El misterio Van Walsum

A Peter Van Walsum le dolió que el Frente Polisario exigiese su cese del cargo de enviado personal del secretario general de la ONU para el Sáhara marcándole con el estigma de promarroquí. No se ha resignado a que su tesis ("la independencia del Sáhara no es un objetivo realista") haya sido, dice él, objeto de una injusto malentendido. Pero cuanto más se esfuerza por deshacer el entuerto, más relevancia cobra su realismo como referencia obligada para todo aquel que defiende que la mejor solución para el conflicto del Sáhara pasa por la renuncia del pueblo saharaui a la independencia y su integración en Marruecos. Tampoco ha beneficiado a su empresa el triunfalismo con que en Rabat han ido recibiendo toda muestra de solidaridad con la actuación del diplomático holandés (la del ministro Moratinos, incluida), como si con ello se demostrase que se ha abierto una "nueva vía" en la ONU dispuesta a hacer tabla rasa del derecho a la autodeterminación del pueblo saharaui. Mientras, Van Walsum ha hecho su propio diagnóstico del por qué del rechazo saharaui: la culpa, dice, no la tiene ni la diplomacia marroquí ni la del Polisario sino la sociedad española que da “falsas esperanzas” a las víctimas de la política expansionista marroquí.[1]

Ningún alto cargo de la ONU había identificado hasta ahora este peculiar problema entre las causas que, desde 1991, mantienen el plan de paz para el Sáhara estancado. Lo que viene a decir Van Walsum es que, como la ONU no es capaz de hacer sus deberes en el Sáhara, para evitar que los refugiados saharauis sigan sufriendo en su penoso y precario exilio, las decenas de miles de españoles que desde hace 33 años apoyan su resistencia deberían cambiar de actitud. En lugar de contribuir a “prolongar la agonía” deberían desplegar su poder de influencia para que los saharauis acepten el plan de autonomía de los invasores o, por lo menos, no seguir alentando su fe en que las Naciones Unidas, algún día, lograrán cumplir su cometido. Para dejar claro que él no es promarroquí pone muy de relieve que lo que promueve (una negociación entre Marruecos y Polisario sobre la autonomía) no es la solución ideal sino la posible, dada la ventaja que “la realidad política” (la ocupación de la mayor parte de la colonia española) da al rey Mohamed.[2]

Después de semejante línea argumental, uno esperaría un llamamiento a la reforma de la ONU. Pues no, Van Walsum reserva las críticas exclusivamente a los propolisarios y ninguna a esos fallos del sistema que impiden a la ONU celebrar el referéndum que le prometió al pueblo saharaui a cambio de que abandonase las armas. Es más, ni siquiera alude a la necesidad de resolver problemas de inoperancia a pesar de reconocer sin rodeos que el derecho está de parte de los saharauis y que "Marruecos debe asumir la total responsabilidad de que el referéndum sea irrealista e irrealizable" [3]. Lo suyo se limita a una queja sobre la incapacidad de la sociedad española por no entender que él sólo pretendía abrirle los ojos a los saharauis sobre lo que hay (la imposibilidad de que el Consejo de Seguridad desbloquee la situación contrariando a Marruecos). Si la realidad política fuese otra, añade, su opción sería muy distinta. Por el bien de los saharauis, por lo visto, confiaba en que los apoyos del Polisario en España acabarían echándole una mano para hacerles entrar en razón. “Por desgracia”, se lamenta, “lo que los partidarios del Frente Polisario le prodigaron generosamente fue precisamente esa clase de ánimo. Insistían en que tarde o temprano el Consejo reconocería que había que respetar la legalidad internacional y obligaría a Marruecos a aceptar un referéndum que diera como opción la independencia”. Curioso. Aparentemente, Van Walsum todavía no ha perdido la esperanza de que sus recomendaciones triunfen, y, sin embargo, sus razonamientos no parecen estar hechos para convencer sino para decepcionar e indignar. Conociendo un poco a los propolisarios, (y él ha estado sobre el terreno tres años) cualquiera sabe que, por ese camino, tiene todas las papeletas de la rifa para dejar atónito, como mínimo, al público al que supuestamente va dirigido el mensaje.

El movimiento prosaharaui está muy acostumbrado a que los aliados de Marruecos, entre ellos el Gobierno de Zapatero, hagan llamamientos a este tipo de realismo y responsabilidad. Faltaba en su muestrario que la iniciativa viniese desde un alto cargo de la ONU y con argumentos cuyo fondo conduce a una duda de contenido altamente tóxico: ¿Para qué sirve entonces la ONU?

Como era de esperar, en Rabat -donde consideran a Van Walsum la musa de ese realismo proautonomía que caló en el texto de la resolución 1813 del pasado abril-, han vuelto a aplaudir. [4] “Ya advertimos” -vienen a decir-, “que esos solidarios españoles son unos irresponsables”.[5] Allí, por supuesto, no se plantean ni les importa que, para aceptar este tipo de responsabilidad esos “ingenuos” españoles tengan primero que abjurar de su fe en el órgano estrella del multilateralismo. Como ha denunciado Western Sahara Resource Watch, sólo con el expolio de los fosfatos que extraen del Sáhara que ocupan sus fuerzas militares, el régimen alauita se embolsa cada año 1.500 millones de dólares [6]. Luego están los ingresos por la pesca, por la venta de la arena, el posible petróleo, el negocio turístico con Canarias como rampa de lanzamiento… así que lo normal es que para el régimen de Rabat la credibilidad de la ONU ocupe un lugar muy secundario en sus prioridades. Lo sorprendente es que a Van Walsum tampoco parece que le preocupen los daños colaterales que implican sus reflexiones para el prestigio onusiano. Mucho más extraño, es que en la ONU, donde tanto se cuidan las formas, le dejasen ir tan lejos.

Que un Alto Responsable del proceso de paz para el Sáhara de la ONU acabe siendo considerado por el lobby promarroquí como uno de los suyos no es nuevo ni para los saharauis ni sus simpatizantes de todo el mundo. Es el caso de Erik Jensen, antiguo jefe de la misión permanente de la ONU en el Sáhara Occidental (MINURSO) que ha sido una de las voces que se ha apresurado a mostrar su firme apoyo a la “valentía” con la que Van Walsum ha proclamado que la independencia del Sáhara no es factible. [7] Pero a Jensen, no se le ocurrió defender la opción contraria a las aspiraciones saharauis tras reconocer, como ha hecho Van Walsum que, entre las dos partes en litigio, hay una que se toma por montera el derecho internacional y otra que sufre sus consecuencias. Lógico, porque independientemente de cuáles sean las convicciones personales sobre el asunto, este tipo de premisas incitan al oyente a preguntar qué es lo que le impide a la ONU dar un puñetazo sobre la mesa para que los marroquíes (los infractores), cumplan con la Ley. Es lo mínimo que puede ocurrir con una audiencia que, efectivamente, comete la imprudencia de seguir ilusionada con la idea de que los principios y objetivos que fueron la razón de ser del alumbramiento de la ONU son la mejor de las recetas para garantizar la paz y la justicia en el mundo.

Como decía el embajador Jaime de Piniés, prestigioso y entusiasta fan de la ONU, "todo está en la Carta" (de la ONU). Él era uno de esos ingenuos que dan por hecho que, con este valioso instrumento, todo el que tenga la Ley de su parte, por muy insignificante que sea, tiene posibilidades de salir a flote si se arma de paciencia y no se rinde. La Carta, por ejemplo, recalca entre las tareas que le corresponden al organismo: "Mantener la paz y la seguridad internacionales, y con tal fin: tomar medidas colectivas eficaces para prevenir y eliminar amenazas a la paz, y para suprimir actos de agresión u otros quebrantamientos de la paz" [8]. Justo lo que necesita el pueblo saharaui porque, como admite el propio Van Walsum, el agresor en el Sáhara es la monarquía alauita que, en 1975, invadió un territorio que el Tribunal Internacional de La Haya acababa de confirmar que no es suyo. Luego, si los saharauis tienen que resignarse y conformarse con una solución que no es la ideal, será que nos encontramos con un problema en Naciones Unidas que va más allá del puntual asunto del Sáhara.

Que en la ONU algo falla tampoco es noticia. La nueva guerra en el Congo nos lo recuerda cada día y con imágenes tan potentes como las de las víctimas de la violencia protestando a pedrada limpia contra la pasividad de los cascos azules de los que esperaban, inútilmente, protección. El problema es que sembrar la duda sobre la capacidad de actuar de Naciones Unidas no se estila entre los obreros de la paz como Dios manda. Es un camino que sólo suele tomar gente a la que no le importa quedarse sin promoción, ni sufrir el riesgo de la expulsión. Véase el caso de Frank Ruddy que fue número dos de Jensen en la MINURSO durante 1994 y que llegó a conclusiones muy diferentes a las de su entonces jefe: sus críticas al funcionamiento de la ONU en el Sáhara le valieron convertirse en la primera persona en la historia de la organización a la que un secretario general (Boutros Boutros Ghali) prohibió testificar en los debates de la Cuarta comisión (la de descolonización) dedicados al tema. [9] Otro estadounidense, el ex embajador ante Naciones Unidas John Bolton, también fue señalado por el funcionariado onusiano como un enemigo a abatir por defender que, si no se opera una reforma, la ONU corre el riesgo de perecer de inutilidad. Con la ayuda de los supuestos militantes del multilateralismo, que marcaron a Bolton con la etiqueta de facha e infiltrado del imperialismo de Bush, no cejaron hasta que le vieron fuera de su templo.

Jensen, en cambio, se evitó estos disgustos con esa teórica geopolítica que sitúa su piedra filosofal en lo bien que le va a venir a la estabilidad del Magreb un Gran Marruecos con el Sáhara integrado en sus fronteras. En lugar de denunciar, como hizo Ruddy, que Marruecos estaba robándole el referéndum a los saharauis y que la ONU, con su pasividad, se había vuelto cómplice de las tropelías de las fuerzas de ocupación, le echó la culpa del continuo aplazamiento de la consulta al complejo entramado social de las tribus del Sáhara que, en su opinión, era lo que hacía imposible la actualización del censo de votantes.

A pesar de estas “dificultades técnicas”, la ONU anunció en julio de 1997 oficialmente una lista de votantes definitiva integrada por 84.251 electores que el propio ministro del Interior marroquí, Driss Basri, recibió como "un gran éxito" para Marruecos: la mayoría de los seleccionados, dijo entonces, habían sido presentados por su país, y no por el Frente Polisario, lo que se suponía aseguraba la victoria de la integración en el referéndum anunciado para el año siguiente[10]. Como es evidente, la consulta sigue sin celebrarse y Jensen sigue poniendo mucho énfasis en sus conferencias e intervenciones en las dificultades técnicas (a las que dedicó un libro) para celebrar el referéndum y lo necesario que es para el bienestar, la paz y desarrollo de la región magrebí que el pueblo saharaui sacrifique sus derechos. Lo ha repetido recientemente, por ejemplo, en su testimonio ante los debates de la Cuarta comisión de las Naciones sobre el Sáhara donde a los tipos políticamente correctos como él, nunca vetan[11].

Para despistar, los defensores de Van Walsum, especialmente los que proliferan en Rabat, dicen que lo que les ha molestado a polisarios y simpatizantes es la valentía con la que el diplomático ha puesto negro sobre blanco unas verdades que, por muy dolorosas e incómodas que sean, resultan ineludibles. Estas verdades, que irremediablemente le llevan a apostar por la opción autonomía saharaui son las que conforman la determinación del Consejo de Seguridad a que la solución del conflicto sea por consenso entre las dos partes. Como bien dice, no es realista esperar que el rey Mohamed se avenga de motu propio a la celebración del referéndum que teme perder si puede seguir sacando provecho del saqueo del Sáhara sin que la ONU se lo reproche. Mientras así sea, perseguir una solución que implique el consenso de la parte marroquí sólo podrá lograrse si el Polisario acepta la única solución factible para el régimen alauita: la anexión.

Imponer la solución autonómica sin que el pueblo saharaui haya renunciado (la parte marroquí no es sujeto de derecho) no encaja con la doctrina de la ONU. Sí lo haría imponer a Marruecos la organización del referéndum pero, para ello, el Consejo de Seguridad debería pasar del capítulo VI (solución por la vía pacífica) al capítulo VII (que prevé un posible uso de la fuerza). Como Marruecos cuenta con potentes apoyos en el Consejo de Seguridad con derecho a veto (Francia), estamos con la pescadilla que se come la cola mientras los refugiados saharauis siguen malviviendo en los campos del exilio.

Si el discurso de Van Walsum se ha topado con el rechazo de saharauis y simpatizantes no es por estas amargas realidades sino por esa segunda parte con la que intenta convencerles de que, no claudicar ante este contexto, es obrar con la táctica del avestruz. Por lo visto, lo que espera de la sociedad española es que mire hacia otro lado como hicieron las democracias del período de entreguerras, en nombre de la paz europea, con la Checoslovaquia y Austria engullidos por el expansionismo nazi. Un argumento muy sensato que puede confundir al iniciado que, muy probablemente, también se acabará creyendo esa aureola con la que los promarroquíes intentan convertir a Van Walsum en el primer enviado personal de la ONU que ha expresado alto y claro estas verdades del barquero. Su conclusión será que sus vecinos que en verano acogen a niños saharauis son una banda de exaltados y viscerales sin remedio porque, entre otras cosas, tanto desde la diplomacia marroquí como la española se están haciendo esfuerzos ímprobos para que la opinión pública cometa el error de ver similitudes entre el conflicto del Sáhara y el terrorismo de ETA.

¿Qué pasa en cambio con los solidarios que se conocen al dedillo los meandros por los que navega a la deriva la misión de paz del Sáhara? Se supone que es a ellos a los que quiere convencer Van Walsum. Pues que venderles este análisis como un novedoso descubrimiento tiene el aroma de una nueva tergiversación. Ni Van Walsum es el primer enviado personal del secretario general de la ONU que se ha atrevido a formular en voz alta las dificultades que el Consejo de Seguridad plantea a los saharauis, ni sus reflexiones aportan nada nuevo a lo que ha sido el contexto estratégico con el que ha tenido que trabajar la diplomacia saharaui desde la invasión marroquí.

Que Marruecos es la parte responsable de haber bloqueado los intentos de la ONU por organizar el referéndum de autodeterminación, ya lo había reconocido públicamente el anterior secretario general de la ONU, Kofi Annan. Que el empeño del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU por buscar una solución de consenso en la práctica es una trampa que evita el riesgo de presiones al rey Mohamed VI, ya lo dijo en términos muy similares a los de Van Walsum uno de sus antecesores en el cargo de representante personal, el ex secretario de estado norteamericano James Baker. La diferencia, sin embargo, es que así como a Van Walsum este realismo le ha costado la desaprobación saharaui, en el caso de James Baker, el suyo le valió la declaración de guerra de la diplomacia alauita.

Baker, por ejemplo, tras siete años a vueltas con la cuestión del Sáhara, llegó a la conclusión de que si el conflicto no se resuelve es porque "Marruecos está absolutamente decidido a quedarse allí" y sus gobernantes nunca van a correr el riesgo de celebrar un referéndum que tienen la certeza de perder, aunque en la consulta votasen todos los colonos marroquíes que residen en los territorios ocupados y que triplican a la población autóctona. [12] Baker lo sabía muy bien porque esa fue la salida que le dio a Hassán II en el nuevo plan que fue aceptado por Hassán II y el Polisario, y votado unánimemente por el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU en la resolución 1495. De nuevo, Marruecos rompió la baraja. Como explicó Baker, para imponer la Ley al Consejo de Seguridad no le hubiese quedado más opción que hacer pasar la cuestión al Capítulo VII, donde se puede forzar a una de las partes a hacer algo que no quiere hacer. Lo que impidió que el Consejo de Seguridad repitiese con el Sáhara lo que había hecho con el Kuwait invadido por Saddam Hussein, Baker también lo explicó sin pelos en la lengua: en el Consejo de Seguridad, ninguno de sus miembros quiere correr el riesgo de ganarse la enemistad de Marruecos o de Argelia, adoptando una posición firme".

Sería propio de los que viven en la inopia no saber a estas alturas que ese apoyo constante e inequívoco que Francia lleva dando a Marruecos en el Consejo de Seguridad, arrastrando a todas aquellas diplomacias que buscan su colaboración en otros escenarios, es en buena medida el responsable del lenguaje y actitud tolerante que destila este órgano onusiano con los abusos marroquíes en el Sáhara ocupado.

Tenemos, por ejemplo, el solemne discurso que el sucesor e hijo de Hassán II (iniciador del conflicto del Sáhara) hizo el pasado julio, con ocasión de la fiesta del trono: por un lado el rey puso mucho énfasis en su predisposición al diálogo con Argelia para construir unas relaciones de buena vecindad entre los dos pueblos hermanos y hallar una solución al conflicto del Sáhara que (ahora ya lo reconoce abiertamente), es la causa de que las fronteras entre los dos países permanezcan cerrada. Todo un talante conciliador que se corta en seco en cuanto toca el punto sobre las posibles soluciones: ni hablar de un referéndum que de la posibilidad a los saharauis de elegir entre independencia y anexión. La independencia del Sáhara es una ilusión irrealista porque para eso tiene, recordó, a las Fuerzas Armadas Reales, a la Gendarmería Real, la Seguridad nacional, la Administración territorial, las Fuerzas auxiliares y la Protección civil que “están movilizadas permanentemente" y que "rechazarán cualquier intento" de obligar a Marruecos a abandonar su soberanía sobre el Sáhara.[13]

Más claro el agua. El rey Mohamed le decía una vez más al mundo, y en especial a sus vecinos argelinos, que pasa olímpicamente de las resoluciones de la ONU que defienden el derecho a la autodeterminación del pueblo saharaui y que el Sáhara es suyo o por las buenas o por las malas. Pero lo que en boca de un dirigente de Corea del Norte o Irán sería inmediatamente condenado como un nuevo desafío a la comunidad internacional, no recibió la más mínima amonestación.

La comparación le resultará de lo más exótica a un no iniciado en los entresijos del por qué del bloqueo de este plan de paz. Para los prosaharauis españoles, auténticos obsesos del rastreo informativo de un asunto en el que ven la prolongación de las carencias e incapacidades de la política de la ONU y de los Gobiernos españoles, brota con la misma naturalidad del dos y dos son cuatro. La reciente ola de represión en los territorios ocupados, por ejemplo, es una nueva mina de conclusiones realistas que es imposible no conectar con ese otro fiasco que la pasividad de los cascos azules acaba de culminar en el Congo. A estos supuestos utópicos, no se les escapa el hecho de que una de las causas de la nueva guerra internacional en el África central tiene que ver con esas amistades en el Consejo de Seguridad con que los responsables de la matanza de tutsis y hutus contaron para acabar convirtiendo a los cascos azules sobre el terreno en encubridores y garantes de la retaguardia de los asesinos. Imposible no establecer una relación con las dificultades que la diplomacia saharaui lleva lidiando desde 2006 para que salga de la clandestinidad el informe del Alto Comisionado de la ONU para los Derechos Humanos que deja en muy mal lugar la credibilidad democrática del Gobierno marroquí. De nuevo, el problema de no contar con tan buenos contactos en el Consejo de Seguridad como sus contrincantes marroquíes. Efectivamente, habría que ser muy ingenuos para confiar en que el rey Mohamed acabe voluntariamente con la brutal represión con la que intenta doblegar a los saharauis si, como ocurrió durante la votación de la última resolución del Consejo de Seguridad, en cuanto alguien sugiere incluir un ligero tirón de orejas sobre el asunto (lo hizo EEUU), Francia frena en seco la iniciativa amenazando con hacer uso de su derecho al veto.

Volviendo a Van Walsum, no hay grandes diferencias entre cómo Baker expresó que "el verdadero problema" a la hora de resolver el conflicto saharaui está en la falta de voluntad del Consejo de Seguridad por aplicar las resoluciones de la ONU y el realismo con el que él ha manifestado que, "mientras Marruecos ocupara una gran parte del territorio y el Consejo de Seguridad no estuviera dispuesto a presionarle, el resultado no llegaría a ser un Sáhara Occidental independiente". ¿Por qué entonces Baker acabó siendo tachado de propolisario por los marroquíes y Van Walsum de promarroquí por el Polisario? Evidentemente porque Baker no llegó a formular esa cuadratura del círculo con la que su sucesor sugiere que imponerle a los saharauis una solución que no sea la ideal no tiene por qué ser una chapuza de acuerdo a derecho: "la legalidad internacional no es lo mismo que el derecho internacional. Evidentemente el Consejo de Seguridad no tiene más remedio que tener en cuenta la realidad política…".

Lo que nadie se explica en España es por qué no les advirtieron de estas sutilezas del derecho cuando miles de ciudadanos, entre ellos los ingenuos propolisarios, se volcaron del lado de la "legalidad internacional de la ONU" en la segunda guerra de Irak. O por qué Van Walsum, no ha incluido en su galería de reproches y advertencias sobre los graves errores de percepción de los prosaharauis el haber apoyado con entusiasmo en 1988 la decisión del Polisario de aceptar la mediación de Naciones Unidas que los ha metido en ese callejón sin salida que tan bien describe. La moraleja de todo ello refleja un organismo percibido como un ente oscuro en el que hay que resignarse a que todo, incluso lo malo, es posible. A ver si era eso, precisamente, lo que se pretendía...



Notas

[1] www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/sociedad/espanola/da/falsas/esperanzas/elpepiint/20080808elp
[2] www.elpais.com/articulo/opinion/largo/complejo/problema/Sahara/elpepiopi/20080828elpepiopi_10/Tes
[3]www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Sahara/independiente/inalcanzable/elpepiint/20080808elpepiint_1/Tes
[4] www.gees.org/articulo/5469/
[5] www.aujourdhui.ma/couverture-details63338.html
[6]www.wsrw.org/index.php?cat=109&art=738&searchString=fosfatos&shw=3&sy=&sm=&stm=&page=1&mto=0
[7] www.lematin.ma/Actualite/Express/Article.asp?origine=exp&idr=103&id=90499
[8] www.un.org/spanish/aboutun/charter.htm#Cap1
[9] www.arso.org/RuddyAlaskaspeech2007.htm, www.gees.org/articulo/1646/
[10] www.map.ma/es/sections/politica/la_autonomia_es_la_u/view
www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/BASRI/_DRISS_/EX_MINISTRO_MARRUECOS/SAHARA_OCCIDENTAL/MARRUECOS/SAHARA_OCCIDENTAL/MARRUECOS/FRENTE_POLISARIO_/RASD/ORGANIZACION_DE_LAS_NACIONES_UNIDAS_/ONU/elpepiint/19990716elpepiint_10/Tes
[11] www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gaspd398.doc.htm www.map.ma/es/sections/politica/la_autonomia_es_la_u/view
[12] http://arso.org/BakerPBSes.htm
[13] www.lematin.ma/Actualite/Journal/Article.asp?origine=jrn&idr=110&id=101451

A brief history of the Western Saharan people’s struggle for freedom

Spain colonised Western Sahara and its mostly nomadic people in 1884 claiming it as a protectorate of the Spanish Crown. Spanish rule over Western Sahara was codified in Berlin in 1885, where Africa was carved up among the European powers. The period of Spanish rule was marked by ongoing resistance, revolts and armed clashes with the indigenous population, with its liberation movements being brutally repressed by the Spanish authorities.

A 1966 UN resolution called for Saharawi people’s right to self-determination to be exercised via a referendum which never eventuated. The lack of political developments led to the formation of Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el Hamra and Rio de Oro (the Polisario Front) in 1973. Polisario was conceived as a nationalist front with the aim of achieving independence, and encompassed all Saharawi political trends.

Polisario launched a guerrilla war against Spanish rule, fought Mauritania’s occupation of part of Western Sahara (from 1975 to 1979) and Morocco’s occupation from its invasion in 1975 until 1991.

In 1975 Spain relinquished its control of Western Sahara and, contrary to 1966 UN resolution for self-determination, handed Western Sahara over to Mauritania and Morocco (the Madrid Accords). The same year, the Morocco regime organised the ``Green March’’, in which 350,000 Moroccans, brandishing flags and pictures of King Hassan II, invaded Western Sahara in order to settle and ``reclaim the territory’’. This strategic march was supported by 20,000 Moroccan troops, who were met with some armed resistance from Polisario. November 6, the day of the “Green March”, has become a national holiday in Morocco.

Morocco and Mauritania’s war against Polisario was financially supported by the US, France and Spain to the tune of billions of dollars.

Apart from engaging in aerial bombardment, which included napalm and cluster bombs, Morocco started to build a 2500-kilometre-long, heavily mined wall through Western Sahara, dividing almost every Saharawi family. (For a detailed map of Western Sahara and the Moroccan wall, visit http://awsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/wsahara.pdf.)

On February 27, 1976, Polisario proclaimed the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), which is a full member state of the African Union.

While Morocco’s occupation is not officially recognised by any other country in the world, around 50 governments recognise the SADR and its government-in-exile, led by the Polisario Front; 13 have suspended relations with Morocco and 22 have cancelled recognition. The SADR was the first country to establish relations with East Timor. The SADR and Polisario currently control 32% of Western Sahara’s territory; the remaining 68% are resource rich and occupied by Morocco.

Ceasefire, referendum and international abandonment

A 1991 ceasefire, overseen by a UN peacekeeping mission, ended the armed conflict but the Saharawi people are still waiting for a UN-sponsored referendum on self-determination that was supposed to take place in 1992. The frustration at the lack of progress and lack of support from the international community for a political solution to the conflict is palpable, especially among Saharawi youth. As SADR health minister Sid'Ahmed Tayeb told the Australian delegation to the October 2008 International Trade Union Conference in Solidarity with the Western Saharan Workers (see http://links.org.au/node/750), “we are living between existence and non-existence”.

* * * *

The Saharawi people have been left to their own devices, due to the fact that Morocco has very powerful allies, such as the US, Spain and France. The Spanish king regularly spends his vacations with the Moroccan king. A landmark advisory ruling by the International Court of Justice in 1975, recognising the right of self-determination by the Saharawi people, was rendered useless because France and the United States blocked the Security Council from enforcing its resolutions. Both governments sought to undermine growing communist and radical Arab nationalist movements during the Cold War by strengthening the reactionary Moroccan monarchy.

In more recent years Morocco has become the darling of the West and is friends with Israel, due to its status as a ``moderate Muslim nation’’ and an important ally in the struggle against Islamist extremism.

In 2006 Morocco proposed an autonomy plan for Western Sahara based on the assumption that Western Sahara was part of Morocco, an assertion that has been rejected on numerous occasions by the UN, the World Court and the African Union (see http://www.gees.org/articulo/2772).

The European Union is currently in negotiations with Morocco on granting it ``Advanced Status’’ relations with its 27-member bloc. Western Sahara has appealed to the European Union not to grant Advanced Status to Morocco unless the occupied part of Western Sahara is excluded from cooperation agreement (see http://www.wsrw.org/index.php?parse_news=single&cat=105&art=924). Granting such status to Morocco while it continues to occupy Western Sahara will give legitimacy to the Moroccan military occupation and its claims over the territory.

Theft of Saharawi natural resources

Many Western governments and companies, including Australia’s, are knowingly engaged in the theft of the Saharawi people’s natural resources, through lucrative trade deals with Morocco. Western Sahara has high-grade phosphate mineral rock, excellent fishing grounds and offshore oil exploration is being conducted (for more information see www.awsa.org or www.wsrw.org).

As a matter of fact, under the 1975 Madrid Accords, Spain was given a 35 per cent stake in the Western Saharan Bu Craa phosphate mine, which is continuing to deliver a profit bonanza to the former colonial power until 2003.

In the game of ``Realpolitik’’ it is of no relevance to Western governments that Morocco has been condemned many times for its torture, disappearance and arrest of Saharawis in Morocco proper and in the occupied territories, as well as for its repression against its own population and trade union activists.

Refugees

Approximately half the Saharawi people live in refugee camps, which have now existed for 33 years, in the Hamada desert near the Algerian military town of Tindouf. Nearly all Saharawi men participated in the resistance war. Apart from some women who joined their menfolk in armed combat, most Saharawi women walked hundreds of kilometres with their children through the desert to escape Morocco’s bombardment and napalm, to reach safe haven in south-west Algeria. There the women miraculously built refugee camps with social institutions out of virtually nothing. The mainly nomadic Saharawi society had to undergo a rapid and massive transformation to adapt to incredibly inhumane conditions and to develop new ways of organising their society in order to survive (for more detailed information, visit http://www.arso.org/05-0.htm#Anchore).

Saharawi refugees have lived on emergency food and humanitarian aid for 33 years, which has resulted in high levels of malnutrition and anaemia. A 2007 UN-funded report found that more than 76% of pregnant women and 68% of children under the age of five suffered from anemia. The 2003 report, Forgotten People: The Saharawis of Western Sahara, by Refugees International states that nearly half of Saharawi kids suffer from anemia, many have stunted growth with 13 per cent are acutely malnourished (http://www.arso.org/01-e03-07.htm).

Due to the harsh terrain of the camp locations, combined with shrinking financial support from donor governments and organisations, supplementing the current food aid with necessary nutrition for a balanced diet is nearly impossible.

At the same time the situation in Saharawi camps is uniquely positive and a testimony to human capabilities in the face of adversity. The Saharawi government, together with foreign specialists, is trying to address these problems to the best of its ability. The SADR government and Polisario run the camps through social and political institutions, giving control, cohesiveness, dignity and hope to its people. The four camps are organised into districts (wilayas) named after towns in Western Sahara: El Aaiun, Smara, Dahkla and Aousserd. Each camp is further divided into villages (daira). There are also two administrative camps (Rabouni and 27 February) that house the government in exile, with police stations, courts and schools.

Health and education are the top priority in the camps, achieving amazing results. There is a national hospital in the 27 February camp; Saharawis have not suffered a major health epidemic for more than 20 years. The literacy rate is over 90 per cent, a complete turnaround from 1975 when 95% of Saharawis could neither read nor write. At the same time, the director the national hospital told us during our visit, they still have not received the allocation of medications for 2008, which has dangerously depleting important stocks. There was no anti-diarrhea medication available at the time for children under five years of age.

Even though temperatures can reach a searing 58 degrees Celsius in summer and fall to minus 6 degrees C in winter, there is no mass exodus from the camps to migrate to Europe, instead an incredibly strong sentiment is expressed about being able to return to their occupied country. Every week young people arrive in the camps, fleeing Morocco’s repression in the occupied territories. Saharawis are excluded from many jobs and educational opportunities and face relentless discrimination and harassment by the Moroccan state. Morocco’s security forces especially target young people, who are spearheading the resistance (intifada). Torture and detention, even of 14-year-old women, is common, as is the disappearance of journalists and other activists. It is just about impossible to be granted entry to the occupied territories, unless you pretend to be a tourist, keen to do a bit of surfing (see http://www.upes.org).

International solidarity

The Saharawi people in the camps, their brothers and sisters in the occupied territories and in the diaspora are desperately hoping for an end to the conflict so they can return to their beloved homeland. Our solidarity is crucial for their right to live as a nation and continue their existence as a distinct people with thousands of years of history.

[This backgrounder was complied thanks to resources provided by ARSO (http://www.arso.org), the Australia Western Sahara Association (http://awsa.org.au) and Western Sahara Resource Watch (http://www.wsrw.org). 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.]

Importante congreso sobre el Sahara Occidental en Sudafrica (Parte II)

El Congreso sobre "Multilateralismo y Derecho Internacional con el Sahara Occidental como modelo" concluyo el viernes 5 con intervenciones extraordinariamente interesantes. Entre otras cosas se dieron datos que demostraban que el Sahara Occidental alberga inmensas riquezas que hacen del mismo un Estado totalmente viable.

La sexta sesion del Congreso acogio cuatro intervenciones.
En la primera, la profesora de Derecho Internacional de la London School of Echonomics, Christine Chinkin, estimo aplicable al Sahara Occidental el Derecho Internacional sobre situaciones de ocupacion, que forma parte del Derecho Humanitario. Ademas, denuncio que Marruecos no ha ratificado el Tratado que establece el Tribunal Penal Internacional, lo que obstaculiza el enjuiciamiento de los responsables de crimenes contra la humanidad cometidos en la invasion del territorio por Marruecos.
En la segunda intervencion, que correspondio al firmante de esta bitacora, se argumento que Espanya no ha dejado de ser potencia administradora del Sahara Occidental y que, por ello, asume todas las obligaciones que el Derecho Internacional establece para este tipo de status. Hechos como el voto favorable y el impulso al acuerdo pesquero de la Union Europea con Marruecos sobre aguas del Sahara constituyen, a este respecto, flagrantes violaciones de las obligaciones economicas impuestas por Derecho Internacional. Ante el problema de la imposibilidad de cumplir las obligaciones politicas que le incumben (fundamentalmente la celebracion de un referendum de autodeterminacion), sugeri que se solicite un dictamen al Tribunal Internacional de Justicia para aclarar esta cuestion juridica.
En la tercera intervencion, el senador belga Pierre Galand subrayo la importancia de la solidaridad de la sociedad civil.
Y en la cuarta y ultima intervencion, Aminatu Haidar, defensora de los derechos humanos en el Sahara Occidental que ha sido varias veces encarcelada por sus ideas y que recientemente galardonada con el premio de la Fundacion Robert Kennedy, hizo una sintesis de las violaciones de derechos humanos que Marruecos ha cometido en el territorio.

La septima sesion, dedicada a la cuestion de los recursos naturales del Sahara Occidental fue una de las mas interesantes. Conto con dos sustanciosas intervenciones.
En la primera, el ex-subsecretario general de la ONU y responsable de su departamento juridico, Hans Corell, rompio por fin el largo silencio que se impuso desde que el 29 de enero de 2002 publicara su famoso dictamen que establecio que la exploracion y explotacion de los recursos naturales del Sahara por Marruecos era ilegal si no se hacia en beneficio de la poblacion originaria o de acuerdo con sus representantes. Ademas de rechazar las interpretaciones incorrectas que se hicieron de su dictamen, declaro que el Acuerdo pesquero de la UE con Marruecos viola el Derecho Internacional.
Por su parte, Erik Hagen, periodista noruego miembro de la asociacion "Western Sahara Resources Watch" hizo un analisis de las riquezas naturales que explota Marruecos: fosfatos, pesca, agricultura y arena, sin apenas emplear en esta actividad economica a la poblacion originaria del territorio, sino a colonos marroquies. Erik Hagen dijo que Marrueco obtiene cantidades ingentes de dinero del Sahara Occidental. Solo la explotacion de los fosfatos solo en el anyo 2007 ha reportado a Marruecos 1.700 millones de dolares (o sea, unos 230.000 millones de las antiguas pesetas). Con esta fortuna (a la que hay que anyadir la que se obtiene con la pesca y otras riquezas) el Sahara Occidental, no solo no seria un Estado "inviable", sino que seria un Estado con una elevadisima renta per capita.

La octava sesion conto con tres intervenciones.
En la primera, Francesco Bastagli, antiguo representante especial de Naciones Unidas para el Sahara Occidental y responsable de la MINURSO, dijo que la llamada "realpolitik" mina las relaciones internacionales que solo pueden conocer estabilidad y previsibilidad sobre la base del Derecho y la justicia. Por ello, denuncio la grave irresponsabilidad de quienes, siendo representantes de organizaciones internacionales, ponen por encima de todo a la "realpolitik". Alusion apenas disimulada a la conducta de Peter Van Walsum, ex-representante personal del Secretario General de Naciones Unidas para el Sahara Occidental. Bastagli, ademas, denuncio la conspiracion de silencio que se ha tejido en la ONU sobre la cuestion del Sahara Occidental. Mientras el SG de la ONU realiza diarias tomas de posicion sobre los mas diversos temas, llama la atencion el silencio de muchos organos de la ONU ante el expolio de las riquezas naturales del Sahara o la violacion de derechos humanos en el territorio.
En la segunda intervencion, un diputado sudafricano, Madasa, denuncio que varios paises arabes intentan disuadir a Sudafrica de que apoye a la RASD con el argumento de que en el Sahara Occidental "no hay nada que merezca la pena".
Finalmente, en su tercera intervencion, Mhamed Jadad, de la direccion politica del Frente Polisario hablo de la propuesta que el Frente Polisario presento, el 10 de abril de 2007 para solucionar el conflicto. La propuesta saharaui, se presento antes de la propuesta marroqui de una llamada "autonomia" para el territorio, por lo que no es cierto que haya sido esta la que ha desencadenado la nueva dinamica politica existente. En esa propuesta, el Frente Polisario deja claro que esta dispuesto a proporcionar todas las garantias posibles a los Estados vecinos, y especialmente a Marruecos, para que la independencia del Sahara Occidental no suponga el mas minimo riesgo para la paz, la estabilidad y la unidad de la region norteafricana (el magreb).

El balance de este Congreso solo puede calificarse como extraordinariamente positivo.Y ello es asi, porque se han escuchado ideas nuevas y constructivas, ademas de explorar nuevas vias que pueden hacer posible una evolucion del conflicto hacia una autentica solucion justa. Solo falta ahora que el Frente Polisario, como parte del conflicto, las asuma. Si ademas, Argelia, Espanya y Mauritania, como partes interesadas y vecinas se comprometen seriamente en estas iniciativas, creo que puede haber una solucion. Pero si no hay coraje de adoptar estas iniciativas me temo que el estancamiento puede seguir estancado.

Importante congreso sobre el Sahara Occidental en Sudafrica (Parte I)

En Pretoria se esta celebrando un importante congreso sobre la cuestion del Sahara Occidental, organizado por el Ministerio sudafricano de Asuntos Exteriores y la Universidad de Pretoria. Un evento donde se han dicho cosas importantes y que, sorprendentemente, no ha merecido hasta ahora la atencion de la prensa saharaui, argelina o espanyola. De la prensa marroqui mejor no hablar.

La primera jornada estaba compuesta por cuatro sesiones.
En la primera intervinieron el profesor marroqui Abdehamid El Uali, designado por el gobierno de Rabat y el profesor saharaui Sidi Omar.
Sidi Omar hizo una intervencion muy documentada donde puso de manifiesto que Marruecos antes de Mohamed VI habia aceptado oficialmente no solo el derecho a la autodeterminacion del pueblo saharaui, sino tambien su derecho a la independencia. Sidi Omar documento esto con declaraciones oficiales marroquies del maximo nivel.
Por su parte, el profesor marroqui empezo pronto a revelar que su papel era el de provocar. He aqui algunas de sus afirmaciones:
- Espanya debe "devolver" los territorios "ocupados" de Ceuta, Melilla y Chafarinas.
- El Sahara Occidental es "marroqui" desde tiempos "inmemoriales"
- El Tribunal Internacional de Justicia se equivoco en el asunto del Sahara Occidental
- Marruecos "cedio" a Argelia una gran parte de "sus" territorios en el tratado de fronteras firmado en Ifran.

Mas adelante, siguio con su estrategia de provocacion y de chantaje al moderador en las siguientes sesiones hasta que decidio abandonar el congreso.

En la segunda sesion intervinieron el profesor Macharia Munene, de la Universidad Internacional de los Estados Unidos, de Nairobi y el periodista y escritor Toby Shelley, para hablar de la historia del Sahara Occidental.

En la tercera sesion, el profesor de la Universidad de San Francisco, Stephen Zunes y el investigador de la Universidad de Exeter, Jacob Mundy hicieron sendas profundas intervenciones sobre el papel de las organizaciones internacionales.
Stephen Zunes dijo que en el tema del Sahara Occidental nos hallamos ante el reto de decidir que Derecho Internacional va a regir en el siglo XXI: el derecho democratico a la autodeterminacion de los pueblos o el derecho de conquista.
Por su parte, Jacob Mundy, quizas el mejor conocedor de la cuestion del Sahara Occidental actualmente, tras hacer un brillante analisis del dictamen del Tribunal Internacional de Justicia (TIJ), discrepo de la afirmacion del Secretario General de Naciones Unidas de que lo que estaba en juego era un conflicto de soberanias. A su juicio, el TIJ deja claro que la cuestion de la soberania no admite discusion: solo hay un soberano, el pueblo saharaui.

En la cuarta sesion, el profesor Othman, de Tanzania, y el embajador USA y antiguo alto responsable de la MINURSO, Frank Rudy, siguieron hablando del papel de las organizaciones internacionales.
El profesor Othman indico la importancia del principio de la intagibilidad de las fronteras coloniales en Africa para mantener la paz. Refirio que este principio fue aprobado por una resolucion de la Organizacion para la Unidad Africana (OUA), en 1964, con los solos votos en contra de Marruecos y Somalilandia, ambos con sendos proyectos expansionistas en su politica exterior (el "Gran Marruecos" y la "Gran Somalilandia").
Por su parte, el embajador Frank Rudy hizo una sugestiva propuesta: dado que la MINURSO ha demostrado su incapacidad para organizar el referendum y dar una solucion al conflicto, conviene que esta se retire. En ese escenario, los actores se veran obligados a demostrar el alcance real de sus compromiso, sin poder velar sus verdaderas intenciones con la excusa de que del asunto se ocupa la MINURSO. Una propuesta digna de mucha consideracion.

Este importante congreso continua el viernes 5.

Western Sahara's struggle for self-determination

In October, a three-member delegation of Australian unionists visited the Western Saharawi refugee camps in the Hamada desert, South West Algeria. Western Sahara has been illegally occupied by Morocco since 1975.

Green Left Weekly's Margarita Windisch spoke with Sid'Ahmed Tayeb, the minister of public health for the exiled Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic, in 27 February refugee camp.

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 Sahari people?

Firstly, 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 got 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.

Us 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.

From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #777

3 December 2008.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/777/40062

The Decolonisation Process in Western Sahara

published by The Court of Conscience magazine Issue 2, 2008. A publication of The Law Society at the University of New South Wales (Australia). ------------------- The Western Sahara issue is an important and relevant issue to all those who are interested in the role of the United Nations, human rights, justice and peace. Western Sahara is situated in northwest Africa along the Atlantic coast, and was a Spanish colony for almost 100 years. In 1975, Spain signed a secret agreement with Morocco and Mauritania, dividing the territory between them.1 Both Morocco and Mauritania invaded and illegally occupied territory. However, in 1979, Mauritania abandoned its territorial claim over Western Sahara and signed a peace treaty with the Indigenous people. Despite this, Morocco maintains administrative control and continues to claim sovereignty over most of the Territory. The United Nations (‘the UN’) and the Organisation of African Unity (‘the OAU’) have been trying to organise a referendum on self-determination in Western Sahara.2 The UN Decolonisation Program The Charter of the United Nations recognises the right of peoples to self determination.3 Furthermore, the UN passed landmark resolutions and established important decolonisation programs.4 In 1963 Western Sahara was included in the UN list of the non-self-governing territories, and in October 1964 the UN Decolonisation Committee adopted its first Resolution on Western Sahara, urging Spain to start the process of decolonising the territory.5 The UN General Assembly issued a similar Resolution on December 16, 1965.6 Initially, Spain was reluctant to start the process of decolonisation; but in August 1974, it informed the UN that it was prepared to organize a referendum on self-determination. In this referendum, the people of Western Sahara could choose either full independence or to remain attached to Spain. Morocco and Mauritania opposed the referendum idea as they wanted the Territory for themselves. The Moroccan Sovereignty Claim and the ICJ In order to postpone the referendum, Morocco, with the support of Mauritania, asked the UN General Assembly to seek arbitration from the International Court of Justice (‘the ICJ’) and to give legal advice on this matter. On 13 December 1974, the ICJ was asked to give an advisory opinion on: (1) whether or not the Western Sahara had been terra nullius - a territory belonging to no one - at the time of Spanish colonisation; and (2) if it was not terra nullius at the time of Spanish colonisation, then what was the legal relationship between Western Sahara and Morocco, and Western Sahara and Mauritania7. In international law, sovereignty has two elements: territorial and jurisdictional.8 Morocco claims that before Spanish colonisation, Western Sahara was Moroccan territory. To satisfy the jurisdictional test for sovereignty, it cites evidence that at the time of Spanish colonisation, some Sahrawi tribes paid allegiance to the Moroccan throne. Specifically, it relies on the Islamic concept of the bayaa, an allegiance amounting to ‘a contractual agreement whereby the Muslim community offered a conditional loyalty to its caliph (leader) in response to his recognition of his obligations under the sharia’9. On this basis, Morocco claims firstly that it, not Spain, has a legitimate claim to sovereignty over the territory of Western Sahara. It also claims that the principle of uti possidetis juris,10 which holds that colonial boundaries cannot be altered on independence or decolonisation, applies to that territory. The ICJ studied all the documents presented to it by Morocco, Mauritania, Spain and Algeria; but the Sahrawis were not allowed to appear before the Court since the ICJ can only hear evidence from States.11 After twenty-seven sessions, the ICJ issued its opinion on October 15, 1975.12 The Court decided unanimously that Western Sahara was not terra nullius when Spain proclaimed a protectorate over it in 1884, since it ‘was inhabited by peoples which, if nomadic, were socially and politically organised in tribes and under chiefs competent to represent them’.13 The court then gave the conclusion of its opinion regarding the legal ties between Western Sahara, Morocco and Mauritania: The Court’s conclusion is that the materials and information presented to it do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity. Thus the court has not found legal ties of such a nature as might affect the application of resolution 1514 (XV) in the decolonisation 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.14 The decision of the ICJ is of great significance. As Thomas Frank put it, ‘the judges asserted the supremacy of the norm developed by UN resolutions and the practice of decolonisation: the Sahrawi population was entitled to self-determination within the perimeters of the existing colonial entity’.15 It is clear that the ICJ decision is a rejection of the Moroccan claim of sovereignty over Western Sahara. The Postponed Referendum Despite the Court’s decision, Morocco and Mauritania invaded and occupied Western Sahara in 1975 in a grave violation of international law. The UN Security Council adopted a resolution deploring the invasion and calling on Morocco to withdraw form the Territory16, but the resolution was never enforced. The invasion provoked a prolonged war; causing great suffering to the Indigenous Sahrawis who have been denied their basic human rights. Yet it is a human tragedy rarely noticed by the rest of the world. In August 1988, as result of war-weariness and international pressure, Morocco agreed to a UN-OAU peace process. Central to the UN-OAU peace plan (‘the plan’) is the holding of a referendum providing an opportunity for the Sahrawi people to exercise their right to self-determination in a free and fair manner. A cease-fire was declared in September 1991 and a UN mission (MINURSO) was deployed in the territory. According to the original plan,17 the referendum should have taken place in January 1992. Furthermore, Morocco signed the Houston Agreements negotiated under the auspices of James Baker, the former Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General. The agreements were endorsed by the Security Council and should have lead to the organisation of the referendum. In an attempt to break the deadlock, James Baker presented what became known as the Baker Plan that was endorsed by the Security Council in July 2003. The plan envisaged four to five years autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty, followed by a referendum on the final status of the Territory in which Moroccan settlers who resided in the territory since December 1999 would vote. As a gesture of good will and in a spirit of co-operation, Polisario [a Sahrawi movement working for Western Sahara’s independence- ed.] accepted the Plan despite the risks involved in it- but Morocco rejected it. In August 2004, Morocco decided to abandon the peace process and the referendum idea altogether, due to fears of the verdict of the Saharawi people. In response, the UN Security Council called on Morocco and Polisario to enter into direct negotiations without preconditions, in good faith, and with a view to ensuring the respect for the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination. Morocco and Polisario met four times at Manhasset neat New York in 2007 and 2008 for direct negotiations under UN auspices, but the talks have so far failed because Morocco refuses to consider the referendum idea and will only offer what it calls “autonomy”; which the Saharawis consider falls short of the right of self-determination. The right of peoples to self-determination is enshrined in the declarations of the United Nations and the Organisation of African Unity.18 Furthermore, the ICJ verdict upheld that the Sahrawi people are entitled to exercise this right. Therefore, the invasion and occupation of Western Sahara in 1975 was an act of aggression and a violation of international law. The UN has so far failed in its efforts in Western Sahara, because of the lack of major powers in the international community politically and publicly supporting the referendum. Unlike the referendum process in East Timor, which has benefited from the involvement of regional and international actors, the Western Sahara peace process has not yet attracted international attention. Unless there is international pressure on Morocco, the chances of the referendum proceeding in Western Sahara are very slim. After 45 years on the UN agenda, it is tragic that Western Sahara’s decolonisation is still incomplete and that the Sahrawi people are still denied their basic and legitimate right to decide their own future. At the same time, the Saharawis have faced horrendous human rights abuses by Morocco. In addition, their natural resources continue to be illegally exploited by companies from all over the world, including Australia. 165,000 Saharawis have endured life in harsh conditions in refugee camps for the past 33 years. It is the duty of the international community to make sure that a final and lasting decolonisation process is achieved in Western Sahara. The alternative to a peaceful solution will be the resumption of hostilities and the destabilisation of the whole region, something the Saharawis wish to avoid.

Melbourne plays host to African Studies conference

Many scholars from around Australia and abroad attended the “31st annual conference of the African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific” (AFSAAP) hosted by Monash University. It was held in the centre of Melbourne at the State Library of Victoria’s conference centre 26-28 December 2008, and entitled Building a common future, Africa and Australasia, see http://www.meetings.com.au/africa/. The Australia Western Sahara Association held an information stall about Western Sahara and had the opportunity to talk with many conference-goers from Australia and overseas. It was useful to raise the profile of Western Sahara in a few cases where people confessed ignorance of the conflict. However, most congratulated us on our presence. Many greeted the stall warmly, being familiar with the issue over many years. A man from Somalia said it was high time Western Sahara achieved its independence. The conference recognises that Australia-Pacific region’s growing economic, political, social and cultural ties with Africa provide an opportunity not only to explore our communalities further but also to work together on shared issues, such as climate change, education, health and security, to develop sustainable, mutually beneficial solutions. Since 1978, the annual African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific (AFSAAP) conference has been bringing together Africa-focused scholars, students, government and diplomatic staff, business, industry and individuals to discuss Africa and the issues, challenges and opportunities which the continent faces.

AU brushes aside colonialism

The European Union is veering toward condoning colonialism. Worse, the African Union hardly notices. Meanwhile, the United Nations limps in pursuit of Morocco-occupied Western Sahara’s de-colonisation. Last week, Cosatu, a confederation of trade unions in South Africa, sounded the alarm about EU’s move that might undermine Western Sahara’s de-colonisation. Few noticed. An event unnoticed outside Spain nine days ago also reminded the world a colony still exists in Africa. The demonstrators marked the day in 1975 when the late Morocco’s King Hassan led thousands of his subjects on a “Great Walk” to “reclaim” Western Sahara. It’s a northwest Africa former Spanish colony and before that a collection of tribal chieftains. Incidentally, so full of himself, the King once made a group of foreign journalists, including this columnist, enter his palace in Rabat through the “servants” gate.” He then lectured them on Morocco’s historical embodiment of Western Sahara. The estimated 8,000 people marched in Madrid behind a banner reading “For free and independent Sahara.” Another foretold, “Let’s avoid another war.” That’s a reference to increasing tension between Morocco and Algeria. Algeria opposes Morocco’s three decades occupation and hosts nearly the entire Western Sahara’s original population as refugees. All this might appear unrelated to the EU. Not really! Mid-last month, the EU and Morocco entered into a free-trade deal. The agreement, though, would not only increase trade, but also political and cultural cooperation. The deal contains an interesting phrase, “crisis management operations.” The problem is that the deal doesn’t explicitly exempt Western Sahara. Interestingly, the United States has a similar pact with Morocco. It excludes Western Sahara. The EU has a similar deal with Israel. That, too, excludes occupied Palestinian territory. Why double standards? As Cosatu noted, were EU to negotiate with Morocco “as the occupying power, it would give an unfortunate sign of support to Morocco’s claim over the territory.” That would “also lead to the EU damaging the UN’s efforts to decolonise the territory.” Polisario Party, which runs, in Algerian exile, the government of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, holds the same opinion. The Sahrawi Republic is a member of the AU, which led Morocco to quit. At best, Morocco’s claim to Western Sahara remains dubious. Spain decided to cut its losses in Africa in 1974. The International Court of Justice rejected Morocco’s claim. Amidst all this, Spain, Morocco and Mauritania signed a secrete deal that allowed the latter two to split the country. Polisario fighters, with Algeria’s support, chased Mauritania out, but they weren’t a match for Morocco. So far, the UN has passed 100 resolutions on Western Sahara, all providing for self-determination. The latest on October 21 reiterated that position. A 1991 UN-brokered ceasefire provided for a referendum to that end. Morocco weaselled out. Commemorating his father’s “Great Walk,” on the eve of Madrid protest, Muhamed VI praised Morocco’s armed forces – read sabre rattling at Algeria – castigated that country for breaking relations, including closing the border, and proposed autonomy for Western Sahara. The late Ethiopia’s Emperor Haile Selassie demonstrated, in dealing with Eritrea, how easily such autonomy evaporates. In the latest developments on Western Sahara, the AU hasn’t raised a finger, considering Morocco’s sympathisers include the United States, France and Britain. The AU chair, Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete, emulates a predecessor 32 years ago, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam of Mauritius. He discussed continental issues as often as the Dodo, his country’s bird of years long gone, spoke. Western Sahara is, as a de-colonisation issue clearly a UN baby. However, what’s wrong with the AU adding its weight and in particular castigate the EU for undermining the world body? Moreover, if the AU can’t stand up for one of its members, of what use is it? Source: http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/494104/-/3n3bue/-/index.html

La entrega del Sahara: pecado original de la monarquía

Antena 3 acaba de proyectar un telefilm titulado "20-N: Los últimos días de Franco". Contra lo que suele ser habitual en los principales medios de comunicación, esta vez sí se habla mucho del Sáhara... Lástima que sea para tergiversar la historia. Y es que, no conviene recordar que la monarquía ha nacido con un grave pecado original: la entrega del Sáhara Occidental a Marruecos violando todos los compromisos internacionales de España.

¿Por qué se mantuvo a Franco en una terrible agonía? El telefilm de Antena 3 no se atreve a decirlo, pero la respuesta es muy sencilla: porque no se quería que el acto infame de la entrega del Sáhara a Marruecos fuera el primer acto de la monarquía. Fue aprobarse la vergonzosa ley de "descolonización" del Sáhara el 19 de noviembre y dejar morir a Franco a las pocas horas. Pero aunque el jefe de Estado nominal era Franco, era Don Juan Carlos de Borbón, el jefe de Estado en funciones, y fue él quien autorizó aquella operación.

Resulta patético comprobar como el telefilm de Antena 3 vuelve a exhumar el "argumentario" que los entreguistas de 1975 menejaron para justificar la villanía: que no se podía "disparar" a las "mujeres y niños" de la Marcha Verde (¿pero había que dejarles entrar en el Sahara? ¿por qué se les impide ahora entrar en Melilla?), que el Sahara no valía la de un soldado español (¿Afganistán sí?), que el Príncipe "solucionó" (¿desde cuando la cesión es una "solución") el "problema" "pacíficamente" (¿no les importaba que el régimen marroquí procediera a un genocidio de los saharauis a quienes entregaron?), que el "malo" de Arias Navarro quería ir a la guerra (¿Arias Navarro? ¿uno de los más partidarios de la entrega sin condiciones a Marruecos?)....

Demasiados "errores"... ¿errores?
Dos datos:

1º. El guionista del telefilm es Lorenzo Silva.

2º. El embajador de Marruecos en España condecoró a Lorenzo Silva, el 20 de octubre con la orden del Wissam alauita, con la que la monarquía despótica del sur premia a sus amigos.

Trade unionists call for solidarity with Western Sahara

The 6th Congress of the Western Sahara General Union of Saguia El Hamra and Rio de Oro Workers (UGTSARIO) took place from October 19-21, 2008, in El Aaiun, one of four Saharawi refugee camps in the Hamada desert in south-west Algeria. The brutally harsh Hamada desert, justifiably termed the most inhospitable place on Earth, has become the home away from home for more than 160,000 Saharawi refugees since Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara in 1975. Three Australian trade unionists (two from the Australian Workers Union --AWU -- and one from the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance -- MEAA) travelled thousands of kilometres to attend the congress and participate in the 4th International Trade Union Conference in Solidarity with the Western Saharan Workers, which was convened as part of the 6th UGTSARIO congress. All three were also members of the Australian Western Sahara Association. UGTSARIO congress The UGTSARIO congress was attended by 380 delegates representing different sectors of Saharawi workers, from refugee camps as well as from Mauritania, Algeria, Spain and France. Currently there are four unions affiliated to the UGTSARIO, and the rest of its membership is made up of individual workers. There is a push to develop more unions, specific to particular sectors. Most notable was the high number of women delegates at the congress, which indicates a high level of women’s participation in public life and work. The congress officially opened with the singing of the national anthem and a speech by Mohamed Abdelaziz, president of the Democratic Republic of Western Sahara (SADR), honouring the contributions and sacrifices made by Saharawi workers. Outgoing secretary general of the UGTSARIO, Mohamed Cheikh Mohamed Lehbib, then presented the UGTSARIO bureau’s financial and activities reports, before inviting international delegations representing 16 trade unions to give greetings. Around 70 international guests attended the congress, representing trade unions and organisations from the African Union, Algeria, Nigeria, South Africa, Spain, Italy, Australia, Portugal, Norway, Greece, Mexico and Sweden. The congress also heard from former phosphate workers from the Western Saharan territories occupied by Morrocco. Due to the fierce repression against Saharawis in the occupied zone and a heavily mined 2500-kilometre long wall separating it from the liberated areas and the refugee camps, the participation of these workers could only occur via phone link up. Over the three days the congress debated the adoption of its new national program and elected a new leadership until its next congress in four years. In a rare opportunity the Australian delegations became ``international observers’’ – able to witness the UGTSARIO election process, which was fascinating and very democratic. Mohamed Cheikh Mohamed Lehbib was re-elected general secretary with a high margin and a new executive bureau was also elected. International Trade Union Conference in Solidarity with the Western Saharan Workers This conference (targeted at the international guests) was held on October 20, and was part of the 6th UGTSARIO congress. It focused on discussing three main issues: 1) the plundering of Western Sahara’s natural resources by Morocco and other countries/companies and how to develop a solidarity campaign, 2) abuse of Saharawis’ human rights and workers’ rights abuses by the Moroccan regime, in Morocco proper and occupied Western Sahara 3) supporting UGTSARIO’s membership of international trade union federations. The conference was attended by representatives of 23 trade unions and organisations from 11 countries, representing more than 200 million trade unionists. Iberian peninsular trade unionists were the most represented with three Spanish confederations (the UGT – linked to the current Spanish government, USO and CC.OO), one Basque (ELA), one Galician (CIG) and one Portuguese (CGTP). Italian unionists were represented via the CGIL (the General Confederation of Italian Workers); the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) sent a sizable delegation, as did the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), which participated for the first time. The Algerian federation UGTA sent its general secretary and OUSA – a pan-African federation – and the World Federation of Trade Unions also participated. Ron Guy, representing the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), spoke for our delegation on the conference panel. The Australian delegation also represented the AWU and the Socialist Alliance. In his conference contribution Ron Guy raised the issue of natural resource theft as being critical to any solidarity campaign that tries to achieve more than just deliver emergency aid to the refugee camps, and instead sharply refocus on the illegal occupation of Western Sahara and the Saharawi people’s claim of sovereignty over their territory. Our delegation argued that Morocco’s illegal trade deals with foreign countries and companies help finance the occupation, and provide legitimacy and support for its continuation. Highlighting this natural resources issue, we argued, automatically brings in the question of sovereignty, which can be avoided by only focusing on human rights abuses. Australian and Norwegian activists, represented by three young Western Sahara Resource Watch members who are teaching English in the camps, are helping to lead this specific campaign. Our reports about work done in this area were enthusiastically received as were our proposals for action. No other country represented at the conference had done any concrete work/actions on this issue to date, even though their own countries are profiting from trade deals with Morocco relating to the theft of the Saharawis’ resources. The East Timor struggle for independence was raised many times during the conference, as it is very pertinent to the Western Sahara situation. Our delegation put forward a proposal for other union federations present to join our protests against Australian company Wesfarmer’s illegal imports of Western Saharan phosphate (Wesfarmer’s fertiliser subsidiary, CSBP is the second-biggest Australian importer of phosphate from Western Sahara). We also moved for an international day of action against the theft of Saharawi resources to take place; targeting companies and/or our respective governments. After discussion, a subcommittee of six people, including a member of the Australian delegation, was nominated to develop a declaration, reflecting the decisions and mood of the conference floor. The final declaration (see below) included the proposal of an international day of action in 2009 against natural resource theft, sending delegations to the occupied territories as ``witnesses to the occupation’’ and to advocate for UGTSARIO’s inclusion in international trade union bodies. There was some initial resistance by the Spanish UGT representative to the inclusion of support for an international day of action on resource theft in the declaration, which was eventually resolved. The declaration was unanimously endorsed by both the international conference and the UGTSARIO congress. The Australian delegation won respect from the international guests and Saharawi trade unionists alike for our work and political interventions we brought to the conference. The Saharawis know that more political solidarity is crucial in order to move closer to finding a just solution to their desperate situation. And this can only be done through pressure being put on complicit governments (such as Spain, France and Australia) by the international solidarity and workers’ movement. The UGTSARIO general secretary came to visit us after the congress to thank us for our participation. Our delegation was also interviewed for the Algerian media and a Saharawi radio show. The conference also presented us with the opportunity to meet other trade unionists and strengthen important networks. Interestingly, many of the international unionists present at the congress had heard about Australia’s horrendous WorkChoices laws and the undemocratic, Gestapo-like Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC)! After spending four days at El Aaiun camp the Australian delegation moved to the ``27 February camp’’ to continue its solidarity work. UPES, the Saharawi Writers and Journalists Union, general secretary Malainin Lakhal, who had visited Australia in 2007, helped us organise important meetings with members of the community, SADR government officials and other international solidarity organisations. Delegation member Margarita Windisch (MEAA member, Socialist Alliance and Democratic Socialist Perspective activist, and Green Left Weekly journalist) held a media workshop for members of a youth group from the camp. The workshop was designed to give basic skills on how to write for a Western newspaper and help promote the Saharawi cause internationally. The workshop was very interactive and finished with each participant writing a news article of 300 words. Hopefully we will see articles coming form Western Saharan writers more regularly. Delegation member Garry Holliday gave an Aussie Rules football workshop (believe it or not!) to about 100 schoolkids. Most of the Saharawi youth are very skilled in soccer, so picking up the basics of Aussie Rules was a relatively easy task for these natural talents. While we didn’t have enough time to cohere a Saharawi team together to challenge our very own footy greats at the next grand final, we certainly left a good impression and showed that solidarity can come in many ways. Bringing back footage of the workshop will hopefully help raise the plight of the Saharawi people in Australia. We are aiming to get another mention on a football website that already advertised the workshop in October and are working to get a spot on Australian TV’s sports shows. (See http://www.worldfootynews.com/article.php/20081013231446908) Conclusion Even though the Saharawi struggle seems obscure in Australia, it has very close similarities with the East Timorese and the Palestinian peoples’ struggles for national self-determination. Furthermore, Australian companies (Incitec Pivot-- see http://news.theage.com.au/business/shareholders-approve-incitec-201-split-20080905-4aig.html -- and Wesfarmers -- see http://www.wsrw.org/index.php?parse_news=single&cat=105&art=936) are benefiting from the occupation of Western Sahara and the repression of its people by the Moroccan regime. The visit to the camps was a unique and very humbling experience. It certainly showed what humanity is capable of -- from the most brutal aggression by an elite few (the Moroccan government and its allies) for economic gain, to the heroic resistance of a small nation in the most adverse circumstances. The Saharawi people show in practice that collectivity, organisation and respect can make the critical difference between the survival of a unique people and culture or its disappearance. Thirty-three years of occupation, repression and life as refugees has neither dinted their integrity nor dashed their hopes for justice. At the same time the Saharawi people also pleaded with us to continue and strengthen our solidarity work because they are painfully aware that without international solidarity and pressure their struggle may be lost. Recommendations: 1) That Australian trade unions endorse the declaration of the 4th International Trade Union Solidarity Conference with Saharawi Workers and actively pursue the key points and participate in proposed actions. 2) Send further trade union delegations to Western Sahara (to the occupied zones and the refugee camps) and strengthen their relationship with UGTSARIO. 3) Promote the Western Saharan struggle among its members and in its publications. 4) Join and/or affiliate to the Australian Western Sahara Association (AWSA: www.awsa.org ) Photos of the trip are available at http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=67307&l=7aacc&id=675522663 Declaration of the 4th International Trade Union Conference in Solidarity with the Western Saharan Workers, October 20, 2008, El Aaiun refugee camp The trade unions that participated in the 4th International Trade Union Conference in Solidarity with the Western Saharan Workers on October 20, 2008, in El Aaiun (which was part of the 6th congress of UGTSARIO) declare their concerns again about the situation of Western Sahara: The lack of results from the direct negotiations between Morocco and the Frente Polisario under the auspices of the UN; after four meetings the Moroccan government’s refusal to find a solution in accordance with UN resolutions has been re-confirmed. In this regard, we reiterate our support for the UN resolutions that demand the withdrawal of Morocco from Western Sahara, the ability to exercise the right to self-determination and the holding of a referendum in which the Saharawi people can determine their future. In this year that celebrates the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Moroccan government continues to violate the basic human rights of Saharawis in the occupied territories with impunity. The arrests, tortures, trials and arbitrary detentions, the disappearances, the intimidations are normal practices that the Saharawi population has to endure. In order to hide its repressive actions and deny international condemnation thereof, the Moroccan government denies international observers the right to enter Western Sahara. The deterioration of basic living standards, working conditions, education, sanitation and right to work is constant. To be Saharawi becomes an obstacle to access employment, which converts itself into discriminatory practice in contravention of the International Labour Organisation and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We reaffirm our position, which is outlined in previous trade union conferences, and demand from countries, the European and African Unions not to engage in agreements that affect the sovereignty of Western Sahara and the exploitation of its natural resources. We reject the recent preferential trading status between Morocco and the EU. We also reject the exploitation of Saharawi natural resources, in accordance with the international law enshrined in the UN resolution 1514. This resolution prohibits occupying or colonial powers to engage in commercial activities in occupied territories during the process of decolonisation. The UN resolution 1514 is violated by the presence of Australian, Norwegian, South African and Spanish multinational companies, amongst others, in the occupied territories, who have signed agreements with, and have been given concessions by, the Moroccan government and companies to exploit the natural resources. The trade unions present at the conference affirm that within the current international trade union movement they have to contribute to the presence of the UGTSARIO within international trade unions confederations. The observer status of the UGTSARIO, at the founding congress of the International Trade Union Confederation and in the EU-African trade union summit that took place in Lisbon, helped bring UGTSARIO further into the international trade union movement. We consider that the participation of the UGTSARIO in future trade union meetings is necessary for its future affiliation to international trade union bodies. It is also necessary to include the UGTSARIO in the trade unions’ policies of cooperation as a partner and develop projects that include trade union and professional training in important sectors such as health, education, construction and industries related to the environment, in the refugee camps and liberated territories. At the same time we call on the international trade unions to continue to provide food aid to the Saharawi refugees. With regards to human, labour and trade union rights we demand of the Moroccan government to comply with ILO conventions and end its discriminatory policies towards the Saharawi people in the occupied territories. We also demand the freeing of political prisoners and that Morocco takes responsibility for the Saharawi “disappeared”. We agree to inform the ILO about Morocco’s violation of Saharawi labour and trade union rights. We agree to pressure our respective governments, the EU and the African Union, as well as multinational companies and other institutions to denounce : a) the human rights violations of Saharawis by Morocco b) the illegality of the agreements between Morocco, government administrations and any companies that allow the exploitation of Saharawi natural resources. We demand from the EU to be [consistent] in the defence of human rights and democracy in its commercial agreements with countries outside the EU. To reinforce actions of solidarity and protest, we agree to work towards an International Day of Action in 2009 that focuses on the grave situation of the Saharawi people and the exploitation of their natural resources. We oppose Morocco’s denial of access to the occupied territories by international observers to witness the reality on the ground. We believe that not solving the Western Saharan conflict puts the development of a Euro-Mediterranean dialogue -- in which important countries are either actively or passively involved -- at risk. It is impossible to construct peace, stability and development in the Mediterranean region without taking into account the rights of the Saharawi people, the occupation of its territories and the violation of human rights, which are fundamental to any democratic society. Finally, we congratulate the members and delegates of the UGTSARIO, for the outcomes of their 6th congress. This declaration was signed by representatives or members of the following unions and organisations: OUSA – African Union; UGTA – Algeria; UGT, CC.OO, USO – Spain; CIG – Galicia; ELÄ – the Basque country; CGTP – Portugal ; COSATU – South Africa ; NLC – Nigeria; Confederación Obreros de Campesinos – Mexico; ACTU – Australia; AWU, Victorian Branch – Australia; AWSA – Australia; MEAA – Australia ; Socialist Alliance – Australia; FSM – Greece; CGIL – Italy; Western Sahara Resource Watch International – Norway.

A Voice for the Voiceless

A "ghost, a living dead, a young woman back from a kind of hell that bears no name." These are the words of Aminatou Haidar, a human rights activist from Western Sahara, upon her release in 1991 from captivity by Moroccan security officials. Ms. Haidar hails from Western Sahara, a coastal nation just south of Morocco. The people of Western Sahara, the Sahrawi, are a traditionally nomadic people who were for centuries self-sufficient and content. But today 180,000 Sahrawis survive on donated food in refugee camps which dot the scorched dunes of western Algeria. Western Sahara was a Spanish colony until Spain withdrew in 1975, but Sahrawi hopes for independence were dashed when Morocco promptly invaded. The UN’s International Court of Justice ruled in October 1975 that Morocco’s claim to Western Sahara was illegitimate. The Sahrawis have been fighting for liberation ever since. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (the government in exile) is recognized by the Organization of African Unity and by 75 individual nations as the legitimate government of Western Sahara. A 1991 UN-brokered cease-fire agreement promised a referendum for national self-determination, but Morocco has spent the succeeding decade doing everything in its power to prevent the referendum from actually taking place. While the Sahrawis languish in exile, their leaders weigh continued patience against going back to war to regain their homeland. Aminatou Haidar has dedicated her life to fighting the injustices and grave human rights violations perpetrated against the Sahrawi people. In the early 1980’s, after having lived through the atrocities committed by the invading Moroccan forces in her youth, Ms. Haidar joined a non-violent resistance against the colonizers. In 1987, when she was 21 years old, she was one of 700 peaceful protestors arrested for participating in a rally in support of a referendum for self-determination. Seventeen women, including Ms. Haidar, were among more than 70 who were "disappeared". She was subjected to the worst kinds of torture, including electrical shocks all over her body. At other times, she was detained in cramped spaces where she was forced to stand most of the time. She was completely isolated from the outside world throughout her detention. Her health has been permanently damaged by these five years of torture and abuse suffered at the hands of the Moroccan police. Since her release in early 2006, Aminatou Haidar has tirelessly led an international awareness campaign to make known the human rights violations perpetrated daily against the Sahrawi people by the Moroccan State in the occupied territories of Western Sahara. I have been to the desert refugee camps where the Sahrawi people sit wasting away as the world turns a blind eye toward their condition. They live and die in camps just across the Algerian border, unable to go home to the land that was taken from them. The greatest human rights challenges of our day are represented by situations like that of Western Sahara. Many people have never heard of the Sahrawi. There are no Hollywood celebrities that have taken up the cause of the Sahrawi people. It is these forgotten people that need the strongest and most dedicated human rights campaigners. Aminatou Haidar embodies the strength of the human spirit and the enduring desire for freedom. Without the efforts of people like Ms. Haidar, the most egregious human rights violations might go quietly unnoticed in the forgotten corners of the world. On November 12, Ms. Haidar will be recognized for her tireless efforts when she is presented with the 2008 R.F.K. Human Rights Award in a ceremony on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. The Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice & Human Rights was established in 1984 to support courageous individuals from around the world who have dedicated their lives to confront severe human rights violations. I am pleased that we will take an evening to recognize the life and work of Ms. Haidar because she has given a voice to the voiceless, and no one is in greater need of this than the Sahrawi people.