The UN Security Council's faltering stance on self-determination in Western Sahara

By: Deich Mohamed Saleh

Approximately twenty nine years are accumulated since the UN Peacekeeping has arrived the ground of Western Sahara for a specific mission, which is the supervision of a referendum of self-determination for the people of the territory. Such referendum has not yet seen light due to the UN Security Council's lack of action, despite numerous of the UN and the OAU-AU resolutions and engagement of distinguished personalities. Unfortunately, the one who has been benefiting from the situation of procrastination is the Kingdom of Morocco, illegally occupying the territory, whereas the victim is the legitimate owner, the people of Western Sahara, who are fed up of long wait. The UN’s failure, over more than fifty years, in the application of the legitimate right of the people of Western Sahara to self-determination and independence left no doubt how the International Community’s action is controlled by interests and not by principles.

The Decolonization process

The process of the decolonization of Western Sahara dates back to the Spanish colonial era (1884-1976). Since the inscription of the territory in 1963 on the list of non-self-governing territories the UN treatment of the question has been based on the Resolution 1514 (XV) of the UN General Assembly containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. However, the UN General Assembly in its first resolutions on the question of then Spanish Sahara (2072(XX) of 1965 and 2229(XXII) of 1966), consecutively, asked Spain to decolonize the territory through a referendum of self-determination for the people of Western Sahara. Increasing the internal and international pressure made Spain to declare in August 1974 its intention to organize the referendum of self-determination of the territory in early 1975. King Hassan II of Morocco announced that his country could not accept a referendum that included the option of independence to be joined by Mauritania in claiming Western Sahara, calling for arbitration by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to make a judgement on the pre-colonial legal status of the territory. In its resolution 3292 (XXXII) of 1974, the UN General Assembly requested the ICJ to give an advisory opinion on the status of Western Sahara prior to Spanish colonization, and called on Spain to postpone the referendum until the General Assembly was able to decide on a decolonizing process that included an ICJ advisory opinion. However, the ICJ advisory opinion, which was released on 16 October 1975, denied any ties of sovereignty of Morocco and Mauritania over Western Sahara. The ICJ endorsed the decolonization of the territory based on the principle of self-determination. In response to the ICJ ruling, King Hassan II, with the complicity of certain Western powers, ordered the military invasion and occupation of Western Sahara on 31 October 1975.
For its part, the Organization of Africa Unit (OAU)/ now African Union (AU) was guided by the principles and objectives of its Charter in dealing with question of Western Sahara since its creation in 1963 , in particular those relating to the total decolonization of the African territories under foreign occupation. The Position of Africa Bloc was reinforced by the status of the territory as UN non-self-governing territory whose people were entitled to exercise their inalienable right to elf-determination in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV). The African Organization consistently seized the question of Western Sahara calling for immediate decolonization of the territory and showing its solidarity with the people of the territory against Spanish domination. Morocco itself voted on the resolution CM/Res. 272 (XIX) of 1972 adopted unanimously in Rabat, Morocco, by the OAU Council of Ministers endorsing the right of the people of the then Spanish Sahara to self-determination and independence.
The decolonization of the Western Sahara has not yet taken place and that Spain remains the administrating power until the completion of the decolonization process. Thus, it has to comply with the obligations set out in Articles 73 and 74 (d) of the Charter of the United Nations. This was reaffirmed by the Legal Opinion of the UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, Hans Correll, in 2002.

The Saharawi state

In the report on its visit to Western Sahara in May and June 1975, the UN Visiting Mission gave evidence that it “ noted that the population, or at least almost all those persons encountered by the Mission, was categorically for independence and against the territorial claims of Morocco and Mauritania… and the Frente Polisario (Polisario Front) appeared as a dominant political force in the Territory. The Mission witnessed mass demonstrations in support of the movement in all parts of the Territory “. The Polisario Front (Frente Popular para la Liberación de Saguia el Hamra y Río de Oro) founded in 1973 after receiving widespread support among the population of Western Sahara, which made it embrace the people's aspirations in self-determination and independence. Shortly after signing Madrid accord, supermajority of representatives of the then colonial General Assembly (Jama'a) met on 28 November 1975 in Galtat-Zamur to endorse the Polisario Front and dissolve itself to be replaced by the Provisional National Council. On 27 February 1976 in Bir-Lehlu, the Polisario Front proclaimed the Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) to avoid a juridical fait accompli created by the departure of Spain.

Moroccan occupation

Morocco’s military invasion and occupation of Western Sahara on 31 October 1975, involving 350.000 civilians in a march into the territory, was not only in violation of the UN and the OAU/AU resolutions as well as the principle of intangible colonial borders and the ICJ advisory opinion on Western Sahara. But also it was against the will of the people of the territory and constituted an attack on the sanctity and sovereignty of the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic. The UN and OAU/AU are in line of the UN General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), which recognizes illegal the territorial acquisition by force that Morocco is an occupying power as the UN General Assembly stated in its resolutions 34/37 (1979) and 35/19 (1980).
Morocco occupation of Western Sahara generated a tragic situation, which made thousands of the population of the territory flee from the troops and airforces bombard, seeking for a safe place in Algeria. For more than 47 years, those people have lived in exile in hard conditions, waiting for the day they return back home. Morocco has applied since the outset of its occupation a military siege and media blockage in the territories under its control in order to conceal the genocide and crimes against humanity which have been committed by its troops and police forces, resulting in hundreds of deaths, disappeared, disabled due to torture and daily aggression and intimidation. Most of the human right organizations have reported widely on the subject as the UN High Commissioner (OHCHR), the Human Right Council, African Commission on Human rights, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch ….etc.. Besides detailed reports from the media.
It was explicit that some of the five permanent members of UN Security Council, namely France and United Sates had planned to the illegal Accord of Madrid in November 1975 between Morocco, Spain and Mauritania as well as to occupy Western Sahara. Recently, the USA Intelligence Service revealed hundreds of declassified documents on the issue of Western Sahara (see https://www.cia.gov). Their objectives were not only to circumvent the right of the people of the territory to self-determination and independence but also to destabilize the whole region and enter endless spiral . Both United States and France offered generous support to Morocco in military, political and financial aspects. In 1979 Mauritania abandoned the southern part of Western Sahara, which led to the signing of a peace agreement with the Polisario Front and recognizing the SADR afterwards in 1984.
King Hassan II mistook his estimation of occupying Western Sahara when he said that it would last only one week. He realized that it was impossible to achieve a military victory after incurring heavy costs in lives, materials and thousands of prisoners as revealed in the declassified documents of the CIA.

Goodwill vs deception

The sixteen years of fierce armed struggle almost resolved the conflict in favor of the SADR as its Army had advanced in taking control on the ground and the diplomatic achievements increased, which was crowned by the membership of SADR within the OAU in 1984. The progress of the Saharawi struggle as well as the international calls to prompt solution to the conflict, particularly in Africa, culminated in joining the UN and the OAU efforts. The African leaders played decisive role in reaching an agreement on a settlement plan for the organization of a referendum of self-determination for the people of Western Sahara, underling the cooperation of the SADR in this trend. The OAU resolution AHG/Res. 104 (XIX) of 1983 was effectively instrumental in laying the foundations for the subsequent UN-OAU efforts, which was reflected in the UN General Assembly resolution 40/50 (XXXX) of 1985. This resolution urged the two parties to the conflict, the Polisario Front and the Kingdom of Morocco, to engage in a direct negotiations under the auspices of the UN and the OAU, which led to a ceasefire on 06 September 991 and the deployment of the UN/OAU-AU Peacekeeping.
The UN Security Council has taken over running the question of Western Sahara pursuant to its approval, in 1990, of the Settlement Plan and establishment of the United Nations for a referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). Both parties, under the auspices of the UN Secretary and the OAU Chairman, agreed on the cease fire and the organization of a referendum of self-determination by February 1992 in accordance with the timetable approved by the UN Security Council. The referendum was postponed due to Morocco attempt to extend the criteria to include 120.000 Moroccans in the list of voters. It was clear then that Morocco’s objective from its engagement in the referendum process was: a) to succeed in changing the electoral body in its favor or b) to maneuver and play for time. The fact that Morocco realized that it was impossible to win the outcome of the referendum, especially when the UN published temporal list of eligible to vote in 1999.
The preposterous is that the UN Security Council did not dare to impose sanctions against the Kingdom of Morocco for its obstruction of the referendum. The fact that the UN Security Council’s inaction against Morocco tribute to explicit collusion with it inside the Council and the Secretariat. France was behind paralyzing the OAU/AU role in the peace process because of bothering it in achieving its goals. No one of the five permanent members, advocates for the immediate exercise of the inalienable right of the people of the territory to self-determination and independence, just as France defends Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara. Moreover, They remained silent about the crimes committed by Moroccan authorities in the occupied territories of Western Sahara. It is true that there is a fundamental change in the views of USA, Russia, UK and China of the conflict in Western Sahara, but has not yet reached to the point of standing up for France. Significant efforts carried out by distinguished personalities as Special envoys of the UN General Secretary like Mr. James Baker III, former USA Secretary of State and of the Ambassador Cristopher Ross as well as the Ex-President of Germany, Mr. Horst Kohler, who failed due to the five's lack of will. Even the Council was unable to include the report on human rights in the MINURSO mandate because of France, despite of the calls for independent mechanism and the reports on the situation. Beyond that, the Council did nothing against Morocco for the expulsion of the civilian component of MINURSO in March 2016, which drastically affected the ability of the mission to carry out its functions. Five months later, in August 2016, Morocco took advantage of the UN Security Council’s inaction to violate the ceasefire by constructing a road across Mauritania in an attempt aiming to annex the Guerguerat region including La-Aguera city. France now uses all its influence to involve many international parties’ interests in the conflict in order to complicate its solution. It worked hard to implicate the European Union in plundering the natural resources in violation of the decisions of the European Court of Justice of 2016 and 2018.
In contrary, all hell broke loose when the SADR and the Polisario Front show resolute to fail out Moroccan maneuvers. If SADR did not respond to the dangerous and provocative move in Guerguerat and exercise its legitimate sovereignty over this liberated area, Morocco would succeeded in striking all Security Council resolutions against the wall and the credibility of the United Nations in general for ever. The Council has never invested the Saharawi party's goodwill or recognize its considerable concessions in finding a durable peaceful solution. The influence of France on the UN Security Council decisions, if continued, may lead to the worst in the Council's history of dealing with question of Western Sahara.

Peace or War

It is clear that the United Nations Secretariat and the Security Council have never interested in establishing the International legitimacy in the Northwest of Africa through the exercise of the right to self-determination for the people of Western Sahara. Instead, they have been working together over approximately twenty nine years to dispossess the people of the territory and its state of their legitimate right and grant it to the occupier, he Kingdom of Morocco, whose its claims were denied by the Advisory of Opinion of ICJ in 1975. The SASR, represented by the Polisario Front, accepted and still accepts to engage in any process leading to a referendum of self-determination, otherwise it will take the necessary measures, including armed struggle to liberate the rest of its territories still occupied by Morocco.
Obviously, France's recent attempts, which were reflected, in particular, in the Security Council resolution 2495 (2019), aimed to change the sense of self-determination to match Morocco’s desire. France's trend of colonizing the peoples’ territories and dominating their natural resources has never stopped. It continued support of Morocco illegal occupation of Western Sahara is a part of larger plans aiming to hit the stability of many countries in North Africa. By the adaptation of that resolution by the UN Security Council, the SADR and the Polisario Front decided to review its engagement in the entire process supervised by the UN. However, There is no significance to the UN's presence in the territory as well as the ceasefire while there is no referendum of self-determination. Decades of tireless efforts and big sacrifices were doomed.
The specter of war hangs over again between the two African countries, and nothing will stop it unless there is a serious will for the international community to put a prompt end to this long-standing conflict on the basis of international legitimacy in accordance with the United Nations and the African Union Charters and resolutions. As long as Morocco rejects the referendum of self-determination, there is no other realistic solution than the establishment of relations with SADR as it is a full member of the AU and one of the founders of it. The Sahrawi Republic has made great strides in building modern state institutions which are able to provide services in education, health, stability, justice, modernity and have a unique democratic experience as well as has got a wide range of international relations. Its political arm, Polisario Front, receives strong support among the population.
The restoration of AU’s pivotal role is crucial in this stage, given that what is happening is on African lands and between two African countries and both of them are members of the same bloc. The AU has to act against the Kingdom of Morocco for immediate withdrawal of the territories which it occupies of SADR, even if it requires military intervention. With its admission to the African Union, the Kingdom of Morocco is obliged to respect the fundamental principles contained in the AU Constitutive Act including, inter alia, (b) respect for borders existing on achievement of independence, and (f)prohibition of the use of force or threat to use force against other AU Member States (article 4).
The peace and stability of the region and of the north Africa in general, can not be achieved on the expenses of the legitimate rights of the peoples like what is happening to the people of Western Sahara. The presence of the big five on the ground for more over than twenty nine years are enough to discover the reality of SADR and its commitment to peace and peaceful coexistence. Yes, Western Sahara is rich in natural resources, but they cannot be exploited without the consent of its generous people.


The UN’s procrastination and delays in implementing the legitimate right of the people of Western Sahara to self-determination and independence for more than fifty unveils ulterior motives of some of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. They planned to the Spanish withdrawal of Western Sahara as well as to Morocco’s military invasion and occupation of the territory. The objective was to deprive the people of Western Sahara of their right to self-determination and independence. They are aware of that it was in violation of the UN and OAU/AU resolutions as well as the principle of intangible colonial borders and the ICJ advisory opinion on Western Sahara.
Nevertheless, the people of Western Sahara were able to exist and establish their state despite heavy sacrifices and hard conditions. The peace and stability of the region and of the north Africa in general, can not be achieved on the expenses of the legitimate rights of the peoples like what is happening to the people of Western Sahara. The presence of the big five on the ground for more over than twenty nine years are enough to discover the reality of SADR and its commitment to peace and peaceful coexistence. Yes, Western Sahara is rich in natural resources, but they cannot be exploited without the consent of its generous people.

29 May 2020
Deich Mohamed was the Office's Chief of late President Mohamed Abelaziz and former Ambassador to Zimbabwe.

-------------- This text expresses the opinion of the author and not of the moderators of the forum.


Bourita exposes the BBC Arabic Radio station lies

by Haddamin Moulud Said

A few days ago, on April 20, 2020, the BBC Arabic Radio Station section, London Radio, broadcasted a program, https://soundcloud.com/bbc-arabic/slabachs0keb according to which Morocco had offered humanitarian aid for the Sahrawi refugee camps that are being operated by the Sahrawi Republic and located on the Algerian-Western Sahara borders. However, this radio station, which is being funded with the British people money, claimed that Algeria had refused to receive such a humanitarian aid.

The subliminal message that the radio program, being broadcasted in Arabic language, wanted to transmit was that, supposedly, the infinite mercy of the Moroccan regime was faced with the wicked Algerian behavior, by impeding the aid to reach a certain population in needs of it, mainly during these difficult times of the Corona Virus.

The London Radio, which had enjoyed its climax of the radio hegemony for the last century’s final years, mainly in much of the Arab world, has declined. And, taking advantage of its decadence, the scavengers did not take long to come to seize the remains of what was a very prestigious radio station. Certainly, listening to the BBC Radio, in Arabic language, addressing the issue of Western Sahara, one comes to doubt whether what you are listening to is a radio station funded by the British people money or, instead, a Moroccan radio station.

But time is a ruthless judge! And what better time than a holy month, like Ramadan, for a revelation to happen that makes things quite clear.

Just in the month in which angels descend from heaven, by order of God, to receive the gracious ones’ deeds, the Moroccan minister of Foreign Affairs, Nasser Bourita, reveals the true moral and merciless ilk of a country, which the BBC Arabic Radio station wanted to praise as an example of mercy.

During the first week of the holy month of Ramadan, the Algerian Red Crescent  praised the strong solidarity of the Algerian people, by organizing an airlift to bring thousands of tons of humanitarian aid to the Sahrawi refugee people.

And, there, in that exercise of mercy which kept the angels from heaven prostrate, where the Algerian people fulfilled the commandments of faith, Nasser Bourita brought out the leviathan that he carries within, showing the true satanic nature of the Moroccan regime.

For the Moroccan Foreign Ministry, the humanitarian aid received by the Saharawi refugees from Algeria only helps to foster separatism and fuels instability in the North-West region of Africa.

Just over a week ago, on the first day of Ramadan, the UN Agency, World Food Program (WFP), announced that the French Government had provided,  for the first time, a generous donation of almost half a million dollars to the Saharawi refugee population.

Today, on May 5, 2020, the WFP again announces that the Swiss Government has made a donation,  much more generous than the one made by the French Government, of almost two million dollars to help the Saharawi refugee population.

For Bourita, these people stranded in the middle of the desert with a Legitimate Cause and who have been hit by the pandemic hoping for international justice to come, are unworthy of the mercy that the holy month orders the gracious ones to practice.

It looks clear for those who are not among the gracious ones, that anyone who dares to help the needy, be it in the holy month of Ramadan or in the difficult times of a pandemic, this is promoting separatism and instability in the region

The extreme religious inappropriateness of Bourita's words invites us to think that, that first time in which France has helped the Sahrawi refugee people, it has been felt very badly in Rabat. Hence, the dart sent by Bourita is not only targeting Algiers but also its former metropolis.

For Rabat, the Saharawi people, who have been suffering for more than 45 years due to a military occupation of their territory, are unworthy of international aid, simply because of opposing the irrepressible territorial voracity of Morocco. Therefore, the UNHCR Agency, USA, France, Switzerland or Algeria, they are all promoting separatism and instability in the region by providing humanitarian aid to the Saharawi people. So, the BBC Arabic Radio station will continue to praise the kind contributions made by Morocco.

Haddamin Moulud Said.
May the 5th, 2020.
Translated by Zrug Lula.

--------------  This text expresses the opinion of the author and not of the moderators of the forum.

Bureta desnuda las mentiras de la BBC Radio árabe

por Haddamin Moulud Said

Hace unos días, el 20 de abril de 2020, la sección de radio de la BBC, Radio London, emitía un programa, según el cual Marruecos había ofrecido una ayuda humanitaria para los campamentos saharauis que la República Saharaui gestiona en la frontera argelino saharaui. Sin embargo, afirmaba la cadena de radio que paga el pueblo británico, Argelia se había negado a recibir dicha ayuda.

El mensaje subliminal que el programa, en lengua árabe, quería transmitir, era que la, supuestamente, infinita misericordia del régimen marroquí, se enfrentaba a la malvada Argelia para hacer llegar las ayudas a una determinada población que la necesita, en estos tiempos tan difíciles del coronavirus.

La Radio London que, durante buena parte de finales del pasado siglo, había disfrutado de las mieles y hieles de la hegemonía radiofónica, en buena parte del mundo árabe, se ha venido a menos. Y, aprovechándose de su decadencia, los carroñeros no han tardado en acudir para adueñarse de los restos de lo que fue una emisora de mucho prestigio. Ciertamente, oyendo la Radio de la BBC, en árabe, abordar la cuestión del Sahara Occidental, uno llega a dudar si lo que está escuchando es una radio pagada por el pueblo británico o, en cambio, es una radio marroquí.

Pero el tiempo es un juez implacable. Y qué mejor tiempo que un mes sagrado, como el Ramadán, para que acontezca una revelación que deja las cosas bastante claras.

Justo en el mes en que los ángeles descienden del cielo, por orden de Dios, para saludar a los bondadosos, el ministro de exteriores de Marruecos, Nasser Bourita, desvela la verdadera catadura moral e inmisericorde de un país, al que la BBC Radio, en árabe, quería presentar como un ejemplo de la misericordia.

Durante la primera semana del sagrado mes de ramadán, la Media Luna Roja argelina elogiaba la firme solidaridad del pueblo argelino, al organizar un puente aéreo para llevar miles de toneladas de ayuda humanitaria al pueblo saharaui. 

Y, ahí, en ese ejercicio de misericordia, que mantenía postrados a los ángeles venidos del cielo, donde el pueblo argelino cumplía los mandamientos de la fe, Nasser Bourita, sacó el leviatán que lleva dentro, mostrando la verdadera naturaleza satánica del régimen marroquí.

Para el ministro marroquí, la ayuda humanitaria que han recibido los saharauis, procedente de Argelia, fomenta el separatismo y alimenta la inestabilidad en la región del África noroccidental.

Hace poco más de una semana, durante el primer día de ramadán, el Programa Mundial de Alimentación de NNUU, WFP, anunció que el gobierno de Francia había aportado, por primera vez, una generosa ayuda de casi medio millón de dólares para la población saharaui.

Hoy mismo, el 5 de mayo de 2020, de nuevo el WFP anuncia que el gobierno suizo ha hecho una donación,  mucho más generosa que la efectuada por el gobierno francés, de casi dos millones de dólares para ayudar a la población saharaui.

Para Bourita, ese pueblo poseedor de una Causa Justa, que durante la pandemia ha quedado varado en medio del desierto, esperando la justicia internacional, es indigno de la misericordia que el sagrado mes ordena practicar a los bondadosos.

Es evidente que para quienes no están en las filas de los bondadosos, todo aquel que ose ayudar a los necesitados, sea en el sagrado mes del ramadán o en los tiempos difíciles de una pandemia, está fomentando el separatismo y la inestabilidad en la región.

La extrema inoportunidad religiosa de las palabras de Bourita, invita a pensar que esa primera vez en la que Francia ayuda al pueblo saharaui, ha sentado bastante mal en Rabat. De ahí que el dardo enviado por Bourita, si dirija a Argel pero, también, a su ex metrópoli.

Para Rabat, el pueblo saharaui, que lleva 45 años sufriendo por culpa de una ocupación militar de su territorio, es indigno de la ayuda internacional, por el simple hecho de oponerse a la incontenible voracidad territorial de Marruecos. En consecuencia, el ACNUR, la ONU, USA, Francia, Suiza o Argelia, todos, fomentan el separatismo y la inestabilidad en la región, al prestar ayuda humanitaria al pueblo saharaui. La BBC Radio, en árabe, seguirá cantando las bondades de Marruecos.

Haddamin Moulud Said.
A 5 de mayo de 2020.

-------------- Este texto expresa la opinion del autor y no de los moderadores del foro.


Russia is caught red-handed:

“The plundering of the Saharawi fishing grounds”

by Haddamin Moulud Said

According to the Russian Federal Fisheries Agency, the Russian Government and Morocco are preparing to renew the fisheries agreement signed on March 15, 2016.

The current agreement establishes the principles of cooperation between the Russian Federation and Morocco in the field of conservation and use of marine living resources inside the exclusive economic zone of the Kingdom of Morocco as well as it determines the conditions for the fishing activities of vessels flying the Russian Federation's flag.

According that agreement, Morocco offers the possibility to fish small pelagic fish species in its Atlantic fishing zone to Russian fishing vessels, and also annually determines the total composition of catches by group of fish species, fishing areas, prices of reference, number and type of Russian fishing vessels engaged in fishing activities inside the Atlantic fishing zone of Morocco.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia is closely following the issue of Western Sahara. The international legal status of the territory is not an unknown issue for the Russian government.

In fact, on April 9, 2020, for example, Russia actively participated in the debate on Western Sahara, during the Security Council meeting.

However, outside the walls of the UN Security Council, Russia adopts a strange position. Shortly after leaving New York, it stops in in the Atlantic waters close to Western Sahara, to recreate practices more appropriate of past centuries, relating to the plundering [the natural resources] of others, by preying, never better said, as the old saying goes “fishermen make their day in troubled waters”. In other words, as long as the conflict is not resolved, Russia can continue to be making these profits, at the cost of the plights of the Saharawi people, who have the ownership of these resources.

The agreement signed in March 2016 between Russia and Morocco, and which is now being renewed, establishes that the fishing area is located further south of the 28º N parallel. This means, inside the waters adjacent to Western Sahara. In other words, what Russia calls international cooperation, international legality, etc., it's actually nothing but euphemisms with which to camouflage the practices of looting and piracy on high seas. Russia gobbles up industrial quantities of sardine, sardinella, mackerel, horse mackerel and anchovies stolen from Western Sahara, in open violation of the 1982 Montego Bay Convention.

It should be remembered, at this point, that the USA has a Trade Agreement with Morocco. But unlike Russia, the SA expressly excludes the territory of Western Sahara from the scope of the said trade agreement.

It is evident that the Sahrawis, abandoned in the desert, can do little against powerful Russia. But we could ask ourselves why Russia does not go directly, without prior agreement with Morocco, to fish in those waters? It does not do so because it would be evident, then, that Russia would be looting and plundering the natural resources of a non-autonomous territory.

However, if instead of proceeding directly, you do it through an agreement with those who do not have any legal title to sign it, would the meaning of looting and plundering change? Obviously not. Hence, what the Sahrawis may or may not do is irrelevant. What is at stake is the moral stature of Russia, who wants to continue being a key actor in an International Community whose relations are based on respect for the principles of equal rights of States and for the self-determination of peoples.

Long ago, those times, in which Moscow was one of the great defenders of the right of the Namibian people over their natural resources and actively participated, along with the International Community, to punish the looting of these resources by third States. On the other hand, it seems that today the value of the ‘Tuchka’ has led Russian rulers to ignore both legal and moral precepts, on which International Law is based.

It is clear, moreover, that this Russian behavior could have a negative impact on their bilateral relations with other States, much more committed to defending the right of the Saharawi people to permanent possession of their resources and who refuse this new form of piracy and pillage of the natural resources of a non-autonomous territory. This behavior could also seriously disturb the environment when negotiating the sale of material and equipments to those third States, undoubtedly having as a result the hindering of another industry much more vital to Russia.


Haddamin Moulud Said
April 22th, 2020.

--------------  This text expresses the opinion of the author and not of the moderators of the forum.

La Russie prise la main dans le sac.

«Le pillage des zones de pêche sahraouies par la Russie»

par Haddamin Moulud Said

Selon l'Agence fédérale russe des pêches, le gouvernement russe et le gouvernement marocain s'apprêtent à renouveler l'accord de pêche, signé le 15 mars 2016.

L'accord actuel définit les principes de la coopération entre la Russie et le Maroc dans le domaine de la conservation et de l'utilisation des ressources vivantes de la zone économique exclusive du Royaume du Maroc et détermine les conditions des activités de pêche des navires battant pavillon de la Fédération de Russie.

Conformément à l'accord, le Maroc offre aux navires de pêche russes la possibilité de pêcher les petites espèces de poissons pélagiques dans sa zone de pêche atlantique, et détermine également chaque année la composition totale des espèces capturées par groupe d'espèces de poissons, zone de pêche, prix de référence, nombre et type de navires russes engagés dans la zone de pêche atlantique du Maroc.

En tant que membre permanent du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU, la Russie suit de près le conflit du Sahara occidental. Le statut juridique international du territoire n'est pas inconnu pour le gouvernement russe.

Dans les faits et à titre d'exemple, la Russie a participé activement, le 9 avril 2020, au sein du Conseil de sécurité au débat sur le Sahara occidental.

Toutefois, en dehors des murs du Conseil de sécurité, la Russie adoptait une étrange position. Dès qu'elle quittait New York, elle s’arrêtait aux eaux atlantiques du Sahara occidental pour s'adonner aux pratiques typiques des siècles anciens, c’est-à-dire le pillage des biens d'autrui. Le malheur des uns faisant le bonheur des autres, n’est-ce pas, il y en a toujours pour qui il fait bon de pécher en eaux troubles. Autrement dit, tant que le conflit n'est pas résolu, la Russie pouvait continuer de tirer profit, au prix des souffrances du peuple sahraoui, propriétaire des ressources en question.

L'accord signé en mars 2016 entre la Russie et le Maroc que l'on veut désormais rénover, établit que la zone de pêche objet de l’accord se situe au sud du parallèle 28º N. C'est-à-dire dans les eaux du Sahara occidental. Cela voudrait dire que ce que la Russie appelle coopération internationale, légalité internationale, etc., ne sont en réalité que des euphémismes pour camoufler des pratiques de pillage et de piraterie en haute mer. La Russie engloutit quantités industrielles de sardine, de sardinettes, de maquereaux, de chinchards et d'anchois volés au Sahara occidental, en violation flagrante de la convention de Montego Bay de 1982.

Il convient de rappeler, à ce propos, que les États-Unis ont un accord commercial avec le Maroc. Mais les États-Unis, contrairement à la Russie, excluent expressément le territoire du Sahara occidental du champ du dit accord.

Il est évident que les Sahraouis, abandonnés dans le désert, ne peuvent que si peu faire face à la puissante Russie. Mais on pourrait se demander pourquoi la Russie n’irait-elle pas directement pêcher dans ces eaux, sans accord préalable avec le Maroc? Elle ne le fait pas car il serait alors évident que la Russie pillait et saccageait les ressources naturelles d'un territoire non autonome.

Si la Russie n’allait pas d’elle-même se servir directement préférant pêcher en vertu d’un accord signé avec une partie qui n’a aucun titre légal pour le faire, cela changerait-il, pour autant, la qualité de l'acte commis en tant que pillage et saccage? Evidemment que non.

Par conséquence, ce que les Sahraouis peuvent faire ou ne pas faire n'aura lors aucune importance. Ce qui est en jeu, c'est la stature morale d'une Russie qui veut continuer à être un acteur clé dans une communauté internationale dont les relations sont fondées sur le respect des principes de l'égalité en droit entre les États et de l'autodétermination des peuples.

Il est lointain le temps où Moscou était l'un des grands défenseurs du droit du peuple namibien à préserver ses ressources naturelles et qu'elle participait activement au sein de la communauté internationale pour sanctionner le pillage des dites ressources par des États tiers.

 Cependant, il semble qu'aujourd'hui la valeur de «Tuchka» a conduit les dirigeants russes à ignorer les préceptes à la fois juridiques et moraux, sur lesquels se fonde le droit international.

Par ailleurs, il est clair que cette attitude pourrait avoir un impact négatif sur les relations bilatérales de la Russie avec d'autres États bien déterminés à défendre le droit du peuple sahraoui à avoir la possession permanente de ses ressources et qui désapprouvent cette nouvelle modalité de piratage et de pillage des ressources naturelles d'un territoire non autonome. Une telle situation pourrait sérieusement perturber l'ambiance lors d’une éventuelle négociation sur la vente de matériel et d'équipement à ces États, ce qui finirait, sans doute, par porter préjudice à une autre industrie beaucoup plus vitale pour la Russie.


Haddamin Moulud Said
Le 22 avril 2020.

--------------  Ce texte exprime l'opinion de l'auteur et n'engage pas les modérateurs du forum.

Rusia con las manos en la masa.

“El pillaje de los caladeros pesqueros saharauis por Rusia”

por Haddamin Moulud Said

Según la Agencia Federal Rusa de Pesca, el gobierno de Rusia y el gobierno de Marruecos están preparando la renovación del acuerdo pesquero firmado el pasado 15 de marzo de 2016.

El acuerdo actual establece los principios de cooperación entre Rusia y Marruecos en el campo de la conservación y el uso de los recursos vivos marinos de la zona económica exclusiva del Reino de Marruecos y determina las condiciones para las actividades de pesca de los buques que enarbolan pabellón de la Federación de Rusia.

De conformidad con el acuerdo, Marruecos ofrece la posibilidad de pescar especies de peces pelágicos pequeños en su zona de pesca atlántica a buques pesqueros rusos, y también determina anualmente la composición total de las capturas por grupo de especies de peces, zonas de pesca, precios de referencia, número y tipo de buques pesqueros rusos dedicados a la pesca en la zona de pesca atlántica de Marruecos.

En su calidad de miembro permanente del Consejo de Seguridad de NNUU, Rusia sigue de cerca la cuestión del Sahara Occidental. El estatuto jurídico internacional del territorio no es una cuestión desconocida para el gobierno de Rusia. De hecho, el pasado 9 de abril de 2020, por ejemplo, Rusia participó activamente en el debate sobre el Sahara Occidental, en el Consejo de Seguridad.

Sin embargo, fuera de las paredes del Consejo de Seguridad, Rusia adopta una posición extraña. Nada más abandonar Nueva York, se detiene en las aguas del atlántico próximas al Sahara Occidental, para recrear unas prácticas propias de siglos pasados, relativas al saqueo de lo ajeno, aprovechándose, nunca mejor dicho, que ‘a río revuelto, ganancia de pescadores’. Es decir, mientras no se resuelva el conflicto, Rusia puede seguir sacando tajada, a costa de los sufrimientos del pueblo saharaui, dueño de dichos recursos.

El acuerdo firmado en marzo de 2016, entre Rusia y Marruecos y que ahora se pretende renovar, establece que la zona de pesca está situada más al sur del paralelo 28º N. Es decir, en las aguas adyacentes al Sahara Occidental. Es decir, lo que Rusia denomina cooperación internacional, legalidad internacional, etc., en realidad, no son más que eufemismos con los que camuflar las prácticas del pillaje y la piratería en alta mar. Rusia engulle cantidades industriales de sardina, alacha, caballa, jurel y anchoas robadas del Sahara Occidental, en abierta violación de la Convención de Montego Bay, de 1982.

Conviene recordar, en este punto, que USA tiene un Acuerdo Comercial con Marruecos. Pero USA, a diferencia de Rusia, excluye expresamente el territorio del Sahara Occidental del ámbito de aplicación de dicho acuerdo comercial.

Es evidente que los saharauis, abandonados en el desierto, poco pueden hacer frente a la poderosa Rusia. Pero podríamos preguntarnos por qué Rusia no acude directamente, sin acuerdo previo con Marruecos, para pescar en esas aguas? No lo hace porque resultaría evidente, entonces, que Rusia estaría practicando el pillaje y el saqueo de los recursos naturales de un territorio no autónomo.

Pero, si en lugar de acudir directamente, acude en virtud de un acuerdo con quien no ostenta título jurídico alguno para firmarlo, cambiaría la característica del pillaje y el saqueo? Es evidente que no.

De ahí, que lo que puedan hacer o no lo saharauis resulte irrelevante. Lo que está en juego es la talla moral de una Rusia que quiere seguir siendo un actor clave en una Comunidad Internacional cuyas relaciones están basadas en el respeto al principio de igualdad de derechos de los Estados y al de la libre determinación de los pueblos.

Tiempos lejanos, aquéllos, en los que Moscú era uno de los grandes valedores del derecho del pueblo namibio sobre sus recursos naturales y participaba activamente, en el Comunidad Internacional, para castigar el expolio de dichos recursos por terceros Estados. Hoy, en cambio, parece que el valor de la ‘Tuchka’ ha llevado a los gobernantes rusos a ignorar preceptos tanto legales como morales, sobre los que se asienta el Derecho Internacional.

Es evidente, por lo demás, que esta conducta rusa podría tener un impacto negativo en sus relaciones bilaterales con otros Estados, mucho más comprometidos con la defensa del derecho del pueblo saharaui a la posesión permanente de sus recursos y escasamente partidarios de esta nueva modalidad de piratería y pillaje de los recursos naturales de un territorio no autónomo, y podría perturbar seriamente el ambiente, a la hora de negociar la venta de material y equipos a esos terceros Estados, lo que terminaría perjudicando indudablemente otra industria mucho más vital para Rusia.


Haddamin Moulud Said
A 22 de abril de 2020

-------------- Este texto expresa la opinion del autor y no de los moderadores del foro.


A Nobel laureate to wipe the slate of UN

by Haddamin Moulud Said

Original text in Spanish by Hadamin Mouloud Said
Translated into English by M. Limam Mohamed Ali

Every time I entered or left the building where I lived in Geneva, there was the flag of Eritrea, flying, splendid, in the Geneva sky. From my balcony, I saw it wave freely, tied to its mast, some floors down on the façade of our own building. In the meantime, and without my own flag, I was still detained on the fourth floor, namely the Fourth Commission.

 In early February 2009, I received, in Geneva, the visit of Mr Emhamed Khadad Musa, and as I looked at the Eritrean flag, I asked him: why Eritrea and not Western Sahara? Gently, he told me everything comes down to hard work, steadfastness, and a little bit of luck as far as the balance of forces is concerned.

In 1950, by endorsing the claim of the Emperor of Ethiopia, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 390(V), agreeing to what was until then a Non-Self-Governing Territory of Eritrea, becoming part of Ethiopia in the form of a Federation under Ethiopian sovereignty. The people of Eritrea determinedly opposed to the resolution, imposed by the international community from up high and against their will, took up arms against Haile Selassie’s Ethiopia, triggering a bloody war spanning over 3 decades. In 1993, Eritrea was formally declared as a sovereign state, however the problems with neighboring Ethiopia persisted.

A few months after Mr Emhamed Khadad’s aforementioned visit, the radio announced to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2019 to the Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali [Press Release]. On this day I understood that, in this world of ours, there was still room and reasons for hope.

 In a historical sense, the Nobel Committee’s recognition of the merits of this peacemaker between Ethiopia and its former province, meant to wipe the UN General Assembly’s slate clean and to correct the profound misstep in passing resolution 390, adopted seventy years ago today. The course of time has shown that the UN General Assembly’s decision was a profound mistake, binding the fate of a people where it had no right nor sense in doing so. In awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Ahmed Ali, it finally recognized the true value of Ali’s contribution to peace, in stark contrast to the actions of the UN General Assembly.

 If these events occurred in the south-eastern edge in the Great Sahara Desert, it’s analogous to what is happening in north-western edge of the same desert.

 Over nearly sixty years, the people of Western Sahara have expected the international community would assume its own share of responsibility in the situation there, in accordance with the international law, and in order to realise the fulfillment of the right to self-determination by the Saharawi people. However, the international community has for decades reneged on its responsibilities, and continues to will fully succumb to the desires of a despotic monarchy; whose territorial voraciousness and greed knows no bounds.

Failing to acknowledge or learn history’s lesson, the international community is on course, now and to repeat in the Non-Self-Governing Territory of Western Sahara, the mistakes which, in explicit terms, had directly led to conflict in the Non-Self-Governing Territory of Eritrea in 1950.

 For its part, the Frente POLISARIO has exerted every effort over thirty years to contain some sectors of the Saharawi population, ever-widening, who are demanding, and in full exercise of their rights, the return to war to achieve the goals. It is needful only to cite, in this regard, the laconic phrase of the Leader of Frente POLISARIO in his letter to the UN Secretary-General, “in the absence of any serious effort or a desire on the part of UN to fulfil its commitments to hold a referendum, how do I explain to the Saharawi people the value of continuing with our commitment and in good faith with the UN-led political process?”. [Carta de Mohamed Abdelaziz, Secretario General del Frente Polisario, enviada a Ban Ki Moon, Secretario General de NNUU, en fecha 12 de abril de 2010].

The Frente POLISARIO only recently lost one of its great leaders, Emhammed Khadad, a genuine champion of the peaceful, diplomatic path, and a dam to the flood of righteous and justified anger of the Sahrawi people.

The Norwegian Academy must note that the value of peace is as much in ending a frozen conflict, as in acting to prevent an imminent one. And in Africa, and quite likely on Earth too, few, when confronted with outrage and violations as those inflicted upon the Sahrawi people, have undertaken such profound efforts as the Frente POLISARIO to dim the rumblings of war. 

 Haddamin Moulud Said.
As of April 6, 2020.

--------------  This text expresses the opinion of the author and not of the moderators of the forum.


Un Nobel para enmendar la plana a la ONU

por Haddamin Moulud Said
[Translated into English  by M. Limam Mohamed Ali]
Cada vez que entraba o salía del edificio donde vivía, ahí estaba ondeando, espléndida, en los cielos de Ginebra, la bandera de Eritrea. Y cuando me asomaba desde el balcón de mi casa, la veía ondear libremente, pegada con su mástil, unas plantas más abajo, en la fachada de nuestro edificio. Mientras tanto, yo sin bandera, seguía preso en la cuarta planta del edificio, o sea, en la Cuarta Comisión.

A principios de febrero de 2019 recibí, en Ginebra, la visita de M’hamed Jaddad Musa, y al contemplar la bandera de Eritrea, ondeando en la fachada de nuestro edificio, le pregunté porqué Eritrea si y el Sahara Occidental no? Él, amablemente, me contestó que todo es cuestión de trabajo, perseverancia y un poquito de suerte en lo que a equilibrio de fuerzas se refiere.

Hace setenta años, en 1950, avalando las pretensiones del Emperador de Etiopía, la Asamblea General de NNUU, adoptó la Resolución 390 (V), por la que acordó que el, entonces, declarado como Territorio No Autónomo de Eritrea pasaría a formar parte de Etiopía, en forma de federación bajo la soberanía de Etiopía.

El pueblo de Eritrea, opuesto a esa resolución, se levantó en armas contra la Etiopía de Haile Silassie y mantuvo una cruenta guerra que se prolongó durante treinta años.

En 1993, Eritrea se declaró formalmente como Estado soberano, pero los problemas con la vecina Etiopía persistieron.

Algunos meses después de la visita de M’hamed Jaddad, la radio anunció la concesión del Premio Nobel de la Paz del año 2019 al Primer Ministro de Etiopía, Abiy Ahmed Ali [Press Release ].  Ese día comprendí que, en este mundo nuestro, aún había lugar para la esperanza.

De alguna manera, el Comité Noruego del Premio Nobel, reconociendo los méritos del artífice de la paz entre Etiopía y su antigua provincia, venía a enmendar la plana a la Asamblea General de NNUU y corregir aquella resolución de hace setenta años, por la que, la Comunidad Internacional, impuso a los eritreos una solución que no era de su agrado.

Se mire como se mire, la concesión del Premio Nobel de la Paz al primer ministro de Etiopía, no tendría mucho sentido si aquella resolución, adoptada por la Asamblea General de NNUU en el año 1950, hubiese sido cumplida sin generar problema alguno sobre el terreno, especialmente, en el lado eritreo. Pero como el transcurso del tiempo ha venido a demostrar que, la Asamblea General de NNUU, no estuvo muy acertada, al adoptar aquella resolución, ha tenido que ser la Academia Noruega la que ha venido a poner en valor las obras del político etíope que ha hecho por la paz, lo que no había hecho la Asamblea General de NNUU.

Si eso sucedía en el extremo sudoriental del Gran Desierto del Sahara, no es raro trazar una cierta analogía con lo que sucede en el extremo noroccidental de ese mismo desierto.

Desde hace casi sesenta años, el pueblo del Sahara Occidental, viene esperando que la Comunidad Internacional asuma la responsabilidad que le corresponde, en virtud del derecho internacional, para hacer efectivo el disfrute del derecho a la autodeterminación por parte del pueblo saharaui. Sin embargo, la Comunidad Internacional, lleva muchos años mostrándose remisa a cumplir su responsabilidad y lleva camino de sucumbir ante los deseos de una monarquía, cuya voracidad territorial no conoce límites.

Parece como si la Comunidad Internacional, ahora y de modo implícito, quisiera hacer en el Territorio No Autónomo del Sahara Occidental, aquello que, de modo explícito, hizo en el Territorio No Autónomo de Eritrea, en 1950.

Por su parte, el Polisario lleva casi treinta años haciendo lo imposible para contener a sectores de la población saharaui, cada vez más amplios, que reclaman, y con justicia, la vuelta a las armas. Basta citar, a estos efectos, la lacónica frase del líder del Frente Polisario, en su carta enviada al Secretario General de NNUU, donde dice: en ausencia de cualquier esfuerzo serio o deseo por parte de las NNUU para cumplir su promesa de celebrar un referéndum, ¿cómo voy a explicarle al pueblo saharaui el valor de continuar con nuestro compromiso y de buena fe con el proceso político liderado por la ONU?” .  [Carta de Mohamed Abdelaziz, Secretario General del Frente Polisario, enviada a Ban Ki Moon, Secretario General de NNUU, en fecha 12 de abril de 2010 ]

El Polisario acaba de despedir a uno de sus grandes líderes, auténtico valedor de esa vía pacífica y verdadero dique de contención ante los sectores internos partidarios de la vuelta a las armas. Bien sabe la Academia Noruega que el valor de la paz consiste, tanto en obrar para poner fin a un conflicto latente como, también, en obrar para evitar uno inminente. Y, en África y quizás en todo el mundo, nadie como el Polisario, ha obrado tanto para evitar el ruido de las armas.

Haddamin Moulud Said.
A 6 de abril de 2020.

-------------- Este texto expresa la opinion del autor y no de los moderadores del foro.




Un día de febrero de 2020, mientras me encontraba en mi franja horaria de descanso laboral, en el restaurante de “Cal Gori Des de 1933” en la ciudad de Rubí degustando del menú del día; como es mi costumbre, a mi paladear le acompaña el periódico La Vanguardia y, así, entre ojeada y lectura diviso en la sección de cultura un reportaje sobre una “docuficción”, se trata del filme Entre perro y lobo (Between Dog and Wolf), coproducción hispano- cubana que narra la historia de los veteranos cubanos de las guerras de Angola.

Los protagonistas de esta docuficción – hombres ahora mayores, soldados reales en aquel entonces – que marchan a las montañas de Sierra Maestra, y regresan a realizar instrucción militar como un ritual casi secreto. Entrenar de nuevo como los soldados que un día fueron, listos para luchar contra el enemigo, hacen de sus entrenamientos una suerte de terapia improvisada: un juego de guerra en el que aún son camaradas válidos, fuertes y, sobre todo, espiritualmente jóvenes.

En este mosaico de recreación de pronto me invade una sensación de nostalgia, se me eriza el vello de la emoción al seguir leyendo sobre estos hombres. Su historia, como la de cualquier guerrero, es intensa, donde reina la oscuridad y la humedad en la selva, y donde la violencia inherente al combate se palpa de otra manera. Se trata de auténticos veteranos de guerra y de sus experiencias. Por inercia todo lo que concierne a Cuba y a su historia me hipnotiza, me retrotrae en el tiempo, mi mente empieza a procesar tanta información, rebobina tantas diapositivas de antaño que debería poner retrovisor. Vivimos tiempos difíciles donde la nostalgia no está de moda y el pretérito cada vez se utiliza menos en las conversaciones. Estamos anclados en el ahora continuo o, aún peor, en la angustiosa inmediatez. Y a veces nos falta objetividad para analizar y diagnosticar lo que ocurre y visión para saber cómo actuar en el futuro.

Es imprescindible conocer la historia, y recordar el bien que Cuba ha hecho en la formación de miles y miles de generaciones de Saharauis. Mirar al retrovisor es imprescindible en la carretera y en la vida. Y, cómo no en la política y en la reciprocidad de devolver el bien. Desde la década de los años setenta y hasta la fecha nos une una relación bilateral y diplomática robusta con la República de Cuba. En más de treinta años las mentes lúcidas de la casa amarilla de Rabuni no se han dignado en asignar a algún embajador a la altura, que nos represente en este país, un perfil solido y capacitado; alguien que se haya formado, estudiado y graduado de sus universidades. El problema es que cada vez tenemos más a las hemerotecas que dan fe de los nombramientos que salen de la cámara acorazada de la casa amarilla de Rabuni, se podría indigestar el actual inquilino de la casa amarilla, sus asesores y su vitalicio ministro de exteriores si “se comieran sus propias palabras”.

Volviendo a la docuficción, que se estrena en la Berlinale, el festival de cine de Berlín, hay un pasaje del filme Entre perro y lobo que describe la alta calidad humana de los cubanos y su ciega fe en luchar contra el mal, se trata de un horrible episodio en que uno de los protagonistas oyó llorar a un bebé en un poblado de Angola y decidió pasar de largo, otro combatiente decidió cogerlo, y entonces explotó la bomba que estaba adosada al crio. Los cubanos libraron una encarnizada batalla en aquel país africano. Entre 1975 y 1991, unos 380 000 hombres de la República de Cuba, un país soberano insular asentado en un archipiélago del mar Caribe, marcharon voluntarios al país africano a apoyar el Movimiento Popular de Liberación de Angola (MPLA). Allí cayeron mártires 2600 cubanos.

Los que hemos estudiado allí, adquirido conocimientos, amamantado la cultura cubana, respirado su aire caribeño, vivido intensamente sus colores, sus carnavales y sus alegrías nos sentimos eternamente ligados a ella. Nuestro ADN os pertenece y nuestras almas también. Cuba seguirá siendo el horizonte donde reposa la humanidad.

BCN: 05/03/2020.

-------------- Este texto expresa la opinion del autor y no de los moderadores del foro.


Cuando la justicia es una esperanza

 por Lehdía Mohamed Dafa

Después de cinco meses encarcelados, en los que denuncian haber sido torturados física y psicológicamente los tres saharauis detenidos en junio en los campamentos de refugiados en Tinduf, Mahmud Zedan, Mulay Abba Buzaid y Fadel Breica han sido declarados inocentes por la justicia saharaui, quedando en libertad sin cargos.

Cuando fueron detenidos, se les acusó de ataques, graves insultos y falta al honor a distintas personas entre las que se encontraban autoridades y dirigentes del Polisario, así como de incitación a la desobediencia y ser sospechosos de espionaje y colaboracionismo con el enemigo. Pero, estos tres saharauis, en realidad, sólo se han significado por sus mordaces críticas a la corrupción y la mala gestión, así como por sus discrepancias con algunas de las políticas del Frente.

Cuando esta semana han sido puestos en libertad, han sido recibidos por sus familiares, amigos y simpatizantes por todo lo alto, en una celebración propia de héroes. Como cambian las cosas…. La decisión de un juez saharaui, el juez Mulay Lebheida, junto a los oficios del abogado Mohamed Saleh Bachir, nos ofrece la esperanza de ver algún día cómo resplandece la independencia de los jueces y una cierta separación de poderes, lo cual no sería poco en estas latitudes. Aunque, por desgracia, habrá que esperar todavía; el juez Mulay Lebheida ha sido cesado, apenas unos días después de dictar sentencia.

Ahora, ya libres, los acusados inocentes prometen contar en la redes, en el momento oportuno, todo lo ocurrido. Habrá oportunidad de conocer cómo se ha producido este atropello y no faltarán detalles que podrían ser causa de investigaciones e incluso de eventuales enjuiciamientos.

Sólo esperamos, y hasta me atrevería a decir que exigimos, que no vuelvan a ser perseguidos ni ellos ni ningún saharaui por expresar sus opiniones con total libertad.

14 noviembre de 2019
 Lehdía Mohamed Dafa

-------------- Este texto expresa la opinion del autor y no de los moderadores del foro.