelled all of us involved in health to get together and develop a realistic diagnosis and find realistic solutions. Our problems will persist as long as we are refugees.

However, the only way to minimise the impact is for us to unite our strengths, make the situation as dignified as possible and apply all our knowledge.

What benefits does the high level of Saharawi control and organisation in the camps bring?

Saharawi people live a precarious existence; we are in a place of being or not being. We have only two choices — a sovereign Saharawi state or total dispersion of Saharawis across the world, without a homeland, memories and no responsibility for the future.

We are conscious of this responsibility for our society in its totality; we have to organise ourselves in order to survive. We have to develop the level of organisation in order to meet the challenges coming our way every minute.

We have now lived for quite a few years with neither peace nor war, since the 1991 ceasefire with Morocco. When we were engaged in war, the perspectives were clear, even though we didn’t know how many lives our resistance struggle would cost us.

We were engaged in armed combat in very unequal conditions with a militarily superior Morocco.

It was not only Saharawi society that paid a big price for the caprices of the Moroccan king. Moroccan soldiers were also victims of his Machiavellian mind; they, their families and Moroccan society in fact have paid dearly for the king’s expansionist ambitions.

We noticed an encouraging high participation of women at the recent General Workers’ Union of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (Western Saharan trade union organisation) congress, but also more generally women are very visible in public life in the camps.

Our society is a very naturalist society. We share our responsibilities in a collective manner, which includes extended families along ancestral lines. Because of our ways of life, women occupy a critical rank.

In a nomadic society, the woman is everything. The man of the family is itinerate; he is either looking for pastures or is at the markets hundreds of kilometres away and may be absent for weeks.

Once we arrived at our refuge in South West Algeria, women organised the state and constructed the institutions, from the smallest to the biggest. Women have also been combatants during the years of war.

In incredibly harsh conditions, women were both the backbone of the camps and the revolution. In Saharawi society, women are not discriminated against because of their specific physiological make up.

Cuba has educated many Saharawi children. Why is this the case?

Cuba, such a small country with minimal material resources, has extended humanitarian help to many countries. Most importantly, Cubans have helped with education and health.

The Saharawi people are one of those peoples that are eternally grateful to the Cuban people. Only Cuba, on the other side of the word, opened the doors for us and took our kids to educate them into doctors, engineers, lawyers and technicians of all types.

Cuba has also helped with medical support. In 1976, we only had four qualified nurses — a consequence of more then 100 years of Spanish colonial rule. So imagine, in times of war and an extreme refugee situation, we had to make do with only four nurses to try and deal with our health problems!

Now, the leaders, functionaries and youth you see working in the camps are all a result of the support and education provided by Cuba.

Cuba, with the little they have, still shares with others, independently of their obligations in their geographical region, culture, religion or skin colour.

We Saharawis are conscious that it was Cuba that has helped us to walk on our own two feet since the Moroccan invasion.

Western Sahara is Africa’s last colony and the conflict is still unresolved. How can we best give our solidarity to Saharawi people?

There is only one solution to our existence as refugees: our return to our sovereign homeland. There is no other solution.

I can only mention the need to unite all our societies along the lines of peace and true justice. It is this unity, not aggression, that we need so all of us can enjoy happiness instead of destitution and humiliation.

[Margarita Windisch was a member the three-person delegation of Australian trade unionists who attended the 6th Congress of the Western Sahara General Union of Saguia El Hamra and Rio de Oro Workers (UGTSARIO) and the International Trade Union Conference in Solidarity with the Western Saharan Workers, in October 2008, in El Aaiun, one of four Saharawi refugee camps in the Hamada desert in south-west Algeria. Windisch is also a leading member of the Democratic Socialist Perspective, a Marxist organisation affiliated to the Socialist Alliance of Australia. This interview first appeared in Green Left Weekly issue #777, December 3, 2008.]

sábado, 13 de dezembro de 2008

El Mundo pacta con Marruecos: Arístegui mediador



Por su importancia, traduzco un artículo publicado hoy en el diario marroquí LE SOIR. Según el mismo, Gustavo de Arístegui, recientemente condecorado con el Wissam Alauita (que premia a los amigos de la monarquía tiránica marroquí) ha hecho gestiones para que El Mundo cambie su línea editorial para ser más "equilibrado" respecto a Marruecos.

LE SOIR
(12-XII-2008)

El Mundo declara el armisticio a Marruecos

El Mundo, gran diario español considerado pro-PP, habría decidido un armisticio con Rabat. El diario ha multiplicado recientemente las señales de su mejor disposición hacia Marruecos. El diario español El Mundo habría decidido cambiar su línea hacia Marruecos y atenuar sus ataques dirigidos contra el reino, especialmente contra el régimen.

Esto es lo que indican varias fuentes en Madrid que se hacen eco incluso de la próxima publicación, por el diario dirigido por Pedro J. Ramírez de un "dossier equilibrado" sobre la monarquía marroquí.

Ali Lmrabet, periodista de El Mundo, prepara su retorno a Marruecos. "Ali Lmrabet ha afrimado que tenía intención de volver para instalarse en Marruecos. Esto hace creer a algunos que habrá menos artículos contra Marruecos en el periódico", afirma una fuente periodística en Madrid.

Según las últimas noticias, el diario El Mundo habría intentado una especie de "reconociliación" con la agencia MAP (agencia oficial de prensa marroquí) y con el jefe de su delegación en Madrid, Said Idda Hassan, porque hace más de un año este periódico había calificado, bajo la pluma de Ali Lmrabet, a los periodistas de MAP-Madrid, de "policías disfrazados de periodistas". En este sentido, el jefe de la agencia oficial marroquí en Madrid ha sido invitado, recientemente, a una ceremonia del periódico con ocasión de sus premios anuales y al lado de grandes personalidades, entre los que se encontraba el presidente del gobierno, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Pero también estaban los líderes de primera fila del PP: Mariano Rajoy, Alberto Ruiz Gallardón y Gustavo de Arístegui, portavoz de relaciones internacionales en el partido que dirigía José María Aznar.

Según nuestras fuentes en Madrid, aunque la justifica por su calidad de presidente de la asociación de periodistas extranjeros en España (puesto para el que ha sido elegido para un tercer mandato), la invitación dirigida al jefe de la oficina de la MAP en Madrid no es fortuita. Y sobre todo, porque los responsables del periódico han insistido varias veces en que la MAP esté presente en un momento en el que pocos periodistas, incluidos los españoles, tienen derecho a una invitación.

El periodista de la MAP ha respondido favorablemente a esta invitación incluso aunque las dos partes (MAP y El Mundo) esperan que se fije una fecha para el proceso que les opone por causa de los escritos de Ali Lmrabet.
El asunto, juzgado en primera instancia en favor de los dos periodistas de la MAP (el otro periodista es Mansur Madani), ha conocido un nuevo giro en la apelación puesto que el tribunal ha estimado que no podía hablarse de difamación desde el momento en que El Mundo no dada nombres.
Tras ello, los periodistas de la MAP han llevado el asunto al Tribunal Supremo.

Según nuestras fuentes, Gustavo de Arístegui, portavoz de relaciones internacionales del PP, no sería extraño al armisticio decretado por el periódico español, históricamente catalogado como transmisor de las posiciones del PP. Debe recordarse que, como signo de apaciguamiento, el mismo Gustavo de Arístegui, acreditado por sus sólidas relaciones con los hombres del poder en Marruecos, fue a Rabat tras las elecciones legislativas marroquíes de 7 de septiembre de 2007 para reunirse con los jefes de los cinco partidos que obtuvieron mejores resultados.

"Ahora debemos olvidar el mito de un PP malo en beneficio de un PSOE bueno. La política se juega sobre el terreno y no en los clubes de opinión" respondía Larbi Messari, ex-diplomático y gran conocedor de las relaciones entre Rabat y Madrid, tras las elecciones legislativas españolas.

The legality of exploring and exploiting natural resources in Western Sahara



This intervention was presented by Mr Hans Corell, ex-Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and the Legal Counsel of the United Nations, during the works of the “International conference on multilateralism and international law, with Western Sahara as a case study”, held in Pretoria, South Africa, 4 and 5 December 2008.

Conference on Multilateralism and International Law with Western Sahara as a Case Study (05.12.08 Department of Foreign Affairs [South Africa]), University of Pretoria [South Africa]) *

Excellencies,
Ladies and gentlemen,
First of all, I wish to thank the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the University of Pretoria very much for inviting me to participate in this Conference.

Frankly speaking, I was somewhat hesitant to accept the invitation. In the past, when I have received invitations to other international meetings concerning Western Sahara, I have declined. The reason for not accepting those invitations is that, in January 2002, I delivered a legal opinion relating to Western Sahara to the United Nations Security Council. It is important that this opinion speaks for itself. Another reason is that I would not wish to engage in discussions that, for reasons of sentiment, might hamper the efforts by the United Nations to achieve a fair settlement with respect to the status of Western Sahara.

However, since the programme of this Conference in Pretoria promised very serious discussions in which the issues relating to Western Sahara would be examined from different perspectives, I decided to accept the invitation. This would not only allow me to participate in an interesting Conference. It would also put me in a position to explain how requests for legal opinions are dealt with in the United Nations Office of Legal Affair’s and to say a few words about the opinion that I delivered to the Security Council.

It seems that the opinion has been well understood by most, and many concerned have drawn the appropriate conclusions. However, there are those who have construed it very differently from its meaning. In some cases, the interpretation bears clear evidence of a very special underlying interest.

My first duty, however, is to inform you that I have retired from the United Nations and from public service in my own country Sweden. I am therefore now speaking in my personal capacity only.

In addition, I have no other interest in this matter that the rule of law and that the Member States of the United Nations should respect the norms that the Organisation itself has established. So, in case you find my remarks leading in a particular direction, it is simply an expression of my siding with the law to the best of my understanding.

I have been asked to address the topic "The legality of exploring and exploiting natural resources in Western Sahara ". This I will do by first reviewing the legal opinion that I delivered in January 2002 and inform about how it was conceived. I wilt then make a few comments with respect to some of the reactions that it has provoked. This will be followed by conclusions from the legal opinion in relation to other natural resources in Western Sahara. I will also look at the future and in particular at the role that the business community might play by acting in accordance with what is commonly known as Corporate Social Responsibility. I will conclude with a few remarks relating to the overriding topic of our Conference - Multilateralism and International Law.

Mineral resources in Western Sahara

With respect to the legal opinion, you will note that I delivered it in my capacity as Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and the Legal Counsel of the United Nations.

The opinion was transmitted to the President of the Security Council in a letter dated 29 January 2002. (2)

What the members of the Council had asked for was my opinion on "the legality in the context of international law, including relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations, and agreements concerning Western Sahara, of actions allegedly taken by the Moroccan authorities consisting in the offering and signing of contracts with foreign companies for the exploration of mineral resources in Western Sahara".

As a point of departure it is important to note that when the Legal Counsel is asked to deliver an opinion of this kind he should be very careful to confine himself exactly to the question(s) asked by the competent UN organ.

Furthermore, the elaboration of an opinion of this kind is not something that the Legal Counsel does in splendid isolation in his office. On the contrary, although the responsibility for the opinion rests squarely with the Legal Counsel, the exercise is teamwork where the task is assigned to members of the Office of Legal Affairs, in the present case members of the Office of the Legal Counsel.

The first issue to examine is whether a legal opinion has been delivered on the same or a similar issue in the past. If that is the case, that opinion would be carefully studied on the basic assumption that an opinion already given by the Legal Counsel should be upheld; Member States must be able to rely on legal advice and there must be consistency in the way in which such advice is given. But the circumstances could also lead to a different conclusion. In such a case the Legal Counsel would carefully explain why his opinion differs from what he or one of his predecessors has stated in the past.

In the actual case there was no such precedence. As a matter of fact, I was quite surprised to receive the question from the Security Council. My experience from working with the Council is that its members rely mainly on legal advice provided either by their own lawyers in the UN Missions in New York or by the Legal Advisers of their Ministries of Foreign Affairs.

I know from conversations with colleagues from the Missions in New York that the Council is somewhat hesitant to ask legal opinions from the Legal Counsel for the simple reason that they believe that this would be giving tremendous "power" to a singular international civil servant, albeit a person at the level of Under- Secretary-General. It is obvious that this hesitation would be commensurate to the political sensitivity of the subject matter.

To illustrate what I just said, this is probably the explanation why I was not asked to give a legal opinion on the system for the listing of terrorist suspects implemented under Security Council resolution 1267 (1999). Had I been asked to give a legal opinion on this matter, I would certainly have opined that adopting a system of this kind without offering those affected access to a judicial institution as a last instance would violate international human rights standards. I knew that this is so from personal experiences defending Sweden before the European Court of Human Rights for many years. (3)

So, my immediate reaction when I was asked to give a legal opinion in a matter as sensitive as that of Western Sahara was that it represented a very unusual step by the Council.

As I just said, a first analysis made it clear that in this particular case there was no precedence. Therefore, we had to start making an analysis afresh.

In order to be able to answer the question put to me, I needed assistance from the Government of Morocco. The Government provided me with information pertaining to two contracts, concluded in October 2001. They concerned oil-reconnaissance and evaluation activities in areas offshore Western Sahara. One of the contracts was between the Moroccan Office National de Recherches et d’Exploitations Petrolieres (ONAREP) and the United States oil company Kerr McGee du Maroc Ltd. The other was between ONAREP and the French oil company TotalFinaElfE&P Maroc.

The contracts were concluded for an initial period of 12 months and contained standard options for the relinquishment of the rights under the contract or its continuation, including an option for future oil contracts in the areas in question or parts of these areas.

In order to be able to determine the legality of the contracts that were concluded by Morocco offshore Western Sahara it was necessary to analyse the status of the Territory of Western Sahara and the status of Morocco in relation to the Territory. Furthermore, it was necessary to analyse the principles of international law governing mineral resource activities in Non.Self-Governing Territories.

In this analysis, it was also necessary to examine provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, General Assembly resolutions pertaining to decolonization in general, and economic activities in Non-Self-Governing Territories in particular. Needless to say, we also had to carefully analyse agreements concerning the status of Western Sahara.

I will not now venture into the history of Western Sahara or the status of Western Sahara under Moroccan administration. Reference is made to the legal opinion and to other material available at this Conference.

With respect to the law applicable to mineral resource activities in Non-Self-Governing Territories, an analysis was made of Article 73 of the UN Charier. The conclusion was that the interests of the inhabitants of these Territories are paramount. The task of the administering Powers over such Territories is seen as a "sacred trust".

Of particular interest were the General Assembly resolutions relating to the question of implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. These resolutions called upon the administering Powers to ensure that all economic activities in the Non-Self-Governing Territories under their administration did not adversely affect the interests of the peoples of such Territories, but were instead directed towards assisting them in the exercise of their right to self-determination.

These resolutions also contained provisions designed to protect the "inalienable rights" of the peoples of those Territories to their natural resources, and to establish and maintain control over the future development of those resources. The need to protect the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories from exploitation and plundering by foreign economic interests was also addressed.

A distinction was made between economic activities that are detrimental to the peoples of these Territories and those directed to benefit them. It was recognized that there was a value of foreign economic investment undertaken in collaboration with the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories and in accordance with their wishes in order to make a valid contribution to the socio-economic development of the Territories.

In the legal opinion it was also noted that the question of Western Sahara had been dealt with both by the General Assembly, as a question of decolonization, and by the Security Council, as a question of peace and security. However, since the Security Council resolutions pertaining to the political process were not considered relevant to the legal regime applicable to mineral resource activities in Non-Self-Governing Territories these resolutions were not dealt with in detail in the legal opinion.

Instead, the main issue identified was whether the principle of "permanent sovereignty" prohibits any activities related to natural resources undertaken by an administering Power in a Non-Self-Governing Territory, or only those which are undertaken in disregard of the needs, interests and benefits of the people of that Territory.

An examination of the case law of the International Court of Justice did not provide much guidance. Neither did an examination of State practice. Of particular interest in this context was the question of exploitation of uranium and other natural resources in Namibia by South Africa and a number of Western multinational corporations. This activity was considered illegal under Decree No.1 for the Protection of the Natural Resources of Namibia, enacted in 1974 by the United Nations Council for Namibia, and was condemned by the General Assembly. (4)

But this conclusion must be considered bearing in mind Security Council resolution 276 (1970) of 30 January 1970, in which the Council declared that the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia was illegal and that consequently all acts taken by the Government of South Africa were illegal and invalid.

Also the case of East Timor under the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) was examined. In this case the so-called Timor Gap Treaty relating to exploration and exploitation of oil and natural gas deposits in the continental shelf was fully operational and concessions had been granted in the Zone of Cooperation by Indonesia and Australia, respectively.

UNTAET found that it was necessary to ensure the continuity of the practical arrangements of the Timor Gap Treaty for the duration of the UN administration. The mission therefore took the necessary legal steps to do so. UNTAET also negotiated on behalf of East Timor with Australia a draft "Timor Sea Arrangement" designed to replace the Timor Gap Treaty upon the independence of East Timor. For obvious reasons, during this process UNTAET consulted fully with representatives of the East Timorese people, who participated actively in the negotiations.

In applying an analogous analysis, the question became whether mineral resource activities in a Non-Self-Governing Territory by an administering Power are illegal, as such, or only if conducted in disregard of the needs and interests of the people of that Territory. An examination of the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, General Assembly resolutions, the case law of the International Court of Justice and the practice of States led me to the conclusion that such activities would be illegal only in the latter situation.

The examination of the relevant material with respect to the rights of administering Powers led me to the general conclusion that the recent State practice, though limited, was illustrative of an opinio juris on the part of both administering Powers and third States: where resource exploitation activities are conducted in Non-Self-Governing Territories for the benefit of the peoples of those Territories, on their behalf or in consultation with their representatives, they are considered compatible with the Charter obligations of the administering Power and in conformity with the General Assembly resolutions and the principle of "permanent sovereignty over natural resources" enshrined therein.

Let me now quote the final paragraph of the legal opinion containing the conclusion:

The foregoing legal principles established in the practice of States and the United Nations pertain to economic activities in Non-Self-Governing Territories, in general, and mineral resource exploitation, in partiicular. It must he recognized, however, that in the present case, the contracts for oil reconnaissance and evaluation do not entail exploitation or the physical removal of the mineral resources, and no benefits have as of yet accrued. The conclusion is, therefore, that, while the specific contracts which are the subject of the Security Council’s request are not in themselves illegal, if further exploration and exploitation activities were to proceed in disregard of the interests and wishes of the people of Western Sahara, they would be in violation of the principles of international law applicable to mineral resource activities in Non-Self-Governing Territories.

This is, I believe, a very clear statement and I must confess that I am somewhat surprised that it has not been fully understood by all.

With respect to the conclusions in my legal opinion allow me first to reiterate that the Legal Counsel should confine himself to the question(s) asked.

Let me also emphasize that a legal opinion is not an academic discourse. It is not for the Legal Counsel to engage in a discussion of the kind that one would find in an academic writing, where the author is free to express opinions on all kinds of issues that emerge in the course of an analysis.

Furthermore, in this particular case the United Nations was - and is - engaged in a very delicate process in order to assist in finding a just solution, respecting the international rules on self-determination.

The opinion therefore had to be formulated with these aspects in mind.

Since it has been suggested that I "conveniently" avoided addressing certain questions or even engaged in "side-stepping" it is important to make clear that I was not asked to opine on the legal status of Western Sahara even if it was necessary to analyse this question in the process.(5)

In preparing for the formulation of the opinion I had my collaborators look at several options. Among those was certainly the option of basing the opinion on the laws of occupation, all the more so since I had officers with pal1icular expertise in this matter in my Office. However, in view of the way in which the UN had addressed the situation in Western Sahara and the result of the various analyses, I came to the conclusion that the best way to form a basis for the legal opinion was to make an analysis by analogy taking as a point of departure the competence of an administering Power. Any limitation of the powers of such entity acting in good faith would certainly apply a priori to an entity that did not qualify as an administering Power but de facto administered the Territory.

In applying such an analysis, I had come to the conclusion that mineral resource activities in a Non-Self-Governing Territory by an administering Power would be legal if conducted for the benefit of the peoples of such Territory, on their behalf or in consultation with their representatives. But, of course, this begs the question how one can as certain that these conditions are met.

With respect to the case of Western Sahara the question was therefore whether these conditions were fulfilled. As already mentioned, the analysis was made by analogy. Morocco does not have the status of administering Power with respect to Western Sahara. This meant that the situation had to be examined with the utmost sensitivity.

If the principle that the interests of the peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories are paramount, and their well-being and development are the "sacred trust" of their respective administering Powers, this principle had to be applied with an extra margin in the present case. To what extent had the people of Western Sahara been involved in the process of granting the contracts? I believe that the situation obtaining in the territory for so many year’s and the fact that the question was raised in the Security Council is a clear indication that there might be a problem here.

However, as the two exploration contracts were formulated, there was no basis for declaring them illegal as such, in particular since they were concerned only with exploration. A deeper examination of this question would have raised a host of issues that would have been completely unmanageable for the Office of Legal Affairs. Would the result of the activity be for the benefit of the people of Western Sahara? A true answer to this question would be difficult to get. Had representatives of the people of Western Sahara been consulted (cf the way the UN proceeded in East Timor)? An answer to this question would have raised the further question as to who is competent to represent the Saharawi. To engage in such an activity would probably have raised more legal questions than answers. As a matter of fact, it would have led the analysis of the question put by the Security Council astray, and might have been considered wholly inappropriate by the Council. What was known and what could thus be included in the opinion was that no extractions had occurred and that no benefits had accrued.

Let me now explain that provision of legal advice requires first an interpretation of the letter and spirit of the question, the intent and expectation of the organ that seeks the advice and the context within which it is sought. In this case the Council had directed the Legal Counsel to analyse the question of the legality of granting the concessions in the context of international law and in the light of relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions and agreements concerning Western Sahara, all of which deal with different aspects of the question of the status of the territory and the powers to explore and exploit its resources - not the offering of contracts as such.

In directing the Legal Counsel to these sources of international law, the intention of the Council was to seek advice on the legality of the exploration and exploitation activities carried out in pursuance of the concessions, rather than the fact of granting them. Interpreting the question as one pertaining to the legality of granting the concessions only, in disregard of the very activity they were designed to regulate, would defeat the purpose of request.

It was against this background that the opinion was formulated in such a manner that it would be crystal clear that Morocco had no authority to engage in exploration or exploitation of mineral resources in Western Sahara if this was done in disregard of the interests and wishes of the people of Western Sahara.

In 5hol1: There was no basis for declaring that the specific contracts were illegal in themselves. This appears from the final sentence of the opinion, carefully drafted and discussed within the Office of Legal Affairs. At the same time the main clause of the final sentence constitutes a very clear message with respect to the legality of the activities in question: "[I] further exploration and exploitation activities were to proceed in disregard of the interests and wishes of the people of Western Sahara, they would be in violation of the principles of international law applicable to mineral resource activities in Non-Self-Governing Territories."

From this sentence follows that Morocco would have to engage in proper consultations with persons authorised to represent the people of Western Sahara before such activities would be allowed as was done by the United Nations in East Timor.

Finally, I note that the comment has been made that there is no reference to the United Nations Convention on the Law the Sea (UNCLOS) in the legal opinion. (6) In hindsight such a reference might have been appropriate. The only excuse that I can offer for not including such reference is that, based on my experiences as chairman of the Swedish delegation in the negotiation of three delimitation agreements with neighbouring States in the Baltic in the 1980s, I thought that it was so self-evident that the Convention would regulate the conditions in the sea off the coast of Western Sahara that it was not necessary to mention this specifically.

In a letter dated 2 April 2005, in which the Norwegian Petroleum Fund’s Council on Ethics made recommendations to the Norwegian Ministry of Finance, the point is made that Resolution III, which is annexed to UNCLOS, says that Article 77(1) of the Convention "indicates that the rights related to the continental shelf, which in this case seems to belong to the people of Western Sahara, encompasses both exploring and exploiting».

Referring to my opinion, the Council of Ethics drew the conclusion that there was a possible point of discrepancy between the legal framework concerning the law of the sea, and the legal opinion of the UN Legal Adviser. However, as is apparent from the last sentence of the legal opinion, there is no discrepancy whatsoever. As I just explained, the purpose of the formulation of that sentence was precisely to make clear that it encompassed both exploring and exploiting. And this is what the sentence says in so many words.

Other resources in Western Sahara

I have now come to the second part of my presentation, namely what conclusions could be drawn from the legal opinion in relation to other resources in Western Sahara. Here I can be very brief. As it appears from the material analysed in the process of preparing the legal opinion there is really not much room for making a distinction between mineral resources and other resources. Basically, this means that what is said in the legal opinion about mineral resources applies also to other resources.

It is interesting to note, as is mentioned in the legal opinion, that in 1975 the United Nations Visiting Mission to Spanish Sahara reported that at the time of the visit, four companies held prospecting concessions in offshore Spanish Sahara. In discussing the exploitation of phosphate deposits in the region of Bu Craa with Spanish officials, the Mission was told that the revenues expected to accrue would be used for the benefit of the Territory, that Spain recognized the sovereignty of the Saharan population over the Territory’s natural resources and that, apart from the return of its investment, Spain laid no claim to benefit from the proceeds. (7) The question is how this matter is dealt with by Morocco today.

A distinction can of course be made between renewable resources and non-renewable resources. A prominent non-renewable resource in Western Sahara is fishing. But I believe that it is fair to say that the law applicable to Non Self-Governing Territories does not make a distinction between different resources. They must all be used in the interests of the peoples in such Territories. An important question is therefore how the revenues from the fishing in the waters off Western Sahara benefit the people of the Territory.

As is well known, the European Commission concluded a Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Morocco in May 2006. That agreement applies in the "Moroccan fishing zones", which is said to mean the waters falling within "the sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Morocco" (Article 2). I suppose that the expression "or jurisdiction", which is found also in other agreements concluded by the Commission, refers to the Moroccan Exclusive Economic Zone. But it is obviously also used to indicate the waters belonging to Western Sahara. Under all circumstances there is no distinction made with respect to the waters adjacent to Western Sahara.

I must confess that I was quite taken aback when I learnt about this Agreement. Surely, good relations between Europe and Morocco are of greatest importance. And there is also a mutual interest that the fisheries off the coast of western Africa arc effectively managed and supervised. But I am sure that it would have been possible to find formulations that would have satisfied both parties and at the same time respected the legal regime that applies in the waters off Western Sahara. Any jurisdiction over those waters is subject to the limitations that follow from the rules on self-determination.

It has been suggested to me that the legal opinion that I delivered in 2002 had been invoked by the European Commission in support of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement. (8) I do not know if this is true. But if it is, I find it incomprehensible that the Commission could find any such support in the legal opinion, unless of course the Commission had ascertained that the people of Western Sahara had been consulted, had accepted the agreement and the manner in which the profits from the activity was to benefit them. However, an examination of the Agreement actually leads to a different conclusion.

The Protocol to the Agreement refers to "Morocco’s resources" (Article 4). With respect to the financial contribution, the Protocol says that subject to Article 6 of the Protocol "the Moroccan authorities shall have full discretion regarding the use to which this financial contribution is put". Article 6 prescribes in a long enumeration how the contribution should be allocated (Article 2, para. 6 and Article 6, para. 3). It is very difficult to identify the Saharawi in his enumeration. The protocol also mentions "the Moroccan fishing industry" (Article 8). The Annex mentions the "Moroccan Atlantic zone" (Chapter III), "Moroccan seamen" (Chapter VII) and "Moroccan ports" (Chapters VIII B and X). In Appendix 4 the limits of Moroccan fishing zones are indicated. Apart from some small-scale fishing between 34° 18’ N and 35° 48’ N off the coast of Morocco, the rest is indicated by "The entire Atlantic" (apart from a limited area) for tuna fishing and "South of 29o 00’ " for demersal fishing and industrial pelagic fishing. What does "South of 29° 00’ "mean? A tiny area southwards to 27°.28° N where the waters of Western Sahara commence, or all the waters southwards to where the waters of Mauritania meet at about 21o N? (9)

In all the pages of the Agreement there is not one word about the fact that Morocco’s "jurisdiction" is limited by the international rules on self-determination.

As a European I feel embarrassed. Surely, one would expect Europe and the European Commission - of all- to set an example by applying the highest possible international legal standards in matters of this nature.

Under all circumstances I would have thought that it was obvious that an agreement of this kind that does not make a distinction between the waters adjacent to Western Sahara and the waters adjacent to the territory of Morocco would violate international law.

The future - and the role that the business community might play

At this Conference it is for others to discuss how the question of Western Sahara could be solved fn the future. I will therefore not venture into a discussion with respect to this issue except to say that, il1’espective of how the final solution emerges, there must be guarantees that effective sovereignty is exercised over the Territory. The experiences from other parts of the world where there is a deficit in this respect are horrifying.

Let me now instead focus on enterprises and other entities that engage in business in Western Sahara. Even though the international law to which I have referred in the past may not be directly binding on private entities, this law nevertheless constitutes a foundation upon which such entities should base their ethical considerations.

I believe that it is common knowledge that many enterprises, including one of the companies that had been granted one of the contracts that was the object of the legal opinion, have withdrawn from Western Sahara. I have also been informed that pension funds and similar institutions have decided for ethical reasons not to invest in companies that do business in Western Sahara on the basis of contracts granted by Morocco.

What we see here is the result of considerations based on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). To honour CSR is a movement that is becoming more and more widespread. This is something discussed within the International Bar Association and other organisations with which I presently interact. In discussions that I have had with corporate counsels of major companies engaged in international trade it is evident that CSR is now very high on the agenda in corporate boardrooms around the world and constitutes an important element in risk management.

It should be noted in this context that the International Court of Justice in its 1975 Advisory Opinion declared that it had found no "legal ties of such a nature as might affect the application of resolution 1514 (XV) 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 peoples of the Territory." 10

It is regrettable that a solution respecting the principles of self-determination has not been reached with respect to Western Sahara despite all the time that has lapsed since Spain relinquished its duties back in 1975. Because of this impasse, the way in which the business community acts might become a determining factor.

Who knows, maybe for ethical reasons the business community will join hands and decide that they will not enter into contracts offered by Morocco and relating to Western Sahara unless it is clear that the contracts are in conformity with international law. If this happens, CSR might contribute to bringing the process forward.

In addition to the steps already taken in this respect by certain companies and funds, further initiatives may be taken within the framework of the Global Compact and at the invitation of organizations like Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights and CSR Europe. (11)

Concluding remarks

Let me now close by making some general remarks about the main topic of the Conference: multilateralism and international law. Western Sahara is here referred to as a case study, and it is important that we do not lose sight of the overriding theme.

Basically, what the question boils down to is the rule of law in international relations. No States, not even the most powerful ones, can any longer act on their own. The only way forward in our globalised world is that States cooperate and act together. In other words: multilateralism.

The most sophisticated way to do this is through law, be it customary law or treaty law. The system is based on the principle pacta sunt servanda - agreements must be honoured.

The foremost treaty in this system is the Charter of the United Nations, negotiated in the wake of the Second World War. Based on experiences from two world wars, the Charter was designed "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war", An important provision in the Charter is Article 103 that basically means that the Charter trumps other international agreements in case there is a conflict between such agreements and the Charter.

All this means that international law must be upheld. Arguments are sometimes made that "facts of life", "geopolitical reality" and "realpolitik" require solutions that may not be in complete conformity with the law.

Maybe it is my background in the judiciary of my country that always brings me back to the starting point: the state under the rule of law. By this I mean that the laws should be adopted in a democratic society respecting international human rights standards and that these laws must be upheld.

This principle simply cannot stop at national borders. A rule-based international society is the only way forward if we want to make sure that we do not fall back into the anarchy of the past.

One of the characteristics of a rule-based system is that disputes must be settled under the law. This means that not every party will be satisfied with the result. But that is in the nature of things and must be accepted for the sake of the overriding interest that disputes are settled by peaceful means.

It is evident that laws can be outdated or prove not to serve the purpose for which they were enacted. But then such laws should be changed in accordance with constitutional rules and principles. They should not be manipulated and certainly not dictated by naked power.

This is where I see a need for change for the better in the future. As I have said many times before, I was very disappointed to see during my tenure in the United Nations that prominent Members sometimes violated the law - the very law they were set to guard - when it suited their interests.

Governments simply must join hands and work towards what is in their common interest and in the interest of all peoples of the world: a rule-based international system. If governments do not do this, all that will be left: fat’ coming generations will be to argue over the ashes that are left when the inevitable confrontation is over.

Thank you for your attention!

Notes

1) When I accepted the invitation, the program indicated the participation of an official representative of the Government of Morocco. However, at the Conference no such representative appeared which I very much regret.

2) UN doc. S/2002/161.

3) See p. 68-72 in Corell, H. Reflections on the Security Council and Its Mandate to Maintain International Peace and Security. In: Law at War - The Law as it was and the Law as it Should Be. Ed. O. Engdahl and P. Wrange. Koninklijke Brill BV. The Netherland (2008) (I’. 61-74)

4) Resolutions 36/51 of 24 November 1981 and 39/42 of 5 December 1984.

5) See e.g. Mascal Brus and Vincent Chapaux in International Law and the Question of Western Sahara. Ed. by Aarin Arts and Pedro Pinto Leite. International Platform of Jurists for East Timor, The Netherlands 2007.

6) See Carlos Wilson in op cit. in note 5.

7) UN doc. A/10023/Rev.l, p. 52.

8) According to an article in EU Observer on 9 March 2006 under the title "Commission under fire over Morocco fisheries agreement", EU fisheries commissioner Joe Borg has stated that Morocco is the de facto administrator of Western Sahara and that therefore (my emphasis) the Commission proposal is in conformity with the legal opinion of the United Nations issued in January 2002. See http://euobserver.com/9/21092. If this reference is correct, I am afraid that Commissioner Borg has been ill advised.

9) In the FAO Statistics the minimum latitude for Western Sahara is 20° N and the maximum latitude is 27° N. Correspondingly, the minimum latitude for Morocco is 27° N. The fact that fishing takes place in the waters off Western Sahara was confirmed by Commissioner Borg in an answer to Parliamentary questions on 9 Apri12008. E-1073/2008. See http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2008-1973&language=IT

10) Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion. I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 12.

11) Reference is made to the Global Compact with its four components (human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption) at http://www.unglobalcompact.org. The Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights can be found at http://www.blihr.orgl and the web address to CSR Europe is http://www.csreurope.org/.




quarta-feira, 10 de dezembro de 2008

Haidar’s intervention in the Conference on Western Sahara in Pretoria


The Saharawi human rights’ activist and ex-prisoner of conscience, Aminatou HAidar, gave an intervention during a Conference “on Multilateralism and International Law with Western Sahara as case study”, hosted by the South African Department of Foreign Affairs and the University of Pretoria, 4 and 5 December.

Here is the complete text of Aminatou Haidar’s speech:
-----------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen
Dear Friends

Allow me, first of all, to greet you and wish everyone at this very important conference the greatest success in accomplishing, through the proceedings of this conference, a contribution to the respect of the right of the Saharawi people to live in peace, freedom and dignity.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As you know, my people, the Saharawi people, have suffered greatly from the consequences of an unjust war carried out against our will by the Moroccan state since 1975. The invasion of Western Sahara by the Moroccan army was coupled with a campaign of blind repression against the Saharawi civilian population, in towns and villages and in the countryside, inaugurating a bloody way of life never before known in the history of Western Sahara.

Thousands of Saharawis, of all ages and both sexes have been subjected to a collective punishment, consisting in exposing them to forced disappearance, arbitrary detention, being buried alive in mass graves, while others have been quite simply thrown out of helicopters.

It is during these years that the nameless secret dungeons of Kalaat Maggouna, Agdez, Derb Moulay Chrif, Skoura and the PC-CMI in occupied El Aaiun, were to transform themselves into concentration camps for Saharawi civilians. Hundreds of Saharawis served sentences of 16 years’ disappearance in these prisons. Some succumbed under the bad conditions of detention.

As for the « commission group » of which I was part, it was 400-strong, Saharawi men and women, all abducted on the eve of the arrival of a UN commission awaited on November 20th 1987 in the capital city of Western Sahara, El Aaiun . Four died and left us during our horrible and indescribable experience lasting nearly 4 years, in the secret detention centre the PC-CMI in occupied El Aaiun. We spent all these years blindfolded and handcuffed, with bad food, no health care or hygienic conditions, on top of that daily torture sessions, threats of rape, these were the practices to which we were subjected throughout this long and hard period of forced disappearance.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Since 1976 and up until the present time over 500 Saharawis have « disappeared » and Morocco refuses to make a pronouncement on their fate, while it carries out propaganda campaigns of a pseudo truth commission, known as the « Equity and Reconciliation Body », which travels the world without delivering any real answers on the human rights abuses perpetrated against the Saharawi population.
Honorable audience,

Since May 21st 2005, a non-violent uprising of the Saharawi population has been under way in Western Sahara, a series of demonstrations in southern Morocco and in the Moroccan university campuses, proclaiming respect for the Saharawi people’s right to self-determination. Each time this has dangerous repercussions for the demonstrators who endure severe baton attacks, torture, going as far as death, as in the cases of some young Saharawis: Hamdi Lambarki, Bachaikh Lakhlifi and Sidha Uld Lahbib, who lost their lives under blows from Moroccan police in the middle of the street. Or by serving heavy prison sentences of up to 15 years, as with the case of the Saharawi human rights defender, Yahia Mohamed Elhafed, or again, enduring permanent infirmities following brutal interventions by the Moroccan security forces, which cost a Saharawi student, Sultana Khaya the loss of her right eye, Lwali Quadimi became a total paraplegic, without saying anything of the
daily routine of ransacking houses of Saharawi citizens and incessant campaigns of intimidation and harassment of Saharawi human rights defenders, including arrest and torture, even dismissal from one’s job, ban on freedom of movement, being forcibly moved to Moroccan towns or forbidden from enrolling in universities as is the case with two Saharawi human rights defenders and members of CODESA, Ali Salem Tamek and Alamin Sahel.


As for myself, the Moroccan security forces tortured me in the street on 17 June 20005 for being a human rights defender and after having received first aid at the hospital in occupied El Aaiun, they arrested me and on the basis of falsified and non-authentic charges, I served 7 months locked up in the Black Prison of El Aaiun. Until now, I still can not find an employment, just because I commemorated the International Women’s Day in March 2005!!!

Furthermore, human rights activists carry out their duties in very difficult conditions, considering the systematic ban on forming human rights NGOs, at the moment the collective of Saharawi human rights defenders, CODESA, of which I am president, is still banned by the Moroccan administrative authority, as is the Saharawi association of human rights abuses, ASVDH.

Honorable audience,

The right of Saharawi pupils and students to education is under threat because of repressive and discriminatory practices exercised by the Moroccan authorities against this stratum of Saharawi society.

Actually, since May 2005, our educational establishments have been transformed into veritable police stations, where school children are exposed to beatings, arrest, and other acts of intimidation and humiliation. And the Saharawi students in Moroccan universities live in even worst situation. They suffer discrimination, torture, imprisonment and arbitrary detention. In effect, this week the Moroccan authorities committed a crime against the Sahrawi students in the Moroccan city of Agadir. Two Sahrawi students at the University of Ibn Zohar in Agadir died, Hossein Abdessadik Alketyif (20 years), Khya Baba Abdelaziz (22 years), after being run over by a bus and dozens were injured, while they were taking part in a sit-in to demand transport to go to spend the Aid El-Adha feast with their families. In the face of this alarming situation, the Moroccan police, instead of arresting this Moroccan criminal, they proceeded to torturing the other students who were demonstrating and arrested many of them. This confirms the implication of the Moroccan authorities in this crime. After these assassinations, all cities in Western Sahara were put under military siege and schools are surrounded by Moroccan police, while houses of Sahrawi activist are under constant surveillance. Unfortunately, Morocco is committing all these crimes in a military blocked territory, where the media and the NGO’s are denied access.



Ladies and Gentlemen

The economic crimes committed by the Moroccan state in the occupied territories of Western Sahara, are no less harmful than the violation of political and civil rights of the Saharawi people. The natural resources of Western Sahara have, for years, been the object of large-scale pillage. Fishing in the Saharawi national waters, the exportation of phosphate from Boucraa and the level of exploitation are illegal acts according to resolution 1803 of the General Assembly 14 December 1966 on the « permanent sovereignty over natural resources », article 1 (paragraph 42).

Ladies and Gentlemen

Allow me to let you know that the European Union’s policy concerning the issue of Western Sahara is far from the aspirations of the Saharawi people; certain positions even go against our aspirations, as is the case of the fishing agreement concluded between Morocco and the European Union with no legal basis. The European policy towards Western Sahara continues to be deceiving, for not saying that is accomplice.

We do not understand the silence of the European Union concerning Morocco’s lack of respect for the clauses relating to human rights contained in the Partnership between the European Union and this country. But what is even more serious is the granting by the European Union of an Advanced Status to Morocco, without excluding the territory of the Western Sahara.

I can confirm to you that this will intensify the Moroccan repressive apparatus against the Saharawi civilian population. As a victim of Moroccan repression and also as a Saharawi human rights defender, and president of CODESA, I would like to testify that the situation has seriously deteriorated and that Saharawi population is in distress. I, therefore, call for the protection of their basic rights, and it is urgent and imperative to make more strenuous efforts and to intensify our work to put an end to these suffering. Today after these assassinations, the European Union cannot remain indifferent and should send an enquiry mission to investigate this crime. It is also its duty to work urgently to make possible the visit of the ad hoc delegation of the European Parliament to the occupied territories of Western Sahara. Morocco has never been willing to allow the visit of the delegation since its establishment in October 2005.

Shouldn’t the Saharawi people, as a victim, benefit from international protection, in face of this ferocious repression campaign? For how long will the international community keep up its deplorable attitude of quietly assisting a parallel form of foreign domination which is visibly harmful to the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination?

The Committee of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, which carried out a visit to Western Sahara from 15 to 19 May 2006, confirmed in its report that all the violations committed by the Moroccan authorities in Western Sahara flow from the denial of the fundamental right which is the foundation of the United Nations, namely the right to self-determination of the Saharawi people.

Ladies and Gentlemen

Allow me, on behalf of my colleagues in CODESA and on behalf of all the Saharawi defenders of human rights, to launch from this platform, an urgent appeal to the whole international community and above all to the United Nations, to put a substantial effort behind the protection of Saharawi citizens living under Moroccan occupation. It is highly desirable to put in place a mechanism for the protection and promotion of their fundamental rights.

Finally, I would like to seize this opportunity to remind you that about forty Saharawi political prisoners, including human rights defenders, are today behind bars in Morocco’s prisons and in the Black Prison of occupied El Aaiun. They are in deplorable conditions of detention.

These prisoners need our support and our solidarity in order to recover their freedom. Let us mobilize ourselves for their immediate release and to disclose the fate of all the other disappeared Saharawis since 1976.

Thank you very much.

Pretoria, 5 December 2008