sexta-feira, 24 de abril de 2009

The re-Declaration of Independence




April 22, 2009

An open letter to Congress from an American in the Saharawi Refugee Camps

Honorable Members of Congress:

My name is Tim Kustusch, and I am from Clarendon Hills, IL. I am currently writing to you from the Saharawi refugee camps in Algeria, where I have been working for the past month and a half. I am writing to you on a matter of utmost importance to me, but even more so to more than 150,000 Saharawis living here in the camps and the hundreds of thousands still living in the Western Sahara. It is also a matter that I feel should be of the utmost to the United States government.

Last week, a letter was signed by 229 Members of the House of Representatives to President Obama, asking his Administration to work for greater integration and cooperation in the Maghreb Region of North Africa by supporting the autonomy plan of the Kingdom of Morocco as a resolution to the 35-year conflict in the Western Sahara.

That letter cited the potential for an independent Western Sahara to become a breeding ground for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, and so suggested that Morocco’s plan to integrate the Western Sahara – which was declared a Non-Self-Governing Territory in 1963 by the United Nations – into its Kingdom was the only acceptable compromise to end the conflict.

As an American here in the camps, I feel it is my duty to my country to report on the true situation here in the Western Sahara, in what has been called "the last colony in Africa."

When I first arrived in this Muslim, North African nation, I was not sure how my nationality would be perceived, and so I was at first hesitant to make it public. But one of the very first people I met asked me for an American flag. He was heartbroken when I told him I hadn’t brought any. "We Saharawis love people from all countries, and especially Americans," he said. "America is the country that first set the example for all other colonized people to follow. You proved that any people can overthrow a monarchy in defense of democracy and their right to self-determination."

In 1775, the American people said to their colonizers, a bigger nation with a stronger army, and said, "We want to be free. We want to govern our own land. And there is no sacrifice that we are not willing to make to be able to do so."

The Saharawi people want to do the same. Like us, they realized that when you know something is yours, when you know you are fighting for a just cause, you must make any sacrifice to take it. For over 16 years they fought a valiant war defending their right to self-determination. But the world is not as it was in 1775. Wars of independence are no longer in style. Realizing this, the Saharawis agreed to a ceasefire in 1991 when they were promised a referendum on independence by the UN. As has been the norm for them, they were let down.

Since 1991, they have been waging a peaceful, diplomatic campaign for their right to self-determination – a right that has been denied by the Kingdom of Morocco for more than three decades, and a right recognized by the International Court of Justice, the United Nations, and over 80 countries around the world. Unfortunately, the United States is not on that list.

I have worked for a Republican Representative in the House, and also on President Obama’s campaign, so I know that there are many issues that divide the two parties. But I also know that the one thing that unites all Members of Congress and all Americans is an unquenchable thirst for freedom and democracy. For most of our history, it was this thirst that drove our foreign policy.

But since September 11, 2001, our actions in the Middle East and North Africa have been driven by one word: terrorism. Or better stated, a fear of terrorism. This fear was apparent in the letter sent to President Obama. Once upon a time, America did not make its decisions out of fear, but out of a profound sense of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the case of the Western Sahara, truth and justice, not fear, should guide the United States’ policy.

To the claim that the Western Sahara might become a breeding ground for terrorists, I can tell you – from direct, first-hand observation – that the Saharawi people would never let anything of the sort happen in their homeland. The Saharawis have been waiting here in the desert for over 30 years. They have consistently been given false hopes by the international community, and then terribly disappointed. They have little food, less water, and even less reason to believe in a decent future. They are an entirely Muslim people. According to circles of security and terrorism experts, this is normally where terrorists should be born.

Instead, what has developed here is an incredible mix of popular and representative democracy. Instead of terrorist cells, the Saharawis have set up a women’s union, neighborhood councils, and a national parliament. Instead of suicide bombers, the Saharawis have bred local representatives, federal ministers, and Congressmen and women, like yourselves. They are an extremely tolerant, peaceful, and democratic people, and when they are finally able to govern and inhabit their historical territory, they will never let their borders be infiltrated by terrorists.

I cannot deny that Morocco has been a historical and cooperative friend to the United States. But it is still a monarchy. The Moroccans claim to be democratizing, but decisions are still made by a single individual, who has obtained his position not by popular election or the will of the people, but by the sheer chance of his birth.

The United Nations has proven that it does not have the backbone to enforce the Saharawis’ right to self-determination. There is one world power, however, that has, for the past 233 years, been willing to stand up for what is right. Our country rightly talks about inspiring democracy and openness in the Middle East and North Africa. Here is our chance to stand up for those principles: the very ones upon which our nation was founded. Here is our chance to say to the world that the path to independence and democracy was not blocked behind us, but cleared and paved so that the colonized people of the world who seek the self-determination of their own futures might follow.

The United States of America are beginning to lose the favor of the world. I have lived in three foreign countries, and experienced this reality firsthand. But I have also seen that people around the globe still want to believe in America, in its values, in its goodness. People worldwide want America to once again be the leader it can and should be. This is a perfect opportunity to show what we Americans are truly made of.

All of the Saharawis I have spoken to, with no exceptions, have said that they are ready return to war if they must. But if the United States government sends a clear message to the Kingdom of Morocco, to the United Nations, and to the world that the Saharawi people’s UN-recognized right to hold a free and fair referendum on the political future of their land, the Western Sahara, must be respected, then the terrible loss of life involved in any war can be avoided. We can show that we truly support freedom, democracy, and diplomacy.

I will conclude with the words of a dear Saharawi friend who said, "The whole world once looked up to America because it stood for justice and freedom around the globe. That image is not yet entirely lost. We want to believe in America again."

Sincerely,

Tim Kustusch

El Sahara Occidental: piedra de toque para Obama


¿Qué va a hacer la nueva administración norteamericana en el Sahara Occidental? La pregunta se va a contestar pronto y nos va a poner de manifiesto si las nuevas políticas del presidente Obama en el mundo van en serio o sólo son una "pose".

El Consejo de Seguridad tuvo una reunión a puerta cerrada el día 22 de abril para tratar del Sahara Occidental. En la misma se escuchó a norteamericano Christopher Ross, nuevo enviado personal del Secretario General, y se discutió sobre el informe que éste último presentó. El próximo día 30 tendrá una nueva reunión, pública, se votará la nueva resolución sobre el Sahara Occidental. ¿Traerá cambios? No se sabe, pero lo más importante es que esta reunión va a ser un "test" de la credibilidad del nuevo presidente norteamericano.

El presidente Obama está teniendo un audaz comienzo en su presidencia. A tal efecto, está repudiando toda la estrategia "anti-terrorista" del anterior presidente basada en unas prácticas abusivas que están saliendo a la luz de forma dramática. Aunque pueda parecer paradójico, Obama es a Bush lo que fue Aznar a González: un rechazo a la táctica de luchar contra el terrorismo por el atajo del crimen de Estado (llámese éste "GAL" o "Guantánamo").

Marruecos fue una de las piezas esenciales en esa estrategia "anti-terrorista". Dejando al margen la probada implicación de Marruecos en actividades terroristas contra Argelia y contra España (hay pruebas de esa implicación en 1975, y ahora hay sospechas, aún no probadas y no investigadas en sede judicial, de su implicación en el atentado del 11-M), lo cierto es que la dinastía alauita ofreció sus "servicios" a la administración Bush para su lucha "anti-terrorista". Marruecos, albergó alguna de las prisiones secretas de la CIA (el penal de Temara) en las que se podía hacer lo que ni siquiera en Guantánamo era posible. A cambio de estos sangrientos "servicios", el majzén exigió a Bush apoyo en la cuestión del Sahara. Y Bush, efectivamente, prestó ese apoyo como nunca antes lo había dado USA. Pero ahora Obama ha ordenado cerrar las prisiones secretas de la CIA. Marruecos ha dejado de ser útil para torturar. Pero ¿tiene otros argumentos para conseguir el apoyo de Obama?

Argumentos con apoyo en la realidad parece que no hay.
Las archipublicitadas "reformas" del sistema no cambian nada. La corrupción sigue como estaba. La teocracia sigue siendo la misma. Suena a broma de mal gusto decir en Marruecos "yes, we can" cuando se quiere incluir en ese "nosotros" a alguien que no sea del majzén. Y lo que es peor, la complicidad occidental con el majzén (que tampoco es nueva) hace que éste considere que puede violar los derechos humanos con impunidad. Y así es. Si en algún caso trasciende en el exterior algún crimen del majzén (como fue el caso del asesinato del joven Lembarki en la Intifada de 2005), muy pronto los culpables son amnistiados, cuando no condenados (si la presión exterior obliga a ello) a penas ridículas (como acaba de ocurrir con el asesino de dos estudiantes saharauis en Agadir).

Si de verdad se quiere construir un mundo desde el respeto de los derechos humanos y la legalidad internacional, si de verdad se quiere dar la palabra al pueblo, en el asunto del Sahara Occidental sólo hay una política: la celebración de un referéndum libre e imparcial de autodeterminación. Este referéndum es una exigencia del Derecho Internacional. Y el rechazo al mismo es, ni más ni menos, que una violación del Derecho Internacional.

El derecho que exige el referéndum existe.
El censo para el referéndum existe. No es el censo de una de las partes. Es el censo de la ONU que se concluyó el 30 de diciembre de 1999.
El problema es que hasta ahora ha faltado voluntad política.

Si realmente la administración Obama quiere cambiar el mundo haciendo que se respeten las reglas del juego, tiene una ocasión preciosa de demostrarlo en el asunto del Sahara Occidental. Es este un conflicto internacional menor, en comparación con otros problemas del mundo. Pero por eso mismo su valor es grande como piedra de toque.

Dice el Evangelio que "El que es fiel en lo muy poco, también en lo más es fiel". Pero quien no es fiel en lo poco tampoco lo será en lo mucho.
La Administración Obama tiene la palabra.