Hola
debido a que se está creando una campaña de culpa contra aminetu haidar, calificándola de chantajista y creando una campaña de desinformación con el objetivo de crear un odio injustificable contra ella, ruego por favor lo siguiente
1. Lean los enlaces que les pongo a continuación y luego opine.
2. si cree que lleva haidar la razón, por favor difunda estos enlaces en cada comentario de internet en el que tenga oportunidad de intervenir.
la voluntad y la fuerza. elpaís.com
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/reportajes/voluntad/fuerza/elpepusocdmg/20091213elpdmgrep_2/Tes
Marruecos ha quitado el pasaporte a otros 13 activistas saharauis. elpaís.com
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Marruecos/ha/quitado/pasaporte/otros/activistas/meses/elpepuesp/20091212elpepinac_6/Tes
Prohibido protestar a favor de aminetu. elpaís.com
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Prohibido/protestar/favor/Aminetu/elpepunac/20091212elpepinac_7/Tes
Nada puede con el valor de haidar. elpaís.com
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/reportajes/Nada/puede/valor/Haidar/elpepusocdmg/20091122elpdmgrep_7/Tes
Cuando españa pecó en el sahara. elpaís.com
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Espana/peco/Sahara/elpepunac/20091213elpepinac_12/Tes
Campaña contra Aminetu (I): convirtiendo a la víctima en chantajista
http://blogs.periodistadigital.com/desdeelatlantico.php/2009/12/11/campana-contra-aminatu-i-convirtiendo-a-
Campaña contra Aminetu (II): convirtiendo a una mujer saharaui en marroquí
http://blogs.periodistadigital.com/desdeelatlantico.php/2009/12/13/campana-contra-aminatu-i-convirtiendo-a-1
el papel de los recursos naturales en el conflicto del sahara Occidental y los intereses involucrados
http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=7057&lg=es
Una documentación esencial para conocer el Sahara Occidental. (Con la historia, las resoluciones de la ONU, dictámenes del TIJ, acuerdos, etc, etc)
http://www.umdraiga.com/documentos/indicedocumentos.htm
Poemario por un Sahara libre
http://poemariosaharalibre.blogspot.com/
www.todosconaminetu.blogspot.com
martes 15 de diciembre de 2009
viernes 11 de diciembre de 2009
The role of natural resources in the Western Sahara conflict, and the interests involved
4 and 5 December 2008
Pretoria, South Africa
Erik Hagen
journalist from Norway
www.norwatch.no
The role of natural resources in the Western Sahara conflict, and the interests involved
[trad. al espanol]
Some attribute the rich phosphate deposits in Western Sahara as one of the reasons why
Morocco developed claims to Western Sahara in the first place. “One Kuwait in the Arab world is enough”, King Hassan II allegedly said, justifying the
1975 invasion mineral rich Sahara.
Although there might have been several reasons to the occupation itself than only natural resources, the resources today play a central role in strengthening
Morocco’s presence in the territory. The industries offer job opportunities to tens, or perhaps hundreds, of thousands of Moroccan settlers, and provide
important incomes for the Moroccan government. The international commercial presence in Western Sahara furthermore offers a sign of political acceptance
of the occupation.
The parts of Western Sahara under Moroccan control contain two important natural resources that are crucial to industries worldwide: fish and phosphates.
In addition to that, there is a growing agriculture industry, sand and possibly oil.
After going through the industries and the international presence, while touching upon its socio-economic effects, I will look at the reasons the companies
give for their presence, and the political implications of the activities.
The Western Saharan resources
The phosphate industry
Spain made the first phosphate discoveries south east of El Aaiun in the late 1940s. Up until the 70s Spain invested largely in developing infrastructure
for the phosphate production. Today, one can still see the outcome of the investments: the world’s largest conveyor belt, 100 kilometers long, transporting
the phosphates from the deposits in Bu Craa, out to the harbour where the phosphate rock is washed, dried, stockpiled, and later shipped over to vessels
waiting to be filled up.
And it is indeed a flourishing industry nowadays. Anyone visiting El Aaiun harbour in October-November 2008 could see up to 5 bulk vessels lining up one
after the other, waiting to be loaded with the cargo.
It is not that easy to see, however, how the Moroccan take-over of the phosphate industry can have been beneficial to the Sahrawis. A report by the French
organisation France Libertés -Fondation Danielle Mitterrand , showed that the Sahrawis have been systematically marginalised from the phosphate industry
in Bu Craa. In 1968, few years before Morocco took control over the phosphate mines, most of the 1600 workers in the industry were Sahrawis. Today, only
some 200 people of the 2000 workers are reported to be of that origin, according to the Sahrawi workers themselves. The rest are Moroccans who have moved
into the territory.
Every single week, discontented retired Sahrawi phosphate workers demonstrate in the streets of El Aaiun against what they say are lack of payments and
rights.
With a production of around 30 million tonnes of phosphate rock annually, Morocco is the biggest exporter of phosphate rock in the world. Of that volume,
about half is exported, and the last years, 3 million tonnes of that volume are of Western Sahara origin. The output from the Western Sahara mines has
gradually increased from 1,5-2 million tonnes during the 90s. The volume has over the years normally been limited by lack of sufficient infrastructure,
such as insufficient power and freshwater for Morocco’s state phosphate company, OCP.
With this year’s boom in prices and production, I would estimate that the production for 2008 will reach an all-time record, ending up closer to 4 million
tonnes.
During the last few years, one has now uncovered which companies in the world are importing the phosphates from Western Sahara. Approximately 16 companies
from 12 countries are today engaged in imports of these phosphates. Most of these firms import under long-term contracts, some up to 10 years of duration.
The phosphates are used mainly for production of fertilisers for the agriculture industry.
The biggest importers are to be found in USA, New Zealand, Australia, Mexico and Lithuania. Medium importers are located in Colombia, Venezuela, Spain,
Croatia, while Bulgaria, India and a few more imports on a more irregular basis.
With the increased production – and most of all due to increase of phosphate prices – it is easy to establish that OCP’s incomes in Western Sahara have
truly boomed. For several years, the global phosphate rock prices were more or less stable, at around 50 dollars a tonne. Then, from 2007 till today, the
price of phosphates has increased over 800%. The last weeks of October-November 2008, have seen a slight drop of prices again, and one tonne is now supposedly
worth around 414 dollars.
One single cargo of phosphate, for instance the one containing the 70.000 tonnes of phosphate rock carried by a Swiss owned vessel that arrived Louisiana,
USA, only two weeks ago, can thus be of the same value as the entire multilateral humanitarian aid to the refugee camps in one whole year, namely around
30 million USD.
Around 100 vessels depart from El Aaiun every year. Perhaps 150-300 shipping companies are involved in the transports annually. These companies come from
practically all European, North American and Asian shipping nations.
The United States is the biggest importer. For more than a decade, the US has received 99% of its imports from Morocco/Western Sahara. US importers could
have imported a total of roughly 10 million tonnes of Saharan phosphates over the last 20 years. With today’s phosphate price, if these 10 million tonnes
of phosphates had remained untouched awaiting a settlement of the conflict, its value would today have been around 4 billion USD – or 138 times as much
as what the international community gives to the refugee camps in Algeria through multilateral aid every year.
Morocco’s annual incomes from Bu Craa could for 2008 amount to around 1,7 billion dollars. That equals around 10000 dollars per Sahrawi refugee per year.
Multilateral aid to the refugee camps for 2007 equals 1,7 percent of the estimated income from Bu Craa for 2008, given that price is 414 dollars and production
is 4 million tonnes.
It is hard to come with a good explanation to the increased phosphate prices. One factor can be attributed to the increased volume of biofuel production,
which has triggered a high demand for fertilisers. This is rather ironic, because biofuel is normally considered a renewable replacement of hydrocarbons,
something which it is clearly not. Its expansion is rather dependent on another non-renewable resource, namely phosphorous.
The diminishing phosphate rock deposits globally means that other leading phosphate producing states, such as the US and China, are reluctant to export
their own phosphate rock.
It is estimated that the deposits in Bu Craa will be depleted by 2040-2050. That time period corresponds with what researchers estimate to be the global
peak for phosphorous production. With increased food and biofuel production, changed diets for a large part of the world population, and an intensified
scramble over the global phosphate reserves, it is very likely that we will observe a continued price increase for phosphate rock the coming decades, and
thus unprecedented income for OCP’s operations inside Western Sahara.
“With US and China tightening its grip around their own mined phosphates, and as the phosphate prices will continue to grow, the mines in Morocco and occupied
Western Sahara will become increasingly important for world phosphate importers and for the global agriculture industry. Western Sahara’s phosphate reserves
will become a real gold mine for Morocco in the future”, says one of the few researchers on global phosphate industry, Dana Cordell, at the Global Phosphorus
Research Initiative .
The Fisheries
Only a small minority of the Sahrawis, mostly from the Dakhla region in the south, have traditionally been engaged in fishing activities. With very few
exceptions, the industry today remains under Moroccan, not Sahrawi, control.
The fisheries industry has a crucial effect on the demography in the region, and thus probably also on the possibilities on finding a solution to the conflict.
With incentives such as reduced taxes and subsidies, housing programmes and social projects, the Moroccan government has succeeded to attract tens of thousands
of unemployed people from cities such as Agadir and Casablanca to settle in Western Sahara. And these people to a large extent find their jobs related
to the growing fisheries industry.
With the fish stocks diminishing after overfishing offshore Morocco proper, particularly offshore the Mediterranean coast, Western Saharan fisheries have
become increasingly important for Morocco. The main species are types of cephalopods and sardines. Some estimates suggest up to 70-90 percent of the Moroccan
catches are being landed in the harbour of Western Sahara. This has been facilitated by big investments in the ports of Dakhla, El Aaiun and Boujdour.
I would estimate a few hundred foreign companies have been identified in these industries by now, both fishing companies, manufacturers, exporters and
importers/distributors. This has been built up around a flourishing industry of processing, canning and freezing plants that have popped up along the coast.
The last decade has also seen developing an industry of fishmeal and fish oil exports, used for production of animal foods and health products in Europe.
The fish and fish products are exported mainly to the Middle East, Europe and East Asia.
The fisheries itself offshore Western Sahara is taking place on three levels.
a) EU or foreign states (such as Russia, Japan) having agreements with Morocco. These bilateral or multilateral agreements with Morocco do never mention
Western Sahara itself, but they are de facto applied for the waters adjacent to that territory.
b) private commercial fishing under Moroccan flag.
c) small-scale fishermen, living in settlements along the Western Sahara coast.
I will now quickly go through these three levels.
The best-known foreign fisheries agreement is the EU-Morocco Fisheries Partnership. Although the Russian agreement might be just as important on the fisheries
sector, I will only look into the EU agreement here.
There have been long traditions for foreign fishing in Western Sahara waters. For centuries, fishermen from the Canary Islands and from the Spanish mainland
have been chasing the resources off the Western Saharan coast. Just as Spain did with maintaining rights in the phosphate industry when leaving Western
Sahara, so they did with the fisheries. When Spain signed the Madrid Accords with Morocco and Mauritania, they made sure that they maintained rights to
licences offshore the territory. These rights have been more or less kept ever since, interrupted only in shorter periods. This has been very detrimental
for the Sahrawis. When Spain became member of the EU, Spain brought this tradition into the EU cooperation. Still, today, Spain has controlled the process
of the negotiation with Morocco, as well as most of the licences. 100 of the 114 licences under the current 144.4 million euro EU-Moroccan Fisheries Partnership
Agreement fell to Spain.
The EU-Moroccan Fisheries Partnership Agreement itself identifies that it is applicable to “the waters falling within the sovereignty or jurisdiction of
the Kingdom of Morocco”. The four years Agreement entered into force on March 1st, 2006.
When it was asked to have Western Saharan waters specifically excluded from the Agreement, the EU Commission replied it was not necessary. “The Commission
proposal is in conformity with the legal opinion of the United Nations issued in January 2002”, it stated , clearly misinterpreting the UN advice, and
the Sahrawi people’s wishes.
The EU chief negotiator of the Agreement, César Deben, stated in fact that that the EU Commission considers Western Sahara waters to be Moroccan, according
to the Madrid Accords from 1975, an agreement that the same UN opinion in practice considers invalid. Even more contradictory, most of the fisheries are
taking place offshore the southern parts Western Sahara – in the territory that the Madrid Accords ceded to Mauritania, not to Morocco.
After 7 different written questions to the EU Commission, it finally succeeded Members of the European Parliament to get an official statement from the
Commission in April 2008, that in fact fisheries have been going on inside Western Sahara under the current agreement .
The second category of fisheries is based on commercial licences to private companies under Moroccan flag, normally to owners of trawlers. Generally, for
a private company to enter fishing grounds outside of the governmental or EU fisheries partnerships, they must obtain Moroccan flag. Foreign firms mostly
get that through joint-ventures with Moroccan enterprises. Companies from countries such as Norway, Denmark, New Zealand and probably also Namibia/South
Africa seem to have been using this strategy to get access.
The last category of fisheries, is the one constituted by the small-scale Moroccan fishermen. They are either living in the towns of El Aaiun, Boujdour
or Dakhla, but also in separate, smaller fishing communities along the coast.
The small-scale fisheries often end up competing with the other two levels of fisheries over fishing rights. It is interesting to notice that even the
community of small-scale Moroccan fishermen are not necessarily satisfied with the Moroccan government’s issuing of licences to foreign governments or
private firms. There have been incidents of demonstrations carried out by the Moroccan fisheries communities against their own government, demanding increased
quotas.
There are also often reports of poor Moroccan control over the fishing, both the national and international commercial fleet, and there are occasionally
reports of foreign companies exceeding their quota, or using wrong fishing nets.
The possibilities of petroleum
To the contrary of their neighbour country to the east, Morocco produces no hydrocarbons. Completely dependent on imports, and with increasing oil prices,
the Moroccan government has been eager to make their own findings, both onshore and offshore its own territory.
From 2001, they continued earlier efforts from the mid-80s, and extended the petroleum searches also into Western Sahara, by granting petroleum reconnaissance
licences to the French firm TotalFinaElf (later Total) and to the American energy company Kerr-McGee. The awards sparked immediate protests from Polisario
Front, leading up to the much mentioned legal opinion from the UN secretariat in 2002 .
Although the UN opinion stated that "if further exploration and exploitation activities were to proceed in disregard of the interests and wishes of the
people of Western Sahara, they would be in violation of the principles of international law", that is exactly what is going on today on the oil sector.
Total and Kerr-McGee withdrew from the territory few years after the UN opinion, claiming that there were low prospects of finding oil on their allotted
blocks. But another company has picked up where Kerr-McGee left.
Immediately after Kerr-McGee’s departure in 2006, their Texas based partner Kosmos Energy signed a contract for continuation of the activities together
with the Moroccan state oil company ONHYM. There are indications that there could indeed be located petroleum offshore the so-called Boujdour block in
Western Sahara. Production is currently going on offshore North Mauritania, in what are supposedly the same geological layers. According to Kosmos Energy’s
own reports, they plan to drill in the Boujdour block in 2009.
The other current petroleum project in Western Sahara, consists of a joint venture headed by the small Irish oil company Island Oil and Gas. They have
a reconnaissance contract for a block onshore Western Sahara, overlapping the city of Smara, and actually covering both territories under Moroccan and
Polisario control. It is not clear whether they have actually carried out exploration on the ground yet. The zone is highly militarised, and a place with
frequent demonstrations by the Sahrawi organisations.
There are no sign that these oil companies have consulted the Sahrawi people prior to signing their contracts with the Moroccan government.
More industries developing
In addition to the fish and phosphates, and possibly oil, a few more key businesses have emerged over the years.
Western Sahara has for decades been an important exporter of sand. A majority of the sand purchasers have now been identified, being mostly on the Canary
Island and Madeira. The importers use the sand for construction industry purposes, and for maintenance of the constructed tourist beaches.
Furthermore, since the Spanish times, various metals and minerals have been explored in the territory, such as zirconium and iron.
A French company has recently entered into some kind of agreement for retreiving uranium from the phosphate mines in Western Sahara.
In the southern parts of Western Sahara, in the Dakhla area, a big fruit and vegetable industry has developed since around 2004, based on usage of underground
fresh water reservoirs. Several thousand new Moroccan settlers are employed in this industry – one Moroccan source mentions 5000 people. The exports are
mainly to the close European markets.
Linked to all these businesses, a number of foreign companies work on infrastructure projects in Western Sahara, such as energy projects, port/harbour
works, desalination programmes, water drilling, and lately also on tourism.
From the companies’ point of view
Sometimes you find that companies had good intentions when they decide to invest and settle in Western Sahara. Some companies have even been supported
by foreign aid money, especially certain projects related to building of infrastructure or other projects with a social purpose.
Although many of them are in close contact with their own governments or multinational institutions, they do not necessarily, regrettably, encounter any
form of criticism or political advice when starting upon such adventures in occupied Western Sahara.
Take a fisheries company, for example. They would normally seek some kind of advice (e.g. regarding financial support, regulations, registration) from
their own authorities when they decide to go abroad. They would then normally make contact with their own fisheries ministry – and not with their ministries
of foreign affairs, where the knowledge of Western Sahara issue would normally be located.
For the EU countries involved in the EU-Moroccan Fisheries Partnership Agreement, the fisheries ministries would then consult their companies on licences,
catches and reporting. At times, it could actually be the ministry itself that promoted the companies to look for the opportunities in Western Sahara.
The companies are completely surrounded with other interests without knowledge of the conflict. They meet Moroccan trade partners in Fairs in Europe or
in Morocco, and deal loans with banks unfamiliar with the issue. Their boards or shareholders might have never heard of the conflict.
And the information they get on the fish stocks, could be coming for instance from UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), which explores the occupied
waters in cooperation with Moroccan research institutions, and with Moroccans on board its research vessels.
And once their operations in Western Sahara start, they hand in their catches to factories that are even certified by the European Union. When they label
their products for export to the EU, the name of the certified production unit is then inserted in the certificates of origin, which accompany the product
on its journey abroad. And the importer in Europe is obliged to report on which country it comes from, namely “Morocco”. There are dozens, or hundreds,
of EU certified companies within Western Sahara. This is very unlike how the EU treats producers located on Israeli-occupied land.
The natural resources as politics
Taken into account that companies could avoid ever having discussed the Western Sahara issue with national governments, financial institutions, owners,
industry organisations, it is perhaps not strange that some companies themselves are surprised when they suddenly come in the spotlight of campaigns from
Sahrawis or from the Western Sahara solidarity movement. Some companies actually state that they have never heard of the conflict when they are approached
the first time. The only source of information they ever got on the conflict, was obtained form the Moroccan trading partners in Western Sahara, or Moroccan
authorities or media.
“We have been here for years, and this is the first time we hear of this issue”, one company stated in 2002. “I have been explained that the Sahrawis don’t
want to take part in our project”, the CEO of another company stated in 2005.
The companies themselves often underline that they do not themselves engage in politics, only business. But that does not seem to prevent the very same
companies from coming with strong political statements, in support of the Moroccan position. In that way, they become tools of the Moroccan strategy for
colonising Western Sahara.
“There is no conflict. And the UN has by the way given Western Sahara to Morocco a long time ago”, said TotalFinaElf’s ethics director in 2001, after getting
one of the oil reconnaissance licences offshore the territory.
“The acreage is disputed with (sic) Western Sahara, but Kosmos believes it has made the right bet as to which party will prevail”, the US oil company Kosmos
Energy wrote in a recent report.
The strongest private defenders of the legality of the industry, and of the Moroccan position, are naturally those who are most dependent on the natural
resources in Western Sahara, or those who have invested most money in the territory. The phosphate importers have been among most active.
For a long time, a number of the phosphate importers have claimed that their imports are in line with international law, and positive to the development
of the region. This contrasts other reports by Sahrawis themselves. Only recently, has it been revealed that the phosphate companies that defend their
involvement are relying on a legal analysis made by a Washington based law firm called Covington & Burling, which is supposedly proving that the phosphate
industry on the ground in Western Sahara is both good for development, and in line with international law. The problem is that neither the importers, nor
the US law firm wishes to disclose the legal analysis. It thus remains unknown for the public, even for the Sahrawis themselves, how the industry has come
to the conclusion that the people of Western Sahara is benefiting from the industry.
Governments start taking position
In other words, in addition to the offering of employment opportunities and income for Morocco, the resource plundering has an important political dimension.
The companies are, in their turn, sometimes supported by their home governments. The political support is showed either through direct political statements
favouring the companies involved, or through lack of visible will to stop them.
Many of the governments that have been confronted with their companies’ involvement state that due to the absence of UN Security Council sanctions 1) the
industry must be legal and 2) there is nothing they can to do to prevent their companies from being involved.
Other arguments are also used. The New Zealand case could serve as an example. Former New Zealand Minister of Trade, Phil Goff, stated this:
“I am advised that there are no legal grounds for banning the trade from Morocco. Indeed, to do so would be subject to a legal challenge from Morocco under
international trade law” . Later New Zealand would precise that such a ban can be in violation of GATT regulations. This interpretation shows also lack
of ability to differ the territory of Western Sahara from the neighbouring territory of Morocco: Western Sahara is not part of GATT, only Morocco is.
He also stated that they did not know whether the Sahrawis benefited or not.
Two years later, in 2008, the government admitted that such benefits are not applied to support for the exercise of the right to self-determination. They
also state that the respect for self-determination over the natural resources is a matter for Morocco to consider, not for the companies that take part
in it.
“I was told by Morocco that the local community is benefiting through the provision of money, jobs, infrastructure and services. Clearly, however, such
benefits are not applied to support for the exercise of the right to self-determination, including independence: Morocco continues to claim sovereignty
over the Western Sahara. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Morocco’s approach, the responsibility is Morocco’s. New Zealand companies breach no laws in
importing phosphate extracted from Western Sahara, or marketing fish caught off its coast.”
In this way, the government of New Zealand basically rejects that they or their companies or the government itself have responsibilities in matters of
international law in the case of Western Sahara.
Another grave example is how the EU Commission on one side claims to support the Sahrawis’ right to self-determination, while on the other enters into
agreements with Morocco for natural resources plundering of Western Sahara, stating it is politically irrelevant.
“The Commission wants to avoid that a Fisheries Agreement, which is an act of economic cooperation, be manipulated in a political context. The Moroccan
government has had a very explicit attitude on this”, the EU chief negotiator on the fisheries agreement said to Europapress 28 July 2006.
Interestingly, even the Moroccan government seem to disagree with the EU. Trade agreements covering Western Sahara has indeed important political dimensions:
“In a recent interview with ALM, Mohamed Laenser, Minister of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, indicated that the financial aspect was not
necessarily the most important with this [EU Fisheries Partnership] agreement. The political aspect is not less important, Mr. Laenser added“.
Some governments, however, do recognise that despite the absence of UN Security Council resolutions, it might still be in violation of international law,
and that the industries must stop.
“The Swedish government’s position when it comes to understanding international law in this matter is clear. The area we today call Western Sahara […]
is occupied by Morocco. […] Morocco has no right to exploit the natural resources in Western Sahara for its own benefit.”
As to this day, a handful of states have come with unambiguous statements to their own companies, urging them to stay away from Western Sahara. Norway
and Sweden have gone farthest. The Norwegian government has issued on their homepages a statement to Norwegian companies, urging Norwegian companies to
stay away from the territory , and says that the trade might be in violation of the Convention of the Law of the Sea. Also Ireland and Denmark have come
with interesting statements in this regard.
Upon its divestment from the US oil company Kerr-McGee, the Norwegian government stated that Kerr-McGee’s oil exploration in Western Sahara was “a particularly
serious violation of fundamental ethical norms e.g. because it may strengthen Morocco’s sovereignty claims and thus contribute to undermining the UN peace
process”.
Countries like USA or Switzerland have specified that their trade cooperation with Morocco only apply to Morocco as it is internationally recognised, not
including Western Sahara. In such statements, the Sahrawis today find important political support.
Several private companies have taken notice of this development. A dozen companies in fisheries, phosphates, oil and shipping industry have withdrawn from
Western Sahara after pressure from Sahrawis, the civil society and national governments.
There is a clear tendency that governments and private companies look to the practice of other governments and competing firms, in establishing policy
and practice in the issue of participation of natural resources plundering in Western Sahara.
Natural resources related statements from governments defending the Sahrawi people’s right to self-determination over their own natural resources, have
therefore important domino effect on other states, and has an important preventive function vis-à-vis companies that consider establishing on the land
before the conflict is solved.
In this context it can be noted that some governments with a strong position in defence of the Sahrawis’ right to self-determination and independence,
have still not issued public statements or advice to their own companies as to how they should relate to the natural resources exploitation in Western
Sahara.
Pretoria, South Africa
Erik Hagen
journalist from Norway
www.norwatch.no
The role of natural resources in the Western Sahara conflict, and the interests involved
[trad. al espanol]
Some attribute the rich phosphate deposits in Western Sahara as one of the reasons why
Morocco developed claims to Western Sahara in the first place. “One Kuwait in the Arab world is enough”, King Hassan II allegedly said, justifying the
1975 invasion mineral rich Sahara.
Although there might have been several reasons to the occupation itself than only natural resources, the resources today play a central role in strengthening
Morocco’s presence in the territory. The industries offer job opportunities to tens, or perhaps hundreds, of thousands of Moroccan settlers, and provide
important incomes for the Moroccan government. The international commercial presence in Western Sahara furthermore offers a sign of political acceptance
of the occupation.
The parts of Western Sahara under Moroccan control contain two important natural resources that are crucial to industries worldwide: fish and phosphates.
In addition to that, there is a growing agriculture industry, sand and possibly oil.
After going through the industries and the international presence, while touching upon its socio-economic effects, I will look at the reasons the companies
give for their presence, and the political implications of the activities.
The Western Saharan resources
The phosphate industry
Spain made the first phosphate discoveries south east of El Aaiun in the late 1940s. Up until the 70s Spain invested largely in developing infrastructure
for the phosphate production. Today, one can still see the outcome of the investments: the world’s largest conveyor belt, 100 kilometers long, transporting
the phosphates from the deposits in Bu Craa, out to the harbour where the phosphate rock is washed, dried, stockpiled, and later shipped over to vessels
waiting to be filled up.
And it is indeed a flourishing industry nowadays. Anyone visiting El Aaiun harbour in October-November 2008 could see up to 5 bulk vessels lining up one
after the other, waiting to be loaded with the cargo.
It is not that easy to see, however, how the Moroccan take-over of the phosphate industry can have been beneficial to the Sahrawis. A report by the French
organisation France Libertés -Fondation Danielle Mitterrand , showed that the Sahrawis have been systematically marginalised from the phosphate industry
in Bu Craa. In 1968, few years before Morocco took control over the phosphate mines, most of the 1600 workers in the industry were Sahrawis. Today, only
some 200 people of the 2000 workers are reported to be of that origin, according to the Sahrawi workers themselves. The rest are Moroccans who have moved
into the territory.
Every single week, discontented retired Sahrawi phosphate workers demonstrate in the streets of El Aaiun against what they say are lack of payments and
rights.
With a production of around 30 million tonnes of phosphate rock annually, Morocco is the biggest exporter of phosphate rock in the world. Of that volume,
about half is exported, and the last years, 3 million tonnes of that volume are of Western Sahara origin. The output from the Western Sahara mines has
gradually increased from 1,5-2 million tonnes during the 90s. The volume has over the years normally been limited by lack of sufficient infrastructure,
such as insufficient power and freshwater for Morocco’s state phosphate company, OCP.
With this year’s boom in prices and production, I would estimate that the production for 2008 will reach an all-time record, ending up closer to 4 million
tonnes.
During the last few years, one has now uncovered which companies in the world are importing the phosphates from Western Sahara. Approximately 16 companies
from 12 countries are today engaged in imports of these phosphates. Most of these firms import under long-term contracts, some up to 10 years of duration.
The phosphates are used mainly for production of fertilisers for the agriculture industry.
The biggest importers are to be found in USA, New Zealand, Australia, Mexico and Lithuania. Medium importers are located in Colombia, Venezuela, Spain,
Croatia, while Bulgaria, India and a few more imports on a more irregular basis.
With the increased production – and most of all due to increase of phosphate prices – it is easy to establish that OCP’s incomes in Western Sahara have
truly boomed. For several years, the global phosphate rock prices were more or less stable, at around 50 dollars a tonne. Then, from 2007 till today, the
price of phosphates has increased over 800%. The last weeks of October-November 2008, have seen a slight drop of prices again, and one tonne is now supposedly
worth around 414 dollars.
One single cargo of phosphate, for instance the one containing the 70.000 tonnes of phosphate rock carried by a Swiss owned vessel that arrived Louisiana,
USA, only two weeks ago, can thus be of the same value as the entire multilateral humanitarian aid to the refugee camps in one whole year, namely around
30 million USD.
Around 100 vessels depart from El Aaiun every year. Perhaps 150-300 shipping companies are involved in the transports annually. These companies come from
practically all European, North American and Asian shipping nations.
The United States is the biggest importer. For more than a decade, the US has received 99% of its imports from Morocco/Western Sahara. US importers could
have imported a total of roughly 10 million tonnes of Saharan phosphates over the last 20 years. With today’s phosphate price, if these 10 million tonnes
of phosphates had remained untouched awaiting a settlement of the conflict, its value would today have been around 4 billion USD – or 138 times as much
as what the international community gives to the refugee camps in Algeria through multilateral aid every year.
Morocco’s annual incomes from Bu Craa could for 2008 amount to around 1,7 billion dollars. That equals around 10000 dollars per Sahrawi refugee per year.
Multilateral aid to the refugee camps for 2007 equals 1,7 percent of the estimated income from Bu Craa for 2008, given that price is 414 dollars and production
is 4 million tonnes.
It is hard to come with a good explanation to the increased phosphate prices. One factor can be attributed to the increased volume of biofuel production,
which has triggered a high demand for fertilisers. This is rather ironic, because biofuel is normally considered a renewable replacement of hydrocarbons,
something which it is clearly not. Its expansion is rather dependent on another non-renewable resource, namely phosphorous.
The diminishing phosphate rock deposits globally means that other leading phosphate producing states, such as the US and China, are reluctant to export
their own phosphate rock.
It is estimated that the deposits in Bu Craa will be depleted by 2040-2050. That time period corresponds with what researchers estimate to be the global
peak for phosphorous production. With increased food and biofuel production, changed diets for a large part of the world population, and an intensified
scramble over the global phosphate reserves, it is very likely that we will observe a continued price increase for phosphate rock the coming decades, and
thus unprecedented income for OCP’s operations inside Western Sahara.
“With US and China tightening its grip around their own mined phosphates, and as the phosphate prices will continue to grow, the mines in Morocco and occupied
Western Sahara will become increasingly important for world phosphate importers and for the global agriculture industry. Western Sahara’s phosphate reserves
will become a real gold mine for Morocco in the future”, says one of the few researchers on global phosphate industry, Dana Cordell, at the Global Phosphorus
Research Initiative .
The Fisheries
Only a small minority of the Sahrawis, mostly from the Dakhla region in the south, have traditionally been engaged in fishing activities. With very few
exceptions, the industry today remains under Moroccan, not Sahrawi, control.
The fisheries industry has a crucial effect on the demography in the region, and thus probably also on the possibilities on finding a solution to the conflict.
With incentives such as reduced taxes and subsidies, housing programmes and social projects, the Moroccan government has succeeded to attract tens of thousands
of unemployed people from cities such as Agadir and Casablanca to settle in Western Sahara. And these people to a large extent find their jobs related
to the growing fisheries industry.
With the fish stocks diminishing after overfishing offshore Morocco proper, particularly offshore the Mediterranean coast, Western Saharan fisheries have
become increasingly important for Morocco. The main species are types of cephalopods and sardines. Some estimates suggest up to 70-90 percent of the Moroccan
catches are being landed in the harbour of Western Sahara. This has been facilitated by big investments in the ports of Dakhla, El Aaiun and Boujdour.
I would estimate a few hundred foreign companies have been identified in these industries by now, both fishing companies, manufacturers, exporters and
importers/distributors. This has been built up around a flourishing industry of processing, canning and freezing plants that have popped up along the coast.
The last decade has also seen developing an industry of fishmeal and fish oil exports, used for production of animal foods and health products in Europe.
The fish and fish products are exported mainly to the Middle East, Europe and East Asia.
The fisheries itself offshore Western Sahara is taking place on three levels.
a) EU or foreign states (such as Russia, Japan) having agreements with Morocco. These bilateral or multilateral agreements with Morocco do never mention
Western Sahara itself, but they are de facto applied for the waters adjacent to that territory.
b) private commercial fishing under Moroccan flag.
c) small-scale fishermen, living in settlements along the Western Sahara coast.
I will now quickly go through these three levels.
The best-known foreign fisheries agreement is the EU-Morocco Fisheries Partnership. Although the Russian agreement might be just as important on the fisheries
sector, I will only look into the EU agreement here.
There have been long traditions for foreign fishing in Western Sahara waters. For centuries, fishermen from the Canary Islands and from the Spanish mainland
have been chasing the resources off the Western Saharan coast. Just as Spain did with maintaining rights in the phosphate industry when leaving Western
Sahara, so they did with the fisheries. When Spain signed the Madrid Accords with Morocco and Mauritania, they made sure that they maintained rights to
licences offshore the territory. These rights have been more or less kept ever since, interrupted only in shorter periods. This has been very detrimental
for the Sahrawis. When Spain became member of the EU, Spain brought this tradition into the EU cooperation. Still, today, Spain has controlled the process
of the negotiation with Morocco, as well as most of the licences. 100 of the 114 licences under the current 144.4 million euro EU-Moroccan Fisheries Partnership
Agreement fell to Spain.
The EU-Moroccan Fisheries Partnership Agreement itself identifies that it is applicable to “the waters falling within the sovereignty or jurisdiction of
the Kingdom of Morocco”. The four years Agreement entered into force on March 1st, 2006.
When it was asked to have Western Saharan waters specifically excluded from the Agreement, the EU Commission replied it was not necessary. “The Commission
proposal is in conformity with the legal opinion of the United Nations issued in January 2002”, it stated , clearly misinterpreting the UN advice, and
the Sahrawi people’s wishes.
The EU chief negotiator of the Agreement, César Deben, stated in fact that that the EU Commission considers Western Sahara waters to be Moroccan, according
to the Madrid Accords from 1975, an agreement that the same UN opinion in practice considers invalid. Even more contradictory, most of the fisheries are
taking place offshore the southern parts Western Sahara – in the territory that the Madrid Accords ceded to Mauritania, not to Morocco.
After 7 different written questions to the EU Commission, it finally succeeded Members of the European Parliament to get an official statement from the
Commission in April 2008, that in fact fisheries have been going on inside Western Sahara under the current agreement .
The second category of fisheries is based on commercial licences to private companies under Moroccan flag, normally to owners of trawlers. Generally, for
a private company to enter fishing grounds outside of the governmental or EU fisheries partnerships, they must obtain Moroccan flag. Foreign firms mostly
get that through joint-ventures with Moroccan enterprises. Companies from countries such as Norway, Denmark, New Zealand and probably also Namibia/South
Africa seem to have been using this strategy to get access.
The last category of fisheries, is the one constituted by the small-scale Moroccan fishermen. They are either living in the towns of El Aaiun, Boujdour
or Dakhla, but also in separate, smaller fishing communities along the coast.
The small-scale fisheries often end up competing with the other two levels of fisheries over fishing rights. It is interesting to notice that even the
community of small-scale Moroccan fishermen are not necessarily satisfied with the Moroccan government’s issuing of licences to foreign governments or
private firms. There have been incidents of demonstrations carried out by the Moroccan fisheries communities against their own government, demanding increased
quotas.
There are also often reports of poor Moroccan control over the fishing, both the national and international commercial fleet, and there are occasionally
reports of foreign companies exceeding their quota, or using wrong fishing nets.
The possibilities of petroleum
To the contrary of their neighbour country to the east, Morocco produces no hydrocarbons. Completely dependent on imports, and with increasing oil prices,
the Moroccan government has been eager to make their own findings, both onshore and offshore its own territory.
From 2001, they continued earlier efforts from the mid-80s, and extended the petroleum searches also into Western Sahara, by granting petroleum reconnaissance
licences to the French firm TotalFinaElf (later Total) and to the American energy company Kerr-McGee. The awards sparked immediate protests from Polisario
Front, leading up to the much mentioned legal opinion from the UN secretariat in 2002 .
Although the UN opinion stated that "if further exploration and exploitation activities were to proceed in disregard of the interests and wishes of the
people of Western Sahara, they would be in violation of the principles of international law", that is exactly what is going on today on the oil sector.
Total and Kerr-McGee withdrew from the territory few years after the UN opinion, claiming that there were low prospects of finding oil on their allotted
blocks. But another company has picked up where Kerr-McGee left.
Immediately after Kerr-McGee’s departure in 2006, their Texas based partner Kosmos Energy signed a contract for continuation of the activities together
with the Moroccan state oil company ONHYM. There are indications that there could indeed be located petroleum offshore the so-called Boujdour block in
Western Sahara. Production is currently going on offshore North Mauritania, in what are supposedly the same geological layers. According to Kosmos Energy’s
own reports, they plan to drill in the Boujdour block in 2009.
The other current petroleum project in Western Sahara, consists of a joint venture headed by the small Irish oil company Island Oil and Gas. They have
a reconnaissance contract for a block onshore Western Sahara, overlapping the city of Smara, and actually covering both territories under Moroccan and
Polisario control. It is not clear whether they have actually carried out exploration on the ground yet. The zone is highly militarised, and a place with
frequent demonstrations by the Sahrawi organisations.
There are no sign that these oil companies have consulted the Sahrawi people prior to signing their contracts with the Moroccan government.
More industries developing
In addition to the fish and phosphates, and possibly oil, a few more key businesses have emerged over the years.
Western Sahara has for decades been an important exporter of sand. A majority of the sand purchasers have now been identified, being mostly on the Canary
Island and Madeira. The importers use the sand for construction industry purposes, and for maintenance of the constructed tourist beaches.
Furthermore, since the Spanish times, various metals and minerals have been explored in the territory, such as zirconium and iron.
A French company has recently entered into some kind of agreement for retreiving uranium from the phosphate mines in Western Sahara.
In the southern parts of Western Sahara, in the Dakhla area, a big fruit and vegetable industry has developed since around 2004, based on usage of underground
fresh water reservoirs. Several thousand new Moroccan settlers are employed in this industry – one Moroccan source mentions 5000 people. The exports are
mainly to the close European markets.
Linked to all these businesses, a number of foreign companies work on infrastructure projects in Western Sahara, such as energy projects, port/harbour
works, desalination programmes, water drilling, and lately also on tourism.
From the companies’ point of view
Sometimes you find that companies had good intentions when they decide to invest and settle in Western Sahara. Some companies have even been supported
by foreign aid money, especially certain projects related to building of infrastructure or other projects with a social purpose.
Although many of them are in close contact with their own governments or multinational institutions, they do not necessarily, regrettably, encounter any
form of criticism or political advice when starting upon such adventures in occupied Western Sahara.
Take a fisheries company, for example. They would normally seek some kind of advice (e.g. regarding financial support, regulations, registration) from
their own authorities when they decide to go abroad. They would then normally make contact with their own fisheries ministry – and not with their ministries
of foreign affairs, where the knowledge of Western Sahara issue would normally be located.
For the EU countries involved in the EU-Moroccan Fisheries Partnership Agreement, the fisheries ministries would then consult their companies on licences,
catches and reporting. At times, it could actually be the ministry itself that promoted the companies to look for the opportunities in Western Sahara.
The companies are completely surrounded with other interests without knowledge of the conflict. They meet Moroccan trade partners in Fairs in Europe or
in Morocco, and deal loans with banks unfamiliar with the issue. Their boards or shareholders might have never heard of the conflict.
And the information they get on the fish stocks, could be coming for instance from UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), which explores the occupied
waters in cooperation with Moroccan research institutions, and with Moroccans on board its research vessels.
And once their operations in Western Sahara start, they hand in their catches to factories that are even certified by the European Union. When they label
their products for export to the EU, the name of the certified production unit is then inserted in the certificates of origin, which accompany the product
on its journey abroad. And the importer in Europe is obliged to report on which country it comes from, namely “Morocco”. There are dozens, or hundreds,
of EU certified companies within Western Sahara. This is very unlike how the EU treats producers located on Israeli-occupied land.
The natural resources as politics
Taken into account that companies could avoid ever having discussed the Western Sahara issue with national governments, financial institutions, owners,
industry organisations, it is perhaps not strange that some companies themselves are surprised when they suddenly come in the spotlight of campaigns from
Sahrawis or from the Western Sahara solidarity movement. Some companies actually state that they have never heard of the conflict when they are approached
the first time. The only source of information they ever got on the conflict, was obtained form the Moroccan trading partners in Western Sahara, or Moroccan
authorities or media.
“We have been here for years, and this is the first time we hear of this issue”, one company stated in 2002. “I have been explained that the Sahrawis don’t
want to take part in our project”, the CEO of another company stated in 2005.
The companies themselves often underline that they do not themselves engage in politics, only business. But that does not seem to prevent the very same
companies from coming with strong political statements, in support of the Moroccan position. In that way, they become tools of the Moroccan strategy for
colonising Western Sahara.
“There is no conflict. And the UN has by the way given Western Sahara to Morocco a long time ago”, said TotalFinaElf’s ethics director in 2001, after getting
one of the oil reconnaissance licences offshore the territory.
“The acreage is disputed with (sic) Western Sahara, but Kosmos believes it has made the right bet as to which party will prevail”, the US oil company Kosmos
Energy wrote in a recent report.
The strongest private defenders of the legality of the industry, and of the Moroccan position, are naturally those who are most dependent on the natural
resources in Western Sahara, or those who have invested most money in the territory. The phosphate importers have been among most active.
For a long time, a number of the phosphate importers have claimed that their imports are in line with international law, and positive to the development
of the region. This contrasts other reports by Sahrawis themselves. Only recently, has it been revealed that the phosphate companies that defend their
involvement are relying on a legal analysis made by a Washington based law firm called Covington & Burling, which is supposedly proving that the phosphate
industry on the ground in Western Sahara is both good for development, and in line with international law. The problem is that neither the importers, nor
the US law firm wishes to disclose the legal analysis. It thus remains unknown for the public, even for the Sahrawis themselves, how the industry has come
to the conclusion that the people of Western Sahara is benefiting from the industry.
Governments start taking position
In other words, in addition to the offering of employment opportunities and income for Morocco, the resource plundering has an important political dimension.
The companies are, in their turn, sometimes supported by their home governments. The political support is showed either through direct political statements
favouring the companies involved, or through lack of visible will to stop them.
Many of the governments that have been confronted with their companies’ involvement state that due to the absence of UN Security Council sanctions 1) the
industry must be legal and 2) there is nothing they can to do to prevent their companies from being involved.
Other arguments are also used. The New Zealand case could serve as an example. Former New Zealand Minister of Trade, Phil Goff, stated this:
“I am advised that there are no legal grounds for banning the trade from Morocco. Indeed, to do so would be subject to a legal challenge from Morocco under
international trade law” . Later New Zealand would precise that such a ban can be in violation of GATT regulations. This interpretation shows also lack
of ability to differ the territory of Western Sahara from the neighbouring territory of Morocco: Western Sahara is not part of GATT, only Morocco is.
He also stated that they did not know whether the Sahrawis benefited or not.
Two years later, in 2008, the government admitted that such benefits are not applied to support for the exercise of the right to self-determination. They
also state that the respect for self-determination over the natural resources is a matter for Morocco to consider, not for the companies that take part
in it.
“I was told by Morocco that the local community is benefiting through the provision of money, jobs, infrastructure and services. Clearly, however, such
benefits are not applied to support for the exercise of the right to self-determination, including independence: Morocco continues to claim sovereignty
over the Western Sahara. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Morocco’s approach, the responsibility is Morocco’s. New Zealand companies breach no laws in
importing phosphate extracted from Western Sahara, or marketing fish caught off its coast.”
In this way, the government of New Zealand basically rejects that they or their companies or the government itself have responsibilities in matters of
international law in the case of Western Sahara.
Another grave example is how the EU Commission on one side claims to support the Sahrawis’ right to self-determination, while on the other enters into
agreements with Morocco for natural resources plundering of Western Sahara, stating it is politically irrelevant.
“The Commission wants to avoid that a Fisheries Agreement, which is an act of economic cooperation, be manipulated in a political context. The Moroccan
government has had a very explicit attitude on this”, the EU chief negotiator on the fisheries agreement said to Europapress 28 July 2006.
Interestingly, even the Moroccan government seem to disagree with the EU. Trade agreements covering Western Sahara has indeed important political dimensions:
“In a recent interview with ALM, Mohamed Laenser, Minister of Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, indicated that the financial aspect was not
necessarily the most important with this [EU Fisheries Partnership] agreement. The political aspect is not less important, Mr. Laenser added“.
Some governments, however, do recognise that despite the absence of UN Security Council resolutions, it might still be in violation of international law,
and that the industries must stop.
“The Swedish government’s position when it comes to understanding international law in this matter is clear. The area we today call Western Sahara […]
is occupied by Morocco. […] Morocco has no right to exploit the natural resources in Western Sahara for its own benefit.”
As to this day, a handful of states have come with unambiguous statements to their own companies, urging them to stay away from Western Sahara. Norway
and Sweden have gone farthest. The Norwegian government has issued on their homepages a statement to Norwegian companies, urging Norwegian companies to
stay away from the territory , and says that the trade might be in violation of the Convention of the Law of the Sea. Also Ireland and Denmark have come
with interesting statements in this regard.
Upon its divestment from the US oil company Kerr-McGee, the Norwegian government stated that Kerr-McGee’s oil exploration in Western Sahara was “a particularly
serious violation of fundamental ethical norms e.g. because it may strengthen Morocco’s sovereignty claims and thus contribute to undermining the UN peace
process”.
Countries like USA or Switzerland have specified that their trade cooperation with Morocco only apply to Morocco as it is internationally recognised, not
including Western Sahara. In such statements, the Sahrawis today find important political support.
Several private companies have taken notice of this development. A dozen companies in fisheries, phosphates, oil and shipping industry have withdrawn from
Western Sahara after pressure from Sahrawis, the civil society and national governments.
There is a clear tendency that governments and private companies look to the practice of other governments and competing firms, in establishing policy
and practice in the issue of participation of natural resources plundering in Western Sahara.
Natural resources related statements from governments defending the Sahrawi people’s right to self-determination over their own natural resources, have
therefore important domino effect on other states, and has an important preventive function vis-à-vis companies that consider establishing on the land
before the conflict is solved.
In this context it can be noted that some governments with a strong position in defence of the Sahrawis’ right to self-determination and independence,
have still not issued public statements or advice to their own companies as to how they should relate to the natural resources exploitation in Western
Sahara.
URGENT APPEAL FROM MEPs
URGENT APPEAL FROM MEPs
The Sahrawi activist and former political prisoner Ms. Haidar was arrested by Moroccan authorities on the 13th of November, at the airport, in El Aaiun
and was deported to Lanzarote, Spain. The arrest occurred while she was returning from a visit to several countries, including the United States , where
she was awarded the "Civil Courage Award 2009" by Train Foundation.
During this journey, Ms. Haidar has once again denounced the repression perpetrated by the Moroccan authorities in the Occupied Territories of Western Sahara
and has also launched an urgent appeal for the immediate and unconditional release of seven activists from advocacy organisations, human rights groups
and civil society, who were detained on the 8th of October. These activists, who have gathered information on violations of human rights in Western Sahara
, will have to answer before a military tribunal for several charges and they risk the death penalty.
We, Members of the European Parliament, urge the Moroccan authorities to:
allow, without any delay, the return of Ms. Aminatou Haidar to her country, Western Sahara
comply with Article 9 of the Moroccan Constitution and its obligations under Article 19 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by respecting
freedom of expression and by immediately releasing Alnasiri Ahmed Brahim Dahane, Yahdih Ettarouzi Saleh Labihi, Dakja Lashgari, Sghir Rashid, Ali Salem
Tamek and all other Saharawi political prisoners
allow freedom of access and movement within the territory for international observers and special correspondents
take concrete measures in order to ensure that all Sahrawis can exercise their right to freedom of expression, association and assembly enshrined in international
law
allow Sahrawi's human rights defenders to collect and disseminate information and opinions on human rights issues without fear of being brought to trial,
harassed or subjected to intimidation, according to the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society on the
promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 9th of December of 1998
Bruselas /Bruxelles/Brussels, 18.11.2009
Firmas/Signatures:
Ana Gomes
Miguel Portas
Raul Romeva
Willy Meyer
Judith Sargentini
Ska Keller
Jill Evans
Barbara Lochbihler
Ulrike Lunacek
Nicole Kiil-Nielsen
Frieda Brepoels
Michael Cashman
Jean-Paul Besset
Françoise Castex
Bart Staes
Oriol Junqueras Vies
Heide Rühle
Norbert Neuser
Rui Tavares
Marisa Matias
Patrick Le Hyaric
Eva-Britt Svensson
Lothar Bisky
José Bové
Linda Mcaven
François Alfonsi
Pascal Canfin
Yannick Jadot
Catherine Grèze
Guido Milana
The Sahrawi activist and former political prisoner Ms. Haidar was arrested by Moroccan authorities on the 13th of November, at the airport, in El Aaiun
and was deported to Lanzarote, Spain. The arrest occurred while she was returning from a visit to several countries, including the United States , where
she was awarded the "Civil Courage Award 2009" by Train Foundation.
During this journey, Ms. Haidar has once again denounced the repression perpetrated by the Moroccan authorities in the Occupied Territories of Western Sahara
and has also launched an urgent appeal for the immediate and unconditional release of seven activists from advocacy organisations, human rights groups
and civil society, who were detained on the 8th of October. These activists, who have gathered information on violations of human rights in Western Sahara
, will have to answer before a military tribunal for several charges and they risk the death penalty.
We, Members of the European Parliament, urge the Moroccan authorities to:
allow, without any delay, the return of Ms. Aminatou Haidar to her country, Western Sahara
comply with Article 9 of the Moroccan Constitution and its obligations under Article 19 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by respecting
freedom of expression and by immediately releasing Alnasiri Ahmed Brahim Dahane, Yahdih Ettarouzi Saleh Labihi, Dakja Lashgari, Sghir Rashid, Ali Salem
Tamek and all other Saharawi political prisoners
allow freedom of access and movement within the territory for international observers and special correspondents
take concrete measures in order to ensure that all Sahrawis can exercise their right to freedom of expression, association and assembly enshrined in international
law
allow Sahrawi's human rights defenders to collect and disseminate information and opinions on human rights issues without fear of being brought to trial,
harassed or subjected to intimidation, according to the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society on the
promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 9th of December of 1998
Bruselas /Bruxelles/Brussels, 18.11.2009
Firmas/Signatures:
Ana Gomes
Miguel Portas
Raul Romeva
Willy Meyer
Judith Sargentini
Ska Keller
Jill Evans
Barbara Lochbihler
Ulrike Lunacek
Nicole Kiil-Nielsen
Frieda Brepoels
Michael Cashman
Jean-Paul Besset
Françoise Castex
Bart Staes
Oriol Junqueras Vies
Heide Rühle
Norbert Neuser
Rui Tavares
Marisa Matias
Patrick Le Hyaric
Eva-Britt Svensson
Lothar Bisky
José Bové
Linda Mcaven
François Alfonsi
Pascal Canfin
Yannick Jadot
Catherine Grèze
Guido Milana
miércoles 15 de abril de 2009
congratulation rabab amidane!
Before anything, let me recomend you her chanel in you-tube (it's in English) www.you-tube.com/freesahara
I recently read a news about rabab Amidane, very peace of news, she won a prize of peace for students in Norway.
I paste copy here the article that i 've found about the prize and how she is.
from this blog, ¡congratulation friend
and thank you for not stoping for fighting in favour of Human rights in Western Sahara, even, when the international comunity doesn't hear us.
the international comunity give us food but not the most important, our independence, sould be cheaper give mantenance for leaving in a desert where there is nothing than let us use our resources.
thank you and congratulation.
udent Peace Prize goes to Rabab Amidane from Western Sahara
rabab1_510.jpg
Press Release from the Students' Peace Prize, Norway, 3 February 2009.
Published: 04.02 - 2009 10:50
Printer version
Press release
Amidane is awarded the Peace Prize for her work for human rights, students' rights and peace in Western Sahara.
Amidane is contributing to inform the world about the discrimination and the violence that the Sahrawis are exposed to by the Moroccan government. Even
though Amidane uses peaceful means in her fight for human rights, she has been exposed to torture and arrested by the Moroccan police several times.
Documenting violation of human rights
An important part of Amidane's work is to document the situation in Western Sahara by taking photos and writing reports for the Sahrawi human rights organization
CODESA. Amidane publishes a lot of the material on the Internet, such as videos of students being attacked by the police. Publishing the videos has led
to anonymous threats towards the Peace Prize laureate.
Travelling abroad
Amidane travels abroad to tell the rest of the world about the conditions of the Sahrawis in Western Sahara. When she visited Norway in 2007, Amidane met
the Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, and she asked the Norwegian state to support Western Sahara's demands for independence. By meeting political
leaders and people with a lot of resources, Amidane could make the world recognize the conflict in Western Sahara. In cooperation with Norwegian youth's
political parties and the Norwegian Support Committee for Western Sahara, Amidane has been able to make the present conflict in Western Sahara relevant
in Norway.
A Contribution to Peace
“By giving the Student Peace Prize to Rabab Amidane the conflict is becoming more visible, which is an important contribution to peace in Western Sahara,”
claims the member of the Student Peace Prize Committee and former leader of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Ole Danbolt Mjøs. The conflict in Western Sahara
has been going on for more than 30 years, but only a few people know about the violation of human rights committed by the Moroccan government. A referendum
about Western Sahara's right of autonomy should have been carried through a long time ago, but nothing has happened yet. “The Student Peace Prize can contribute
to carry through the referendum, and to a just peace in Western Sahara,” continues Mjøs.
The fight for students' rights and human rights in general is an important part of the fight for peace. That is why it is important to give the Student
Peace Prize to an human rights activist like Rabab Amidane. “There will be no just peace without respect for the human rights”, claims Mjøs. Students are
important resources in the fight for a better society and a just world. “With her peaceful methods Rabab is doing a wonderful job for Western Sahara. The
Student Peace Prize is going to be an encouragement for Rabab and her future work with human rights and the struggle for a peaceful solution in Western
Sahara,” finishes Mjøs.
I recently read a news about rabab Amidane, very peace of news, she won a prize of peace for students in Norway.
I paste copy here the article that i 've found about the prize and how she is.
from this blog, ¡congratulation friend
and thank you for not stoping for fighting in favour of Human rights in Western Sahara, even, when the international comunity doesn't hear us.
the international comunity give us food but not the most important, our independence, sould be cheaper give mantenance for leaving in a desert where there is nothing than let us use our resources.
thank you and congratulation.
udent Peace Prize goes to Rabab Amidane from Western Sahara
rabab1_510.jpg
Press Release from the Students' Peace Prize, Norway, 3 February 2009.
Published: 04.02 - 2009 10:50
Printer version
Press release
Amidane is awarded the Peace Prize for her work for human rights, students' rights and peace in Western Sahara.
Amidane is contributing to inform the world about the discrimination and the violence that the Sahrawis are exposed to by the Moroccan government. Even
though Amidane uses peaceful means in her fight for human rights, she has been exposed to torture and arrested by the Moroccan police several times.
Documenting violation of human rights
An important part of Amidane's work is to document the situation in Western Sahara by taking photos and writing reports for the Sahrawi human rights organization
CODESA. Amidane publishes a lot of the material on the Internet, such as videos of students being attacked by the police. Publishing the videos has led
to anonymous threats towards the Peace Prize laureate.
Travelling abroad
Amidane travels abroad to tell the rest of the world about the conditions of the Sahrawis in Western Sahara. When she visited Norway in 2007, Amidane met
the Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, and she asked the Norwegian state to support Western Sahara's demands for independence. By meeting political
leaders and people with a lot of resources, Amidane could make the world recognize the conflict in Western Sahara. In cooperation with Norwegian youth's
political parties and the Norwegian Support Committee for Western Sahara, Amidane has been able to make the present conflict in Western Sahara relevant
in Norway.
A Contribution to Peace
“By giving the Student Peace Prize to Rabab Amidane the conflict is becoming more visible, which is an important contribution to peace in Western Sahara,”
claims the member of the Student Peace Prize Committee and former leader of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Ole Danbolt Mjøs. The conflict in Western Sahara
has been going on for more than 30 years, but only a few people know about the violation of human rights committed by the Moroccan government. A referendum
about Western Sahara's right of autonomy should have been carried through a long time ago, but nothing has happened yet. “The Student Peace Prize can contribute
to carry through the referendum, and to a just peace in Western Sahara,” continues Mjøs.
The fight for students' rights and human rights in general is an important part of the fight for peace. That is why it is important to give the Student
Peace Prize to an human rights activist like Rabab Amidane. “There will be no just peace without respect for the human rights”, claims Mjøs. Students are
important resources in the fight for a better society and a just world. “With her peaceful methods Rabab is doing a wonderful job for Western Sahara. The
Student Peace Prize is going to be an encouragement for Rabab and her future work with human rights and the struggle for a peaceful solution in Western
Sahara,” finishes Mjøs.
domingo 9 de noviembre de 2008
the Stealing of Western sahara
Hello friends.
today, I recomend you to read a very good article for understanding the real origen of the problem and why are now on so bad situation. Note that the data are from 1976, and now there is much more habitans.
I leave here the introduction and then the links for get the article because is quite long.
Not only Marocco and spain are the responsibles for our situation, also United State and France are very big responsibles, they always say that they are defending the human rights in the world, but for us there is no Human Rights, not respect for allow us to make a referendum for deciding our future.
OK, Y paste the introduction and below the links.
Thank you
THE STEALING OF THE SAHARA
By Thomas M. Franck *
INTRODUCTION
The Western—or, until now, Spanish—Sahara is a small place, its de¬colonization and the fortunes of its mere 75,000 inhabitants do not attract instant or prolonged public attention. Nevertheless, or, perhaps, in part for that very reason, the disposition of the Sahara case by the United Nations has been monumentally mishandled, creating a precedent with a potential for future mischief out of all proportion to 'the importance of the territory.
The "settlement" of the Saharan issue in favor of Morocco's claim of historic title and the denial of self-determination to the Sahrawi people radically departs from the norms of decolonization established and con¬sistently applied by the United Nations since 1960. This is bound to have an important significance for numerous other irredentist territorial claims such as those of Guatemala on Belize,1 Somalia on Djibouti,2 and Argentina on the Falkland Islands.3 Even as Morocco and Mauritania solidified their hold on the Sahara in February 1976, Marshal Idi Amin of Uganda laid claim to large parts of Kenya and the Sudan on the basis of tribal affinity and history.4 In due course, an Arab Palestine will almost certainly ad¬vance territorial claims against Israel. Indeed it may not be long before Morocco renews its quiescent designs on its partner, Mauritania.5 The
0 Of the Board of Editors. Part of this study was underaken by the author in his
capacity as Director of the International Law Program of the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, although the views expressed are his own. The author wishes to
thank Mr. Paul Hoffman, his research assistant at Carnegie, for invaluable assistance.
1 For a recent summary of UN consideration of the Belize case, see The Report of
the Special Committee on the Situation "With Regard to the Implementation of the
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, UN
Doc. A/10023/Add.8 (Part III), at 15-29 (1975).
2 The London Times has noted that "if the French withdraw completely, it seems
certain that Somalia, on the model of Morocco in Spanish Sahara, will seize it during
the ensuing troubles between the Issa and Afar factions." The Times (London),
Feb. 8, 1976, at 15 (editorial). For a recent summary of UN consideration of this
issue, see The Report of the Special Committee on the Situation With Regard to the
Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun¬
tries and Peoples, UN Doc. A/10023/Add.6 (Part II) (1975).
3 Supra note 1, at 3-14.
^The Times (London), Feb. 17, 1976, at 7; id, Feb. 20, 1976, at 6; id. Feb. 25, 1976, at 7.
5 Morocco long opposed the independence of Mauritania. In the historic debate on Resolution 15I4(XV) Morocco accused the French of attempting "to partition Morocco and disrupt its national territorial unity, by setting up an artificial State in the area of Southern Morocco which the colonialists call Mauritania. The population of that area does not even know the word 'Mauritania." If you tell a Bedouin of so-called Mauritania that you are in Mauritania, he will not understand what you are
698 TOE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Yol, TO1
readjustment. This paramountcy of contemporary self-determination over historic claims and the alleviation of ancient wrongs is based on two con¬siderations. First, there is the assumption that any other approach would lead to endless conflicts, as modern states found themselves under pressure to join a general reversionary march backward to a status quo ante of uncertain age and validity. Second, it is widely observed that states or even colonies with established boundaries and fixed populations, however unjustly or serendipitously arrived at, soon develop a cohesive logic of then- own that should not be lightly overriden.
It is for these reasons that African states have insisted that each colony, in the final stage of decolonization, must exercise its "right" of self-deter¬mination within the cortanes of established boundaries. Even though, in some cases, this tends to perpetuate certain historic injustices or cultural hardships, it has been recognized that other alternatives are worse. To at¬tempt a wholesale redrawing of the map of Africa on the basis of ancient claims or of tribal links could only lead to chaos, war, and the unraveling of a continent's state system. Africa's post-independence leaders under¬stood that, while there were injustices, they could better be dealt with through functional arrangements between sovereign states such as regional common services and markets, rights of unhindered movement across frontiers, and, perhaps, federations.
So it was at the insistence of the Third World that the landmark UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,19 while proclaiming that "[a]U peoples have the right to self-determination" 20 also warned that "[a]ny attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."21 The Organization of African Unity has reenforced the rule that territories must exercise their right to self-determination within established colonial boundaries.22 If a territory wishes to join with one or several neighboring states, it should have the right to manifest that preference in the process of decolonization, but it must be the free choice of the majority in that particular colony, and a territory with recognized boundaries may neither be absorbed nor dismembered against the will of its inhabitants.
UN PRACTICE IN IMPLEMENTING THE RULE OF SELF-DETERMINATION WITHIN ESTABLISHED COLONIAL BOUNDARIES
The record of democracy in the new states (or, for that matter, in a majority of the old) would scarcely overjoy Montesquieu or J. S. Mill. In
i9G.A. Res. 1514, 15 GAOR Supp. 16, at 66-67, UN Doc. A/4684 (1966).
20 Id, Art 2.
si Id. Art. 8.
«OAU Assembly AHG/Res. 17(1), Cairo Ordinary Session, 17-21 July 1984. See also The Charter of the Organization of African Unity, Article 3(3), which pledges "respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each State and for its inalienable right to independent existence."
IS7S] THE STEALING OF THE SAHABA 355
"sleeping dogs of historic title" have tended to be constrained by the inter¬national community's insistence that established boundaries must be re¬spected and can only be changed with the free consent of the people living in each territory. Morocco and Mauritania, by their takeover of the Sahara without the consent of its people, have succeeded in frustrating the application of this norm and have taken the international system a blatant step toward a new set of mutually shared expectations about state behavior—incipient new norms—which are much more likely than their predecessor-rules to be conflict-inducing, even if their outlines are as yet dimly perceived.
The precedent is destabilizing in another, broader, way. The successful Moroccan-Mauritanian use of force to take control of the Western Sahara has strengthened the tendency of Third World states to pursue their na¬tional interest with military self-assertion rather than law and diplomacy, Nothing in international relations succeeds like success and in both Angola and the Sahara the use of force has been shown to work without significant opposition from the rest of the international community. These African events have had their echo in Asia with the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, another place where historic, geographic, and ethnic claims were asserted out of the barrels of rifles.8 To the extent that this lesson is taken to heart, it makes the world an increasingly dangerous place—a considera¬tion compounded by the Third World's leap into sophisticated weaponry.
The disposition of the Sahara case has already had a dramatic effect on world order, Some 80,000 Sahrawis have become refugees,7 creating great hardships as well as a severe strain on the facilities and budget of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. There has been active fighting involving the Algerian-supported Sahrawi liberation movement POLIS All! 3 (Frente Popular para la Liberation de Saguia el ilamra y Rio de Oro), with the Mauritanian Government reporting a two-day battle with heavy casualties in April 1978,8 two months after the Sahara had formally been "pacified" by the Moroccan and Mauritanian armies. Within the Organization of African Unity, the issue has been intensely divisive. Its political com¬mittee in February recommended support for the liberation forces, thereby provoking Morocco and Mauritania to threaten a walkout.0 Although the split was temporarily averted,10 Algeria and others have unilaterally recog¬nized a Saharan government-in-exile and Rabat and Nouakchott thereupon severed diplomatic relations with Algiers.11 It will not be long before other states are compelled to choose sides.12
talking about." 15 GAOR 947, at 1271 (1960) (remarks of Mr. Ben Aboud, Rep¬resentative of Morocco).
*It is estimated that nearly 80,000 Timorese have been killed in the course of the territory's decolonization. N.Y. Times, Feb. 15, 1976, at 11.
7The Times (London), April 2, 1976, at 7.
8 N.Y. Post, April 28, 1976, at 17.
9 N.Y, Times, Feb. 27, 1976, at 3,
'•o Id. March 1, 1976, at 3.
«Id. Feb. 28, 1978, at 6; id. March 8, 1976, at 7.
http://saharaoccidental.blogspot.com/2008/11/historical-document-documento-historico.html
URL of the docs in pdf:
The Stealing...
http://arso.org/TMFranck1976e.pdf
El Robo....
http://arso.org/TMFranck1976s.pdf
today, I recomend you to read a very good article for understanding the real origen of the problem and why are now on so bad situation. Note that the data are from 1976, and now there is much more habitans.
I leave here the introduction and then the links for get the article because is quite long.
Not only Marocco and spain are the responsibles for our situation, also United State and France are very big responsibles, they always say that they are defending the human rights in the world, but for us there is no Human Rights, not respect for allow us to make a referendum for deciding our future.
OK, Y paste the introduction and below the links.
Thank you
THE STEALING OF THE SAHARA
By Thomas M. Franck *
INTRODUCTION
The Western—or, until now, Spanish—Sahara is a small place, its de¬colonization and the fortunes of its mere 75,000 inhabitants do not attract instant or prolonged public attention. Nevertheless, or, perhaps, in part for that very reason, the disposition of the Sahara case by the United Nations has been monumentally mishandled, creating a precedent with a potential for future mischief out of all proportion to 'the importance of the territory.
The "settlement" of the Saharan issue in favor of Morocco's claim of historic title and the denial of self-determination to the Sahrawi people radically departs from the norms of decolonization established and con¬sistently applied by the United Nations since 1960. This is bound to have an important significance for numerous other irredentist territorial claims such as those of Guatemala on Belize,1 Somalia on Djibouti,2 and Argentina on the Falkland Islands.3 Even as Morocco and Mauritania solidified their hold on the Sahara in February 1976, Marshal Idi Amin of Uganda laid claim to large parts of Kenya and the Sudan on the basis of tribal affinity and history.4 In due course, an Arab Palestine will almost certainly ad¬vance territorial claims against Israel. Indeed it may not be long before Morocco renews its quiescent designs on its partner, Mauritania.5 The
0 Of the Board of Editors. Part of this study was underaken by the author in his
capacity as Director of the International Law Program of the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, although the views expressed are his own. The author wishes to
thank Mr. Paul Hoffman, his research assistant at Carnegie, for invaluable assistance.
1 For a recent summary of UN consideration of the Belize case, see The Report of
the Special Committee on the Situation "With Regard to the Implementation of the
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, UN
Doc. A/10023/Add.8 (Part III), at 15-29 (1975).
2 The London Times has noted that "if the French withdraw completely, it seems
certain that Somalia, on the model of Morocco in Spanish Sahara, will seize it during
the ensuing troubles between the Issa and Afar factions." The Times (London),
Feb. 8, 1976, at 15 (editorial). For a recent summary of UN consideration of this
issue, see The Report of the Special Committee on the Situation With Regard to the
Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Coun¬
tries and Peoples, UN Doc. A/10023/Add.6 (Part II) (1975).
3 Supra note 1, at 3-14.
^The Times (London), Feb. 17, 1976, at 7; id, Feb. 20, 1976, at 6; id. Feb. 25, 1976, at 7.
5 Morocco long opposed the independence of Mauritania. In the historic debate on Resolution 15I4(XV) Morocco accused the French of attempting "to partition Morocco and disrupt its national territorial unity, by setting up an artificial State in the area of Southern Morocco which the colonialists call Mauritania. The population of that area does not even know the word 'Mauritania." If you tell a Bedouin of so-called Mauritania that you are in Mauritania, he will not understand what you are
698 TOE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Yol, TO1
readjustment. This paramountcy of contemporary self-determination over historic claims and the alleviation of ancient wrongs is based on two con¬siderations. First, there is the assumption that any other approach would lead to endless conflicts, as modern states found themselves under pressure to join a general reversionary march backward to a status quo ante of uncertain age and validity. Second, it is widely observed that states or even colonies with established boundaries and fixed populations, however unjustly or serendipitously arrived at, soon develop a cohesive logic of then- own that should not be lightly overriden.
It is for these reasons that African states have insisted that each colony, in the final stage of decolonization, must exercise its "right" of self-deter¬mination within the cortanes of established boundaries. Even though, in some cases, this tends to perpetuate certain historic injustices or cultural hardships, it has been recognized that other alternatives are worse. To at¬tempt a wholesale redrawing of the map of Africa on the basis of ancient claims or of tribal links could only lead to chaos, war, and the unraveling of a continent's state system. Africa's post-independence leaders under¬stood that, while there were injustices, they could better be dealt with through functional arrangements between sovereign states such as regional common services and markets, rights of unhindered movement across frontiers, and, perhaps, federations.
So it was at the insistence of the Third World that the landmark UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,19 while proclaiming that "[a]U peoples have the right to self-determination" 20 also warned that "[a]ny attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."21 The Organization of African Unity has reenforced the rule that territories must exercise their right to self-determination within established colonial boundaries.22 If a territory wishes to join with one or several neighboring states, it should have the right to manifest that preference in the process of decolonization, but it must be the free choice of the majority in that particular colony, and a territory with recognized boundaries may neither be absorbed nor dismembered against the will of its inhabitants.
UN PRACTICE IN IMPLEMENTING THE RULE OF SELF-DETERMINATION WITHIN ESTABLISHED COLONIAL BOUNDARIES
The record of democracy in the new states (or, for that matter, in a majority of the old) would scarcely overjoy Montesquieu or J. S. Mill. In
i9G.A. Res. 1514, 15 GAOR Supp. 16, at 66-67, UN Doc. A/4684 (1966).
20 Id, Art 2.
si Id. Art. 8.
«OAU Assembly AHG/Res. 17(1), Cairo Ordinary Session, 17-21 July 1984. See also The Charter of the Organization of African Unity, Article 3(3), which pledges "respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each State and for its inalienable right to independent existence."
IS7S] THE STEALING OF THE SAHABA 355
"sleeping dogs of historic title" have tended to be constrained by the inter¬national community's insistence that established boundaries must be re¬spected and can only be changed with the free consent of the people living in each territory. Morocco and Mauritania, by their takeover of the Sahara without the consent of its people, have succeeded in frustrating the application of this norm and have taken the international system a blatant step toward a new set of mutually shared expectations about state behavior—incipient new norms—which are much more likely than their predecessor-rules to be conflict-inducing, even if their outlines are as yet dimly perceived.
The precedent is destabilizing in another, broader, way. The successful Moroccan-Mauritanian use of force to take control of the Western Sahara has strengthened the tendency of Third World states to pursue their na¬tional interest with military self-assertion rather than law and diplomacy, Nothing in international relations succeeds like success and in both Angola and the Sahara the use of force has been shown to work without significant opposition from the rest of the international community. These African events have had their echo in Asia with the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, another place where historic, geographic, and ethnic claims were asserted out of the barrels of rifles.8 To the extent that this lesson is taken to heart, it makes the world an increasingly dangerous place—a considera¬tion compounded by the Third World's leap into sophisticated weaponry.
The disposition of the Sahara case has already had a dramatic effect on world order, Some 80,000 Sahrawis have become refugees,7 creating great hardships as well as a severe strain on the facilities and budget of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. There has been active fighting involving the Algerian-supported Sahrawi liberation movement POLIS All! 3 (Frente Popular para la Liberation de Saguia el ilamra y Rio de Oro), with the Mauritanian Government reporting a two-day battle with heavy casualties in April 1978,8 two months after the Sahara had formally been "pacified" by the Moroccan and Mauritanian armies. Within the Organization of African Unity, the issue has been intensely divisive. Its political com¬mittee in February recommended support for the liberation forces, thereby provoking Morocco and Mauritania to threaten a walkout.0 Although the split was temporarily averted,10 Algeria and others have unilaterally recog¬nized a Saharan government-in-exile and Rabat and Nouakchott thereupon severed diplomatic relations with Algiers.11 It will not be long before other states are compelled to choose sides.12
talking about." 15 GAOR 947, at 1271 (1960) (remarks of Mr. Ben Aboud, Rep¬resentative of Morocco).
*It is estimated that nearly 80,000 Timorese have been killed in the course of the territory's decolonization. N.Y. Times, Feb. 15, 1976, at 11.
7The Times (London), April 2, 1976, at 7.
8 N.Y. Post, April 28, 1976, at 17.
9 N.Y, Times, Feb. 27, 1976, at 3,
'•o Id. March 1, 1976, at 3.
«Id. Feb. 28, 1978, at 6; id. March 8, 1976, at 7.
http://saharaoccidental.blogspot.com/2008/11/historical-document-documento-historico.html
URL of the docs in pdf:
The Stealing...
http://arso.org/TMFranck1976e.pdf
El Robo....
http://arso.org/TMFranck1976s.pdf
I'm here again!
Hello everyone
I'm very happy to be here on the blog again.
Thank you very much for visiting me and sorry for so long time without any post, I'm sure that many people were interesting in my blog.
From now, I will try to write more times. For now, I invite you to come for the demostration on 15th November in Madrid, from Atocha to Plaza mayor, from 12nd untill 14th.
It's the most important demostration each year, because many people from many countries come to stay with us in the demostration.
So, ¡you are welcome for fighting in favour of our independence!
Thank you for all
Mahfud
I'm very happy to be here on the blog again.
Thank you very much for visiting me and sorry for so long time without any post, I'm sure that many people were interesting in my blog.
From now, I will try to write more times. For now, I invite you to come for the demostration on 15th November in Madrid, from Atocha to Plaza mayor, from 12nd untill 14th.
It's the most important demostration each year, because many people from many countries come to stay with us in the demostration.
So, ¡you are welcome for fighting in favour of our independence!
Thank you for all
Mahfud
miércoles 30 de julio de 2008
Hypocrites!
To those who, for so long, have silenced the legitimate claims of the Sahrawi people and their deep cries of anguish and pain.
To those who have systematically kept silent about the atrocities committed by the Moroccan Makhzen civil, military and religious hierarchy against the
Sahrawi people.
To those who looked away or silenced the rousing cries of the Spanish nation in support of their Sahrawian brothers and sisters.
To those who hastily signed shady alliances with a corrupt, criminal, colonial imperialist and genocidal regime.
To those who included the Western Sahara and its native population in the French-American neocon “pensée unique” package.
To those who tried to “encapsulate the Saharan conflict” in order to dedicate their time to more profitable affairs.
To those who advised on and financed the construction and arming of the largest military wall of our times and the widespread land-mining of Sahrawi territory.
To those who came to agreements with the fatuous and irredentist Moroccan Government in order to pillage the natural resources of the Western Sahara.
To those who, in sinister offices and governmental cabinets, coldly laid plans for the ignominious Green March and the infamous, illegal, immoral and politically
suicidal Tripartite Agreement of Madrid in 1975.
To those who, when it suited them, publicly supported the Sahrawi people, encouraged them in their fight against the invaders and assured them that their
“Party” would be with them until the final victory, and who then forgot them and abandoned them to the claws of a criminal regime and its “Africom” allies.
To those who oversaw the “model” Spanish Democratic Transition and then overlooked historic memory, renouncing the possibility of annulling the Tripartite
Agreement signed during Franco’s defamed regime and of recognising the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) as an independent, sovereign Constitutional
State, free of executioners, pillagers and criminals.
Those who kept silent on the genocidal the massacre of the Saharawi people, strafed and bombed when it was fleeing with napalm, white phosphorus and cluster
bombs from planes manufactured in ‘democratic’ States.
To those who give medals to suspected criminals, and treacherously and secretly sell or give arms to the Alaouite regime, violating the law and silencing
the will of the immense majority of the Sahrawi people.
To those who so quickly forgot that the Sahrawi solidarity movement represented what was “the noblest and best” of Spanish society, in the worn-out words
of the PSOE leader and ex-president of the Spanish Government, Felipe González.
To those who evade their historic, moral, legal and political responsibilities, who do not demand that international law is respected and applied, and who
would give lessons on “morality in the Hamada”.
To those who, in spite of all their attempts to gloss over the reality of the situation and historic evidence, now recognise that Law and Justice are on
the side of the Sahrawi people, but who twist and turn before what they call “political reality” (indulged and encouraged), that is, the rule of force,
invasion and military occupation of Western Sahara, the illegal settlement of hundreds of thousands of foreign colonists, and the daily fierce and systematic
repression of the Sahrawi civilian population.
To those who have tried, and continue trying by any means available, to brand the Polisario Front, and the most peace-loving and patient nation in the world,
as “terrorists”.
To those who have tried to cheat and divide - through sophistry, silence and lies - the Sahrawi solidarity movement.
To those who have never had to sew on a button in the desert, whose only information comes from films viewed from the comfort of their metropolitan, bureaucratic
armchairs, and have not suffered - or have forgotten - the hunger and thirst for Justice.
To those who have generously placed their disinformation resources at the service of the Makhzen spokespeople (mercenaries) and their imperial allies, denying
voice or word to the defenders of Justice and International Law.
To those who demanded the resignation of James Baker, concealing and silencing the denunciation and testimony of experts in the matter, such as that of
the American ex-ambassador, Frank Ruddy, among many others.
To those high-ranking officials heading MINURSO with the explicit brief to prevent the birth of a free, independent and genuine State south of the Moroccan
border, and who have carried out their mission “with pleasure”.
To those for whom the life of a Sahrawian child, woman or elderly person has never been of any importance, whose only interest has been their own well-being,
security, profits and personal interests, and who now protest hypocritically about the suffering of Sahrawian children in the Hamada, that hardest and
most inhospitable of deserts.
To those who, lacking authentic or credible “arguments”, now make use of the Sahrawian children as a new “argument” in order to break the will of the Sahrawi
people and force them to renounce their legitimate and inalienable rights, recognised since 1960 by the UN, the OAU/AU and the International Community,
without even mentioning those who are guilty of and responsible for the tragedy suffered by the attacked and massacred Sahrawi people, a tragedy which
is concealed behind the euphemism status quo.
To those who have not contributed a single school or educational institution, not even one single Spanish teacher (or of any other subject) in order to
preserve the native tongue of Cervantes in the tormented Sahrawi refugee camps, the only Arab nation to preserve Spanish as the official State language.
To those who are now tearing their hair out - or so they would have us believe - before the enormous suffering of this generous, hospitable and grateful
nation, whose patience and desire for peace has been tested to the limit.
To those who have never contributed a single euro in order to feed the impoverished Sahrawi nation (using hunger as a military and political tool), nor
stuck up a sticker, nor handed out a manifesto denouncing the status quo or supporting the Sahrawi cause, and who so generously lend their voices to the
Makhzen cause.
To those who have maintained a blessed silence, or caused it to be kept, regarding the outrages and permanent violations of Human Rights on the part of
the Moroccan authorities, in the Occupied Territories of Western Sahara.
To those who deny visas to Sahrawi leaders with the aim of preventing them from attending the International Conference of Legal Experts for the Sahara in
Las Palmas, Gran Canaria, so as not to offend the Alaouite regime, or simply "on orders" from above.
To those who put the innumerable letters they receive from readers and citizens indignant about the situation, in a bottomless drawer or throw them directly
into the wastepaper bin, silencing or twisting those questions which really matter to public opinion, lacking the courage to seek the truth and proclaim
it, as it is, to the four winds.
To those who, in order to avoid problems for themselves, have chosen to submit to the diktat of the Makhzen, of the ultra neocon Government of the Empire,
and its elitist and sophisticated French allies.
To those who validate, or accept without question, the entire battery of the illegal, genocidal, occupying invader’s wiles in order to prevent the decolonisation
of the last African colony, using the Sahrawi nation as a negotiating tool, conducting business behind its back and to its cost.
To those who pretend to suffer on behalf of this nation’s youngest members who have been expelled from their land, but have spent thirty three years without
breathing a word about the atrocities committed by the Moroccan authorities.
To those who have tried to fool public opinion by saying or insinuating that the Polisario Front is responsible for the dreadful situation, when it is precisely
the Front which has spent more than thirty years protecting their nation, denouncing the situation to the international community, building a State in
exile, a free and democratic society, and ceaselessly searching for a legitimate, dignified and lasting solution in accordance with the most fundamental
principles of International law.
To those who trick the Moroccan nation and divert their attention away from their real issues and from the causes and origins of their real problems, inflaming
them and making them believe that the Sahara belongs to them, in contrary to all international resolutions and reports.
To those who would have us believe that the Polisario Front - an international liberation movement - should concern itself with “democratising” the difficult-to-classify
Moroccan political regime, contravening (as has the CIA, throughout their history) the internationally recognised principle of not interfering in the internal
affairs of other countries, and avoiding any mention of how the Alaouite regime “treats” those, be they Sahrawi or Moroccan, who dare ask for justice and
freedom for their people. This responsibility, which if at concerns anyone at all, concerns the international community and the great political powers,
they give as if it were a gift to the Polisario Front!
To those who avoid suggesting a solution similar to that applied to the decolonisation of East Timor, the erstwhile colony of Portugal invaded by Indonesia
and now a free, independent and sovereign nation thanks to the painful struggle of the Timor nation and the correction of Portugal’s former mistakes.
It is incoherent, absolutely incoherent, that Portuguese leaders today refuse to approach the Western Sahara problem in the same way, but entirely “comprehensible”,
given the Azores photograph.
To those who applied chapter VII of the United Nations Charter to the case of Kuwait, or to the pirate ships of the Indian Ocean, but refuse to apply the
same international legal provisions to the Makhzen pirates, demanding and obliging the Moroccan Government to leave their colony, invaded and illegally
occupied with blood and arms, and to give its immediate consent to the referendum on self-determination ordered by the UN (“MINURSO”), leaving all options
open and with legal, democratic guarantees.
To those who imposed the independence of Kosovo, regardless of international law, and deny even the possibility of this option to a nation which has the
legal support of the international community.
To the ignorant and reactionary cave-dwellers of traditional Spain who, even today in the 21st century, dare to blame the Sahrawi nation for its tragic
situation, because they “wanted to gain independence from Spain”, ignoring the history of so many decolonisation processes (a million dead in the case
of Algeria) and the typical “reactionary reaction” of the metropolis; and who still believe, even today, that the colonised nations owe their lives to
the metropolis.
To those who, instead of making good use of the legal instruments available to Humanity (such as Chapter VII of the UN Charter) in order to bring about
a peaceful and effective solution to “conflicts” such as that in Western Sahara (so obvious that legal experts classify it as res ipsa loquitur, it speaks
for itself), would have us swallow the farce of sitting two absolutely unequal parties around a "negotiation" table: one party obviously responsible (res
ipsa loquitur), arrogant, armed to the teeth and with their occupation accomplished and financed, and the other, absolutely helpless and unprotected, whose
only arms are to have right and international law on their side, the historic experience of all decolonisation processes, and the overwhelming support
of society and of the International solidarity movement in favour of the Sahrawi people’s cause.
To all of these, this insignificant world citizen, entirely in his own name and accepting all personal responsibility, levels the accusation of action or
omission, and calls them hypocrites.
Luis Portillo Pasqual del Riquelme
Translated by Faitma Y., revised by Mary Rizzo, Tlaxcala
To those who have systematically kept silent about the atrocities committed by the Moroccan Makhzen civil, military and religious hierarchy against the
Sahrawi people.
To those who looked away or silenced the rousing cries of the Spanish nation in support of their Sahrawian brothers and sisters.
To those who hastily signed shady alliances with a corrupt, criminal, colonial imperialist and genocidal regime.
To those who included the Western Sahara and its native population in the French-American neocon “pensée unique” package.
To those who tried to “encapsulate the Saharan conflict” in order to dedicate their time to more profitable affairs.
To those who advised on and financed the construction and arming of the largest military wall of our times and the widespread land-mining of Sahrawi territory.
To those who came to agreements with the fatuous and irredentist Moroccan Government in order to pillage the natural resources of the Western Sahara.
To those who, in sinister offices and governmental cabinets, coldly laid plans for the ignominious Green March and the infamous, illegal, immoral and politically
suicidal Tripartite Agreement of Madrid in 1975.
To those who, when it suited them, publicly supported the Sahrawi people, encouraged them in their fight against the invaders and assured them that their
“Party” would be with them until the final victory, and who then forgot them and abandoned them to the claws of a criminal regime and its “Africom” allies.
To those who oversaw the “model” Spanish Democratic Transition and then overlooked historic memory, renouncing the possibility of annulling the Tripartite
Agreement signed during Franco’s defamed regime and of recognising the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) as an independent, sovereign Constitutional
State, free of executioners, pillagers and criminals.
Those who kept silent on the genocidal the massacre of the Saharawi people, strafed and bombed when it was fleeing with napalm, white phosphorus and cluster
bombs from planes manufactured in ‘democratic’ States.
To those who give medals to suspected criminals, and treacherously and secretly sell or give arms to the Alaouite regime, violating the law and silencing
the will of the immense majority of the Sahrawi people.
To those who so quickly forgot that the Sahrawi solidarity movement represented what was “the noblest and best” of Spanish society, in the worn-out words
of the PSOE leader and ex-president of the Spanish Government, Felipe González.
To those who evade their historic, moral, legal and political responsibilities, who do not demand that international law is respected and applied, and who
would give lessons on “morality in the Hamada”.
To those who, in spite of all their attempts to gloss over the reality of the situation and historic evidence, now recognise that Law and Justice are on
the side of the Sahrawi people, but who twist and turn before what they call “political reality” (indulged and encouraged), that is, the rule of force,
invasion and military occupation of Western Sahara, the illegal settlement of hundreds of thousands of foreign colonists, and the daily fierce and systematic
repression of the Sahrawi civilian population.
To those who have tried, and continue trying by any means available, to brand the Polisario Front, and the most peace-loving and patient nation in the world,
as “terrorists”.
To those who have tried to cheat and divide - through sophistry, silence and lies - the Sahrawi solidarity movement.
To those who have never had to sew on a button in the desert, whose only information comes from films viewed from the comfort of their metropolitan, bureaucratic
armchairs, and have not suffered - or have forgotten - the hunger and thirst for Justice.
To those who have generously placed their disinformation resources at the service of the Makhzen spokespeople (mercenaries) and their imperial allies, denying
voice or word to the defenders of Justice and International Law.
To those who demanded the resignation of James Baker, concealing and silencing the denunciation and testimony of experts in the matter, such as that of
the American ex-ambassador, Frank Ruddy, among many others.
To those high-ranking officials heading MINURSO with the explicit brief to prevent the birth of a free, independent and genuine State south of the Moroccan
border, and who have carried out their mission “with pleasure”.
To those for whom the life of a Sahrawian child, woman or elderly person has never been of any importance, whose only interest has been their own well-being,
security, profits and personal interests, and who now protest hypocritically about the suffering of Sahrawian children in the Hamada, that hardest and
most inhospitable of deserts.
To those who, lacking authentic or credible “arguments”, now make use of the Sahrawian children as a new “argument” in order to break the will of the Sahrawi
people and force them to renounce their legitimate and inalienable rights, recognised since 1960 by the UN, the OAU/AU and the International Community,
without even mentioning those who are guilty of and responsible for the tragedy suffered by the attacked and massacred Sahrawi people, a tragedy which
is concealed behind the euphemism status quo.
To those who have not contributed a single school or educational institution, not even one single Spanish teacher (or of any other subject) in order to
preserve the native tongue of Cervantes in the tormented Sahrawi refugee camps, the only Arab nation to preserve Spanish as the official State language.
To those who are now tearing their hair out - or so they would have us believe - before the enormous suffering of this generous, hospitable and grateful
nation, whose patience and desire for peace has been tested to the limit.
To those who have never contributed a single euro in order to feed the impoverished Sahrawi nation (using hunger as a military and political tool), nor
stuck up a sticker, nor handed out a manifesto denouncing the status quo or supporting the Sahrawi cause, and who so generously lend their voices to the
Makhzen cause.
To those who have maintained a blessed silence, or caused it to be kept, regarding the outrages and permanent violations of Human Rights on the part of
the Moroccan authorities, in the Occupied Territories of Western Sahara.
To those who deny visas to Sahrawi leaders with the aim of preventing them from attending the International Conference of Legal Experts for the Sahara in
Las Palmas, Gran Canaria, so as not to offend the Alaouite regime, or simply "on orders" from above.
To those who put the innumerable letters they receive from readers and citizens indignant about the situation, in a bottomless drawer or throw them directly
into the wastepaper bin, silencing or twisting those questions which really matter to public opinion, lacking the courage to seek the truth and proclaim
it, as it is, to the four winds.
To those who, in order to avoid problems for themselves, have chosen to submit to the diktat of the Makhzen, of the ultra neocon Government of the Empire,
and its elitist and sophisticated French allies.
To those who validate, or accept without question, the entire battery of the illegal, genocidal, occupying invader’s wiles in order to prevent the decolonisation
of the last African colony, using the Sahrawi nation as a negotiating tool, conducting business behind its back and to its cost.
To those who pretend to suffer on behalf of this nation’s youngest members who have been expelled from their land, but have spent thirty three years without
breathing a word about the atrocities committed by the Moroccan authorities.
To those who have tried to fool public opinion by saying or insinuating that the Polisario Front is responsible for the dreadful situation, when it is precisely
the Front which has spent more than thirty years protecting their nation, denouncing the situation to the international community, building a State in
exile, a free and democratic society, and ceaselessly searching for a legitimate, dignified and lasting solution in accordance with the most fundamental
principles of International law.
To those who trick the Moroccan nation and divert their attention away from their real issues and from the causes and origins of their real problems, inflaming
them and making them believe that the Sahara belongs to them, in contrary to all international resolutions and reports.
To those who would have us believe that the Polisario Front - an international liberation movement - should concern itself with “democratising” the difficult-to-classify
Moroccan political regime, contravening (as has the CIA, throughout their history) the internationally recognised principle of not interfering in the internal
affairs of other countries, and avoiding any mention of how the Alaouite regime “treats” those, be they Sahrawi or Moroccan, who dare ask for justice and
freedom for their people. This responsibility, which if at concerns anyone at all, concerns the international community and the great political powers,
they give as if it were a gift to the Polisario Front!
To those who avoid suggesting a solution similar to that applied to the decolonisation of East Timor, the erstwhile colony of Portugal invaded by Indonesia
and now a free, independent and sovereign nation thanks to the painful struggle of the Timor nation and the correction of Portugal’s former mistakes.
It is incoherent, absolutely incoherent, that Portuguese leaders today refuse to approach the Western Sahara problem in the same way, but entirely “comprehensible”,
given the Azores photograph.
To those who applied chapter VII of the United Nations Charter to the case of Kuwait, or to the pirate ships of the Indian Ocean, but refuse to apply the
same international legal provisions to the Makhzen pirates, demanding and obliging the Moroccan Government to leave their colony, invaded and illegally
occupied with blood and arms, and to give its immediate consent to the referendum on self-determination ordered by the UN (“MINURSO”), leaving all options
open and with legal, democratic guarantees.
To those who imposed the independence of Kosovo, regardless of international law, and deny even the possibility of this option to a nation which has the
legal support of the international community.
To the ignorant and reactionary cave-dwellers of traditional Spain who, even today in the 21st century, dare to blame the Sahrawi nation for its tragic
situation, because they “wanted to gain independence from Spain”, ignoring the history of so many decolonisation processes (a million dead in the case
of Algeria) and the typical “reactionary reaction” of the metropolis; and who still believe, even today, that the colonised nations owe their lives to
the metropolis.
To those who, instead of making good use of the legal instruments available to Humanity (such as Chapter VII of the UN Charter) in order to bring about
a peaceful and effective solution to “conflicts” such as that in Western Sahara (so obvious that legal experts classify it as res ipsa loquitur, it speaks
for itself), would have us swallow the farce of sitting two absolutely unequal parties around a "negotiation" table: one party obviously responsible (res
ipsa loquitur), arrogant, armed to the teeth and with their occupation accomplished and financed, and the other, absolutely helpless and unprotected, whose
only arms are to have right and international law on their side, the historic experience of all decolonisation processes, and the overwhelming support
of society and of the International solidarity movement in favour of the Sahrawi people’s cause.
To all of these, this insignificant world citizen, entirely in his own name and accepting all personal responsibility, levels the accusation of action or
omission, and calls them hypocrites.
Luis Portillo Pasqual del Riquelme
Translated by Faitma Y., revised by Mary Rizzo, Tlaxcala
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)