L'abominable discrimination d'Antonio Guterres au Sahara Occidental

par Haddamin Moulud Said

Lorsqu'en 1991, le Front POLISARIO et le Royaume du Maroc ont signé le cessez-le-feu, sous les auspices de l'ONU, un mur militaire infranchissable a traversé le Sahara occidental, de la pointe nord-est à l'Atlantique, à la pointe sud-ouest. A l'époque, dans l'extrême sud-ouest du territoire, le Maroc disposait d'un point de contrôle situé à plus de 15 kilomètres au nord de sa position actuelle. 

Avec l'approbation de la MINURSO et dans une violation ouverte du cessez-le-feu, le Maroc a volé de plus en plus de terres pour localiser ce point de contrôle au point actuel, à moins de cinq kilomètres de la frontière mauritanienne.

Déjà en 2001, lorsque le Maroc a commencé à ouvrir la brèche illégale dans le mur, en construisant une autoroute qui va à la frontière mauritanienne, l'ONU et certains États membres s'y sont opposés. Dans le cinquième paragraphe de son rapport du 24/04/2001 (S / 2001/398), le Secrétaire général de l'ONU affirme que «son représentant spécial, William Eagleton, et le commandant de la Force, le général Claude Buze, ont mis en garde leurs contacts civils et militaires marocains que le projet de construction de la route soulevait des questions difficiles et impliquait des activités pouvant constituer des violations de l'accord de cessez-le-feu ». Et ainsi, ils ont réussi à amener le Maroc à abandonner sa route prévue.

Plus tard, dans son rapport du 20/06/2001 (S / 2001/613), huitième paragraphe, le Secrétaire général déclare que «à la mi-mai, lorsqu'il est devenu évident que les travaux avaient repris, la MINURSO et plusieurs des États membres ont contacté les autorités marocaines et leur ont demandé de suspendre, à nouveau, la construction de la route ».

Mais depuis, la MINURSO a permis au Maroc de construire l'autoroute, dans cette pointe sud-ouest et de permettre le transit du territoire occupé vers la Mauritanie, alors qu'aucun autre lieu de passage n'était autorisé pour le transit des Sahraouis eux-mêmes d'un côté à l'autre de leur propre territoire, perpétuant la division d'un peuple depuis plus de 45 ans.

En d'autres termes, la MINURSO a permis au Maroc d'ouvrir une brèche illégale dans le mur. Et depuis, la MINURSO a assumé le rôle de gardienne du pillage des ressources naturelles du territoire à travers cette brèche illégale. Bizzarement, le Secrétaire général de l'ONU, M. Antonio Guterres, dans une violation inacceptable du statut juridique du territoire, l'appelle «trafic ordinaire de marchandises», comme l'indique l'intitulé de ses Observations et Recommandations, paragraphe 83 de son rapport du 10/10/2019 (S / 2019/787).

Si, comme l'affirme A. Guterres, nous sommes confrontés à un «trafic ordinaire de marchandises», pourquoi alors l'ancien Représentant spécial, William Eagleton, et le commandant de la Force, le général Claude Buze, ont-ils intercédé auprès du Maroc pour le disuader de construire cette autoroute? Pourquoi certains États membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité ont-ils dissuadé le Maroc de construire cette route en 2001?

Que s'est-il passé pour que ce qui était autrefois une «violation du cessez-le-feu» est maintenant devenu un «trafic de marchandises ordinaire»? La seule chose qui s'est produite, c'est que M. Antonio Gueterres est devenu le nouveau secrétaire général de l’ONU.

Antonio Guterres a accédé à la présidence du gouvernement du Portugal en 1995 et a promu la réforme de la constitution portugaise qui a été adoptée, pendant sa présidence du gouvernement, en 1997, comprenant l'article suivant:

Article 293º
(Autodétermination et indépendance du Timor Leste)
1. Le Portugal reste lié par ses responsabilités, d'harmonie internationale, de promotion et de direction de l'autodétermination et de l'indépendance vis-à-vis du Timor-Leste.
2. Il est de la responsabilité du Président de la République et du Gouvernement d'accomplir tous les actes nécessaires à la réalisation des deux objectifs explicites du numéro précédent.

Alors, qu'est-ce qui explique pourquoi Antonio Guterres s'est investi si intensément contre l'Indonésie et l'Australie pour défendre le Timor-Leste, et au contraire, dans le cas du Sahara occidental, si ouvertement en faveur du Maroc? La seule raison d'une telle attitude est que les Timorais, comme Guterres, sont chrétiens et, d'autre part, les Sahraouis sont musulmans. Jamais auparavant un secrétaire général de l'ONU n'avait fait preuve d'un tel niveau de discrimination fondée sur la religion des victimes.

Mais l'ONU doit savoir que ni le POLISARIO ni personne d'autre ne peut continuer à nourrir la confiance de l'opinion publique sahraouie dans une organisation qui n'a pas été en mesure d'organiser un référendum pour moins d'un demi-million de personnes depuis trente ans et, en outre, couvre le dos de la puissance occupante et ses violations du cessez-le-feu, en lui permettant de gagner plus de terrain pour continuer à piller les ressources naturelles dudit peuple.

Pour l'opinion publique sahraouie, boucher la brèche illégale d'El Guerguerat est devenu une condition sine qua non pour continuer à avoir confiance dans le processus de paix dirigé par l'ONU.

 Compte tenu du fait que le peuple sahraoui a toute la légitimité pour prendre les armes contre l'occupation étrangère, il faut comprendre que, lorsqu'il se manifeste pour combler cette brèche illégale, il jouit également d'une pleine légitimité.

Si le Maroc a réussi à faire de la MINURSO le gardien de son occupation du Sahara Occidental et le camoufleur d'une brèche illégale, le fait que les Sahraouis manifestent pour exiger la fermeture de ladite brèche illégale serait donc une réaction logique et legitime.

En fin de compte, la seule chose que les Sahraouis réclament, c'est d'inverser le rôle de la MINURSO pour qu'au lieu de couvrir le dos du Maroc, de protéger une brèche illégale, elle procède à sa fermeture.

La conviction de l'opinion publique sahraouie, par rapport à la connivence de la MINURSO avec la violation illégale d'El Guerguerat est bien motivée, car pour désamorcer la crise de 2017, le Polisario s'est retiré militairement de la zone, avec pour garantie l'engagement de l'ONU d'envoyer une mission d'experts pour étudier et résoudre le problème de la violation illégale d'El Guerguerat. Cependant, trois ans plus tard, cette Commission n’existe toujours pas et n’a pas mis les pieds sur le terrain.

L'ONU et son secrétaire général assument pleinement toutes les responsabilités qui pourraient découler de la frustration et de la colère d'un peuple fatigué d'attendre.

Haddamin Moulud Said
<mouludsaid[at]gmail.com>
27 septembre 2020

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

L'abominable discrimination d'Antonio Guterres au Sahara Occidental

La abominable discriminación de Antonio Guterres en el Sáhara Occidental

por Haddamin Moulud Said

Cuando en 1991, el Frente POLISARIO y el Reino de Marruecos firman el Alto el Fuego, bajo los auspicios de NNUU, un impermeable muro militar surcaba el Sáhara Occidental, desde la punta nororiental hasta llegar al atlántico, en la punta suroccidental. En aquel entonces, en el extremo suroccidental del territorio, Marruecos tenía un puesto de control situado a más de 15 kilómetros al norte de su posición actual. 

Con el beneplácito de la MINURSO y en una abierta violación del Alto El Fuego, Marruecos ha ido robando más y más tierras hasta ubicar ese puesto de control en el punto actual, a menos de cinco kilómetros de la frontera mauritana. 

Ya en el 2001, cuando Marruecos empezó a abrir la brecha ilegal en el muro, construyendo una carretera que llega hasta la frontera mauritana, la ONU y algunos Estados Miembros se opusieron. En el párrafo quinto de su informe de 24/04/2001 (S/2001/398), el Secretario General de NNUU, afirma que “su Representante Especial, William Eagleton, y el Comandante de la Fuerza, el General Claude Buze, advirtieron a sus contactos civiles y militares marroquíes de que la propuesta construcción de la carretera planteaba cuestiones difíciles y entrañaba actividades que podrían constituir violaciones del acuerdo de cesación del fuego”. Y así consiguieron que Marruecos desistiera de su pretendida carretera.

Más tarde, en su informe de 20/06/2001 (S/2001/613), párrafo octavo, el Secretario General, afirma que “a mediados de mayo cuando se puso de manifiesto que se habían reanudado las obras, la MINURSO y varios Estados Miembros se pusieron en contacto con las autoridades de Marruecos y solicitaron que volvieran a suspender la construcción de la carretera”.

Pero repentinamente, la MINURSO permitió a Marruecos construir la carretera, en esa punta sudoccidental y permitir el tránsito desde el territorio ocupado hacia Mauritania, al tiempo que no se permitía ningún otro lugar de paso para el tránsito de los propios saharauis de un lado a otro de su propio territorio, perpetuando la división de un pueblo por más de 45 años.

Es decir, la MINURSO ha permitido a Marruecos abrir una brecha ilegal en el muro. Y desde entonces, la MINURSO, ha asumido el rol de guardián del saqueo de los recursos naturales del Territorio a través de esa brecha ilegal. Inexplicablemente, el Secretario General de NNUU, el Sr. Antonio Guterres, en una inaceptable violación del estatuto jurídico del territorio, lo llama “tráfico ordinario de mercancías”, tal y como se refleja en el Epígrafe de sus Observaciones y Recomendaciones, párrafo 83 de su informe de 10/10/2019 (S/2019/787).

Si, como afirma A. Guterres, estamos ante un “tráfico ordinario de mercancías”, por qué, entonces, el ex Representante Especial, William Eagleton, y el Comandante de la Fuerza, el General Claude Buze, intercedieron ante Marruecos para que desistiera de construir esa carretera? Por qué algunos Estados Miembros permanentes del Consejo de Seguridad disuadieron a Marruecos de construir esa carretera en 2001?

Qué ha pasado para que lo que antes era una “violación del Alto el Fuego” se convierta, ahora, en un “tráfico ordinario de mercancías”? Lo único que ha pasado es que el señor Antonio Gueterres se ha convertido en el nuevo Secretario General de NNUU.

Antonio Guterres alcanzó la Presidencia del Gobierno de Portugal en 1995 y promovió la reforma de la constitución portuguesa que fue adoptada, durante su presidencia del gobierno, en 1997, incluyendo el siguiente artículo: 

Artículo 293.
(Autodeterminación e independencia de Timor Oriental)
Portugal sigue estando obligado por sus responsabilidades, de conformidad con el derecho internacional, de promover y garantizar el derecho de Timor Oriental a la libre determinación y la independencia.
2. Corresponde al Presidente de la República y al Gobierno realizar todos los actos necesarios para lograr los objetivos expresados en el párrafo anterior.

¿Qué es lo que explica, pues, que Antonio Guterres se emplee tan a fondo contra Indonesia y Australia en defensa de Timor Leste y, en cambio, en el caso del Sáhara Occidental, se posicione tan descaradamente en favor de Marruecos? La única razón que explica semejante actitud es que los timorenses, al igual que Guterres, son cristianos y, en cambio, los saharauis son musulmanes. Nunca antes un Secretario General de NNUU había exhibido semejantes niveles de discriminación basada en la religión de las víctimas.

Pero la ONU debe saber que ni el POLISARIO ni nadie puede seguir alimentando la confianza de la opinión pública saharaui en una organización que lleva treinta años sin poder organizar un referéndum para menos de medio millón de personas y, que además, cubre las espaldas a la potencia ocupante, arropando sus violaciones del Alto el Fuego y permitiéndole ganar más terreno para seguir saqueando los recursos naturales de dicho pueblo. 

Para la opinión pública saharaui, el cierre de la brecha ilegal de El Guerguerat se ha convertido en una condición sine qua non para seguir teniendo fe en el proceso de paz liderado por la ONU.

Y teniendo en cuenta que el pueblo saharaui tiene plena legitimidad para levantarse en armas contra la ocupación extranjera, habrá que entender que, cuando se manifiesta cerrando aquella brecha ilegal, también, goza de plena legitimidad.

Si Marruecos ha conseguido convertir a la MINURSO en el guardián de su ocupación del Sáhara Occidental y en el encubridor de una brecha ilegal, el hecho de que los saharauis se manifiesten reivindicando el cierre de dicha brecha ilegal no debe ofrecer demasiada resistencia para la comprensión de su significado.

Al fin y al cabo, los saharauis lo único que reclaman es invertir el rol de la MINURSO para que, en lugar de cubrir las espaldas a Marruecos, protegiendo una brecha ilegal, proceda a su cierre.

El hartazgo de la opinión pública saharaui, en relación a la connivencia de la MINURSO con la brecha ilegal de El Guerguerat está sobradamente motivado, porque para desactivar la crisis de 2017, el Polisario se retiró militarmente de la zona llevando debajo del brazo el compromiso de la ONU de enviar una Misión de Expertos para estudiar y resolver la cuestión de la brecha ilegal de El Guerguerat. Sin embargo, tres años después, esa Comisión todavía no existe ni ha pisado el terreno.

La ONU y su Secretario General asumen de pleno toda la responsabilidad que pudiera derivar de la frustración y la ira de un pueblo cansada de esperar.

Haddamin Moulud Said
<mouludsaid[at]gmail.com>
27 de septiembre de 2020

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

La abominable discriminación de Antonio Guterres en el Sáhara Occidental

El nuevo reparto del Sáhara Occidental

por Haddamin Moulud Said

Desde hace tiempo venimos alertando del peligro que conlleva la ausencia de una estrategia bien definida y bien clara en materia de DDHH. Durante los últimos veinte años, ciertamente, el FP no ha hecho un estudio en profundidad del Sistema de NNUU para los DDHH para determinar cuál es el encaje del Sáhara Occidental en el entramado institucional de NNUU para los DDHH. 

Al no esforzarnos para elaborar una estrategia concreta, basada en el estudio pormenorizado y análisis profundo del Sistema de NNUU para los DDHH, hemos dejado vía libre para que el tratamiento de la cuestión de los DDHH en el Sáhara Occidental, por parte del Sistema de NNUU se lleve a cabo de un modo TOTALMENTE FAVORABLE a los intereses de Marruecos. 

 El resultado altamente peligroso de esa formar de tratar o abordar la cuestión de los DDHH en el Sáhara Occidental, por parte del Sistema de NNUU, es la división del territorio en dos partes. Una parte se atribuye a Marruecos y se aborda, por el Sistema de NNUU, como si del territorio nacional marroquí se tratara y, la otra, se atribuye a Argelia y se aborda como parte integrante de Argelia, haciendo desaparecer de esa manera el Sáhara Occidental. Es decir, al oeste del meridiano 8o39’ Oeste, es Marruecos; al este, es Argelia. Y, en medio, la nada. 

 Si el anterior reparto de 14 de noviembre de 1975 contó con la firme y feroz oposición del Polisario, frente a este nuevo reparto, el Polisario parece estar ausente. 

El último informe del Secretario General de NNUU sobre cooperación con las NNUU, sus representantes y mecanismos en la esfera de los DDHH (A/HRC/45/36), refleja de forma magistral el sentido de estas ideas. 

El informe, elaborado por la Oficina del Alto Comisionado de NNUU para los DDHH, se compone de 79 páginas que recogen las más importantes preocupaciones del Secretario General de NNUU, en relación a la intimidación y las represalias contra quienes buscan cooperar o han cooperado con las Naciones Unidas, sus representantes y mecanismos en la esfera de los derechos humanos. 

Ante este Informe, lo primero que hacemos es preguntarnos si la cuestión de los DDHH en el Sáhara Occidental, forma parte o no de las preocupaciones del Secretario General de NNUU. ¿Menciona el Secretario General el Sáhara Occidental, en su Informe Anual? 

La respuesta es “si”. Pero dónde o en qué parte del informe acontece esa mención? Hete aquí el quid de la cuestión. A juzgar por el último Informe del Secretario General de NNUU, parece que tendremos que editar nuevos mapas. Y es que, contra todo pronóstico, el Sáhara Occidental, ahora, se ubica al este (si, al Este. Usted ha leído bien) del meridiano 8o39’ Oeste, que es la línea vertical que hace de frontera entre el Sáhara Occidental y Argelia. 

En su informe, que contiene dos anexos, el Secretario General relata los casos de intimidaciones y represalias sufridas en todo el mundo y lo hace por países, según el orden alfabético. 

En el informe en sí mismo, el Sáhara Occidental no aparece citado. Sin embargo, cuando habla de Argelia, cita por su nombre el caso de una mujer saharaui. Y cuando habla de Marruecos, cita por su nombre el caso de tres saharauis, sin citar nuevamente, su nacionalidad. 

 Y por qué es tan importante la mención de esa nacionalidad? Es importante, porque de lo contrario, pasarían por nacionales de los dos países en cuyos epígrafes se citan. Es decir, esa no mención contribuye a diluir la cuestión saharaui en el mapa de los países vecinos. Para el lector, esos casos citados con sus nombres propios o son argelinos o son marroquíes. 

En el Anexo I, titulado “Información completa sobre presuntos casos de represalias e intimidación por cooperación con las Naciones Unidas en derechos humanos”, hay un Epígrafe relativo a Argelia. Y es precisamente aquí, en este Epígrafe, donde aparece la única mención del “Sáhara Occidental”. Y aparece en un contexto en el que Argelia ocupa la posición de un Estado que ‘oprime’ a una supuesta ONG que defiende supuestamente los DDHH en el Sáhara Occidental. 

 Nótese la incongruencia de hablar del Sáhara Occidental al este del meridiano 8o39’ Oeste, al mismo tiempo que se omite cualquier alusión a ese territorio al oeste del citado meridiano. 

Nótese igualmente cómo, en este caso, se cita el origen nacional de la supuesta víctima, pero se omite el dato de que vive en las zonas ocupadas y nunca ha pisado los campamentos saharauis. Pero aún así, Argelia es el ogro. 

En este mismo Anexo I, en los epígrafes relativos a Marruecos, hay dos párrafos referentes a un caso del Sáhara Occidental, pero se omite el origen nacional de la víctima y se omite, también, la alusión al Territorio. 

Finalmente, en el Anexo II, en el Epígrafe relativo a Marruecos, hay cinco párrafos referentes a personas del Sáhara Occidental, pero en ninguno de los cinco párrafos se cita el origen nacional de las víctimas ni, tampoco, se cita el Territorio. 

En definitiva cuando el dedo acusador apunta hacia Argelia, se cita el origen nacional de las víctimas y se cita el nombre del Sáhara Occidental. En cambio, cuando ese mismo dedo acusador apunta hacia Marruecos, no se alude al origen nacional de las víctimas y tampoco se menciona el Sáhara Occidental. 

 Lo dicho. Hay que reeditar los mapas para colocar el Territorio no autónomo del Sáhara Occidental al este del meridiano 8o39’ Oeste, para al final, seguir considerando que el espacio geográfico situado al oeste de ese meridiano es territorio nacional marroquí.

A continuación se reproducen, en su versión original inglesa, los párrafos del citado informe. 

A/HRC/45/36 - OHCHR

B. Summary of cases

Algeria  

 

42. In April 2020, special procedures mandate holders addressed alleged attacks against the privacy and dignity of Ms. Olaya Saadi following her engagement with the United Nations regarding the arbitrary detention of her husband (DZA 2/2020). 

 

Morocco

 

88. It was reported to OHCHR that in November 2019 and January 2020, Ms. Aminatou Haidar, of the Collectif des défenseurs sahraouis des droits de l’homme, was threatened, attacked and stigmatized online for her ongoing engagement with the United Nations. 

 

89.Annex II contains new developments in the situations of Mr. Ennaâma Asfari, and Ms. Naziha El Khalid. On 17 July 2020, the Government responded. 

Annex I 

 Comprehensive information on alleged cases of reprisals and intimidation for cooperation with the United Nations on human rights 

1. Algeria

 

1. On 16 April 2020, special procedures mandate holders expressed concern at allegations of attacks against the privacy and personal dignity of Ms. Olaya Saadi following her engagement with the UN (DZA 2/2020). Ms. Saadi, of Sahrawi origin, is the wife of Mr. Fadel Breika , of the El Khalil Ahmed Braih Coordination for the Defense of Human Rights in Western Sahara, whose detention and interrogation was addressed by special procedures (DZA 2/2019). 

  

2. On 1 November 2019, intimate photos of Ms. Saadi were posted on the “Sawt al Watan” website, which were allegedly obtained, without consent, from the confiscated phone of her husband while he was in detention. An article on this site referred to Ms. Saadi’s trip to Geneva, including a photo of her speaking at the Human Rights Council in September 2019. Mandate holders expressed concern that the publication of these photos appear to have aimed at tarnishing Ms. Saadi’s reputation and her efforts to advocate for the release of her husband with the UN (DZA 2/2020). 

...

4. On 6 July 2020, the Government of Algeria responded to the note verbale in connection to the present report indicating that it cannot verify allegations pertaining to a citizen of another State, and invited OHCHR to address the allegations to the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic or to the Polisario Front by virtue of General Assembly resolutions 37/34 (21 November 1979), and resolution 19/35 (11 November 1980).

 

24. Morocco

 

79. It was reported to OHCHR that Ms. Aminatou Haidar, of the Collectif des défenseurs sahraouis des droits de l’homme, was the subject of threats, physical attacks and online stigmatization in connection with her ongoing engagement with the UN (see also MAR 6/2005; 5/2009). On 29 November 2019, Ms. Haidar met with the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, the photos of which were posted on social media, and on 2 January 2020 returned to her place of residence after receiving a human rights prize in a ceremony with the Deputy High Commissioner. During her stay abroad, several on-line articles were published reportedly vilifying Ms. Haidar’s work. 

 

80. On 11 January 2020, Ms. Haidar was reportedly attacked by police officers on her way to a meeting. It was reported that the officers verbally insulted her and her children, and physically assaulted her. While she was physically attacked, one officer allegedly made a reference to her complaining to the UN. . Further, Ms. Haidar was reportedly followed and monitored by different unidentified individuals inside the Palais des Nations when she attended sessions and events of the 43rd session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva and delivered a statement and participated as a panellist in an NGO side-event. She also met with the High Commissioner for Human Rights and other UN staff members during the session. 

 

81. On 17 July 2020, the Government responded in detail to the note verbale in connection to the present report. Regarding the case of Ms. Haidar, it refuted the allegations that she is a human rights defender subjected to reprisals, but rather has a political agenda which does not correspond to the mandate of this report. The Government contends that the meeting of Ms. Haidar with the Deputy High Commissioner was not in the latter’s official capacity and that the award ceremony is not a UN event. It also stated that side events of the Human Rights Council are not part of the main programme, and allegations of surveillance can be refuted by video recordings. The Government informs that Ms. Haidar enjoys all her fundamental rights protected by the law, and that she has never filed a complaint with the judiciary or the national human rights commission. 

Annex II 

Information on alleged cases included in follow-up to previous reports 

17. Morocco

   

88. The case of Mr. Ennaâma Asfari was included in the 2019 and 2018 reports of the Secretary-General on alleged deterioration of detention conditions following the decision of the Committee against Torture on his case in 2016 (CAT/C/59/D/606/2014) (A/HRC/ 42/30, Annex II para. 73; A/HRC/39/41, para. 57 and Annex I, para. 77). Reported reprisals in the form of an entry ban against Ms. Claude Mangin-Asfari, the wife of Mr. Asfari, were also included in the 2019 report of the Secretary-General.  

 

89. In July 2019, while noting positive developments in the form of visits by his wife, the Chair of the Committee Against Torture requested the State party to refrain from reprisals against Mr. Asfari, invited observations on the implementation of the remedy that the Committee had previously communicated to the Government, and decided to keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing (CAT/C/67/3, para. 12-13). On 6 August 2019, the Government in a meeting with the Committee stated that Mr. Asfari had refused to cooperate with judicial authorities on the investigation of the allegations of torture, and that he was held in an individual cell, not in solitary confinement, is in contact with other inmates and has family visits and phone calls. The State party denied that the complainant or his wife, Ms. Mangin, had faced any reprisals (CAT/C/68/3, paras. 22-26). At its 68th Session, the Committee decided to keep the follow-up dialogue ongoing, and, given the absence of meaningful progress, to request Morocco to allow for a follow-up visit to monitor the lack of implementation of its decision in this case, including with regard to the detention conditions of the complainant (A/74/44, para. 65). 

 

90. The case of Ms. Naziha El Khalidi was included in the 2019 report of the Secretary-General (A/HRC/42/30, Annex I, para. 74) on allegations of interrogation following action of special procedures mandate holders on her case On 4 June 2019, mandate holders expressed their concern about the interrogation of Ms. El Khalidi following their first communication (MAR 2/2019). On 5 August 2019, the Government refuted the allegations that the questioning by police was an act of reprisals against Ms. El Khalidi, rather indicating it was part of an investigation into the reported ill-treatment during her arrest, which had come to their attention through the first communication by mandate holders. 

 

91. It has been reported to OHCHR that on 8 July 2019, Ms. El Khalidi was convicted in absentia by the Court of First Instance of Laayoun for practicing journalism without accreditation (article 381 of the Penal Code). The sentence included a fine of 4,000 Moroccan dirhams (about USD 400) and the confiscation of her mobile phone seized by the police during her 2018 arrest. During the reporting period, Ms. El Khalidi has been the subject of a vilification campaign through sexist and gender-biased posts on social media from an account known to target Sahrawi human rights defenders and journalists, and her close relatives receive notifications of these postings on their cell phones. Some posts have allegedly included intimate photos and private messages taken from her seized mobile phone. 

 

92. On 17 July 2020, the Government responded in detail to the note verbale in connection to the present report. The Government reiterated the information provided to the Committee against Torture pertaining to Mr. Asfari, including that which was presented during the August 2019 meeting between the Permanent Representative and Committee. The Government stated that Mr. Asfari and his wife are not subject to acts of reprisal and provided information about the conditions of detention of Mr. Asfari. The Government categorically refuted the allegations that Ms. Khalidi was the subject of an online smear campaign, and informed that she has not brought any complaints about such allegations to national administrative or judicial instances. 

 

Haddamin Moulud Said
22.09.20
<mouludsaid[at]gmail.com>

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

El nuevo reparto del Sáhara Occidental

Western Sahara Reconsidered

by Nafaa Mohamed Salem

After 16 years of fighting, The United Nations brokered a ceasefire between the Polisario Front as being the sole representative of the Saharawi people and Morocco in order to hold a referendum that enables the people of Western Sahara, in the exercice of their right to self-determination, to choose between independence and integration with Morocco (Security Council S/21360) of 18 June 1990). A settlement proposals were presented on the 11 of August 1988 and quickly two weeks later, the parties informed the UN Secretary General, in principle, of their agreement. Overall, it must be recalled that:

1- All things considered, needless to say that the UN texts outlines that the ceasefire is linked to the rest of the Settlement Plan and is, as a matter of fact, a part of a broader peace process.

2- Practically speaking, The UN is in Western Sahara to implement a solution not to look for a new one and not to lead any negotiation of any kind as an agreement had been reached before any bargaining on new “ways” took place.

3- by and large, the “Independence” or “Integration” Agreement is a strong statement of terms with no room for adjustment. It is very positional and is the most precise use of the “take it or leave it” treat.

But as expected, a ceasefire signed early in a process, risks promoting a status quo, reinforcing a position of “new claims” as the objective rises to get a portion of (or as much of) whatever is available or gaining “breathing space” and consolidating military and economic positions. That is exactly the case of Western Sahara. The ceasefire enhanced Morocco’s reluctance to implement the Settlement Plan, the Polisario Front threatened every time to resume the fight. This situation engendered a chaos of absurd rounds of negotiations, talks and round-tables which stalled over the UN agenda resulting of all the envoys outrageously pulling out.

Now the bargaining range is fully open. With everything back to the first square, the Polisario Front should resume the armed struggle to impose, as in first place, the right of the Saharawi people to only liberty and independence.

NAFAA MOHAMED SALEM
nafaasalem[at]yahoo.com
30.06.20

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

Western Sahara Reconsidered

Lualy: Un líder integro

por Alamin Yahia

En un dia como hoy, hace exactamente 44 años ,en el preciso instante en el que no se puede saber con exactitud, cual estaba al revés,si el día o el mes ...9 (día), 6 (mes), desapareció (para nuestra desgracia) para siempre el carismático y joven Lualy Mustafá Seyed, unos le prefieren llamar Luley, otros Tuer 'pajaro', por su movilidad y dinamismo, contrario a la inercia, la inactividad y la pasividad de los que le despojaron de su puesto.

En efecto, aquél nefasto y tristemente célebre día, un entonces Jefe de Estado Arabe y Africano, tambien contagiado por sus ideas,anunciaba en un discurso oficial transmitido en vivo y en directo una novedad: que iba a suponer un antes y un despues ,incluidos sus propios planes .

"LUALY HA MUERTO"... Estas tres simples letras han supuesto una gran tragedia privada y pública para cualquier Saharaui, independientemente de sus orientaciones políticas o convicciones idiologicas...

Desafortunadamente desde ese brutal, feroz y despiadado amanecer, en el que el circulo del dia estaba boca abajo y el circulo de la noche boca arriba ; desapareció el sueño y la ilusión que albergaban, aquellos chavales que no dudaron a la hora de sustituir Torremolinos y las Playas de la costa Andaluza por el arido, inhospito e irresistible Campo de Tindouf, renunciaron a sus melenas y abandonaron sus estudios a cambio de un noble, ecuánime y orgulloso ideal... por una ilusión excelente, ejemplar y maravillosa, como debería ser y es LA LIBERTAD.

Personalmente eres el único, entre ese grupúsculo que te alejado de tu merecido lugar(vivos o muertos), que era firme en sus convicciones y claro en sus objetivos.

Nadie es excento de cometer errores,a pesar de eso sigo contrariando a muchos y sigo ,aunque he abandonado ese frustrado bando que dirigen esos mismos incopetentes e inutiles, a los que exigiste honradez, integridad, rectitud, austeridad y bondad.Nadie mejor que Vos sabia de que carecian ; y eso .. precisamente les paso factura .... después de 45 anos, aún tus palabras no han encontrado oídos receptivos.

Esos mismos que te han apartado del liderazgo no han conducido el barco a nunca parte .... a pesar de contar con una buena tripulación,el buen tiempo y las perfectas condiciones, pero la mala visión del comandante que te sustituyó y la negligencia de sus lugartenientes han dejado el barco y para siempre anclado en el duro y difícil terreno de la -Hamada- de Tinfouf ...

Adiós Lualy te fuiste y contigo se fue nuestro sueño, nuestra esperanza, nuestra ilusión y nuestro orgullo ...

Descansa en paz, mejor no te levantes .... esos que se revelaron en tu contra hoy se ocultan detrás de sus crímenes .... siguen engañando, manipulando y tergiversando los hechos ...

El Pueblo que dejaste único no solo lo han separado sino y sobre todo le han creado batallas interminables interminables ………..

Lualy, tu nunca has confiado en ellos, el tiempo; el imperecedero,el imperdonable te ha dado toda absolutamante toda la razón ....

Lualy, cuando nos abandonaste, hemos aprendido que la mentira y el engaño tienen fecha de caducidad, al final todo se descubre,pero la confianza, si se muere será para siempre ....

Ellos han perdido la confianza del Pueblo. Y eso ya no puede tener marcha atras.
"Una de las pruebas del liderazgo es la capacidad de reconocer un problema antes de que sea una emergencia" Arnold Henry Glasow ( 1905 – 1998 )

: 'El pesimista se queja del viento; el optimista espera que cambie; el realista ajusta las velas'....Las oportunidades son como los amaneceres: si uno espera demasiado, se los pierde .......

Alamin Yahia
adeseti2002[at]yahoo.es
09.06.2020

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

Lualy: Un líder integro

F.POLISARIO: L’IMPLOSION!

 par Maître Takioullah Eidda

Depuis quelques jours certains se font un malin plaisir de s’attaquer à la personne de Mohamed Lemine Ould Ahmed, lui attribuant une supposée participation à un supposé coup-d’état contre Lwely Mustapha Sayed (Allah Yarhmou); comme si, à cette époque, le Polisario existait sérieusement et matériellement, au point de pousser ses quelques membres à se déchirer sur son contrôle.

En fait, croyez-moi, il n’y avait rien sur quoi se déchirer à l’époque: pas de militants; pas d’armes; pas de véhicules pas de représentations; pas de reconnaissance d’un quelconque pays … Rien! Juste quelques étudiants foudroyés par l’échec scolaire et foncièrement novices en politique, groupés autour de la personne, charismatique et créative, de Lwely Mustapha Sayed (Allah Yarhmou)!

Alors, parler aujourd’hui de cette époque en «coup-d’état» ou «divergences de stratégies», c’est se donner de l’importance historique ou encore ouvrir la voie à une autre manœuvre à la Cheval de Troie!

Hé oui, voilà où en est arrivé le Polisario et son supposé leadership!

Il faut dire que ce mouvement n’arrive malheureusement pas à sortir de l’inertie dans laquelle les accords du cessez-le-feu de 1991 l’ont placé et cadenassé. Si bien que beaucoup de ses militants ont perdu confiance; ont perdu espoir; voire, n’y croient même plus à sa résurrection.

Alors, quoi de plus confortable, pour la gérontocratie de ce mouvement, que de jouer au pingpong, en fantasmant des reproches historiques, en blâmant les morts pour leur échec ou en leur reprochant des actes si lointains (1974), que la jeunesse sahraouie n’y puisse apprécier la véracité, encore moins arbitrer entre ses belligérants?!

Après tout, l’objectif de cette nouvelle approche est de semer profondément le doute dans les esprits sur l’authenticité originelle de la révolution du peuple sahraoui.

Je l’ai déjà dit et je le répète, tout le malheur du F.Polisario lui ait venu de son leadership issu du 3ième Congrès de 1976, à sa tête feu Mohamed Abdelaziz.

Leadership, dont la moitié a regagné le Maroc et le reste resté inféodé à outrance, à l’Algérie, le tout au détriment de la lutte armée engagée du peuple sahraoui.

Que reste t-il alors pour la jeunesse sahraouie: ceux et celles qui n’ont connu que les camps de réfugiés en Algérie et la culture polisarienne du tourner en rond? Rien! Juste la rumeur et le dira-t-on!

Entre la «guerre des fantômes (les fondateurs)»; «Khatt-Echehid» ou encore «l’Initiative Sahraouie pour le Changement (ISC)», il n’y a finalement qu’une réalité qui s’impose fatalement: «chacun pour soi et Dieu pour tous».

Cela veut dire, l’implosion lente du F.Polisario, mais une implosion quand même! À moins que.…

Maître Takioullah Eidda, avocat
eidda.avocat[at]hotmail.com
Bir-Oumgrein (Tiris-Zemour)

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

F.POLISARIO: L’IMPLOSION!

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.

CONCLUSION

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.
mohcheij[at]yahoo.es

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

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

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.
mouludsaid[at]gmail.com
May the 5th, 2020.
Translated by Zrug Lula.

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

Bourita exposes the BBC Arabic Radio station lies

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.
mouludsaid[at]gmail.com
A 5 de mayo de 2020.

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

Bureta desnuda las mentiras de la BBC Radio árabe

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.

http://fish.gov.ru/press-tsentr/novosti/30265-rossiya-i-marokko-gotovyat-k-podpisaniyu-novoe-soglashenie-o-sotrudnichestve-v-rybnom-khozyajstve

Haddamin Moulud Said
mouludsaid@gmail.com
April 22th, 2020.

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

Russia is caught red-handed: