SPEAKERS URGE PRESSURE ON MOROCCO TO COOPERATE IN WESTERN SAHARA REFERENDUM, AS FOURTH COMMITTEE CONTINUES GENERAL DEBATE
| Press Release GA/SPD/286 |
Fifty-ninth General Assembly
Fourth Committee
4th Meeting (PM)
SPEAKERS URGE PRESSURE ON MOROCCO TO COOPERATE IN WESTERN SAHARA
REFERENDUM, AS FOURTH COMMITTEE CONTINUES GENERAL DEBATE
Representatives, Petitioners from Non-Self-Governing
Territories Are Heard; Situation of Gibraltar Also Discussed
Speakers called for international pressure on Morocco to cooperate with agreements for a referendum on self-determination for Western Sahara, as the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) continued its general debate this afternoon. It heard from representatives of Non-Self-Governing Territories and petitioners on Western Sahara and Gibraltar.
The representative of the Frente POLISARIO said that after many years of Morocco’s efforts to stall the referendum for Western Sahara, POLISARIO had agreed to implement the “Peace Plan for the Self-determination of the People of Western Sahara”, elaborated by the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General, James Baker and endorsed by the Security Council in resolution 1495 of July 2003. However, Morocco rejected the Peace Plan, as reported by the Secretary-General in his 23 April report to the Council.
The question of Western Sahara had reached a crossroads, he said, and the international community had the responsibility to choose whether it wanted its efforts in Western Sahara to succeed or fail. His organization had done its utmost on order to provide Morocco with an honourable way out of a colonial conflict that it itself had caused.
That statement was followed by those of nine petitioners representing Non-Governmental Organizations, the United States congressmen and others who supported POLISARIO’s position. Representing Congressman Joseph Pitts, Karen Finkler welcomed peace-building measures taken by the POLISARIO and said they had not been reciprocated by Morocco. She called on the United Nations to act strongly to assure that the referendum was implemented. Janet Lenz of the Sahawari Children’s Programme described the suffering of Sahawari refugees, saying they chose to remain “living in exile in a hostile, cruel desert in order to remain a Nation”.
On the issue of Gibraltar, Peter Caruana, Chief Minister of Gibraltar, said this year was the 300th anniversary of the United Kingdom’s sovereignty over the Territory, during which time the people of Gibraltar had developed as a distinct people, with a culture and heritage of its own. Both Gibraltar and Spain believed that Gibraltar should be decolonized. However, Spain wished to return the map of Europe to what it was in 1704 and claimed sovereignty of Gibraltar. He said that the annual consensus resolution adopted by the General Assembly, which called for talks between Spain and the United Kingdom should also call for the Government of Gibraltar, on behalf of the people of Gibraltar, to be fully present in any such talks. The matter should also be referred to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion.
The representative of Spain said his country intended to continue to negotiate for the benefit of the region, having heard the voice of the people of Gibraltar. The Spanish Government was determined to work for the establishment of harmonious and mutually beneficial cooperation in all fields, to make sure that the economy of Gibraltar was in line with the European Union norms. He maintained it would not make much sense to ask the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion of a legal nature on an issue that was mainly of a political nature and should be resolved in the political arena.
The leader of the opposition of Gibraltar, Joe Bossano, said he opposed the consensus decision that called on Spain and the United Kingdom to negotiate his country’s decolonization. Those countries and the United Nations had been hearing the voice of the Gibraltarians for 40 years now, but no one actually listened to what they had to say. They did not want their country to be part of Spain, in any shape or form, and were not prepared either to share their territory with Spain or to make any other concessions.
The representatives of Gabon and Senegal also spoke in the general debate this afternoon. The representative of the United Kingdom exercised his right of reply.
Carlyle Corbin, Representative for External Affairs of the United States Virgin Islands, also addressed the committee this afternoon.
As petitioners, the Committee also heard: Melody Divine, Foreign Affairs Advisor in the United States Congress; Suzanne Scholte, Defense Forum Foundation; Pedro Pinto Leite, International Platform of Jurists for East Timor; Jason Poblete, United States/Western Sahara Foundation; Louis Parascand, Faith Community Church; and Christina Del Valle, Plataforma de Mujeres Artistas Contra La Violencia de Genero.
The Committee will meet again tomorrow at 3 p.m. to continue hearing petitioners after the general debate.
Background
The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) this afternoon continued its general debate on decolonization issues and was expected to hear petitioners and representatives from Non-Self-Governing Territories.
Statements
ALFRED MOUNGARA-MOUSSOTSI (Gabon) said as a former colony, Gabon had always been active to assist the Non-Self-Governing Territories in their struggle for freedom. In order to make the work of the Special Committee more effective, greater dissemination of information to the Non-Self-Governing Territories on decolonization was necessary. The United Nations also needed to strengthen and enhance the role of representatives of Non-Self-Governing Territories to its meetings.
Regarding Western Sahara, he said the General Assembly had reiterated its support for the Secretary-General’s efforts to bring about a negotiated settlement. At the current stage of the issue, the Assembly needed to continue to encourage a political settlement to the dispute. The success of the talks on the dispute would also ease tensions in the region.
PAUL BADJI (Senegal) said he endorsed the efforts of the Special Committee in addressing and managing the issue of Western Sahara through peaceful dialogue. His country was committed to building upon its longstanding relationship with Morocco and the rest of the region, including Algeria. In favour of maintaining the territorial integrity of Morocco, he reiterated his support for a negotiated solution in Western Sahara. In that effort, he said the Union of the Arab Magreb was particularly important.
He said he welcomed the resumption of contacts on the issue by representatives of Morocco and Algeria, towards normalizing their relationship. All initiatives which supported a climate of civility must be supported, especially in an era when African unity had become so important. He appealed to the POLISARIO to release its prisoners and help resolve the plight of all those missing. He hoped that any resolution would reflect the aspirations of all the peoples and States of the region, all of whom were Senegal’s neighbours.
ROMAN OYARZUN (Spain) said that year by year, the General Assembly called on Spain and the United Kingdom to negotiate for a solution regarding Gibraltar. Spain intended to continue to negotiate for the benefit of the region, having heard the voice of the people of Gibraltar. The Spanish Government was determined to work for the establishment of a harmonious and mutually beneficial cooperation in all fields between Gibraltar and the Campo of Gibraltar, making sure that the economy of Gibraltar was in line with the European Union norms. The region of Gibraltar and surrounding regions could be the most developed regions in the Iberian peninsula.
The policy of Spain towards Gibraltar stressed individual contacts as well as contacts with civil society. The issue of sovereignty could not be addressed in an environment of confrontation. The people of Gibraltar must also be involved in the negotiations in an adequate formula. His Government was prepared to spend all the time on the project to seek out “what unites us over what divides us”.
He recalled the possibility that had been raised of requesting an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. The problem with Gibraltar, however, was essentially a political issue. All the legal problems Gibraltar brought forth regarding sovereignty were related to its status as a Non-Self-Governing Territory. It would not make much sense, therefore, to ask for an advisory opinion of a legal nature on an issue mainly of a political nature, which should be resolved in the political arena. That was precisely what Spain and the United Kingdom were doing, in compliance with the mandate of the Assembly.
CARLYLE CORBIN JR., Representative for External Affairs of the United States Virgin Islands, said that the assistance of the wider United Nations system was essential to prepare Territories for autonomy. He applauded the integration of some territories into the work of some the United Nations bodies. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), for example, assisted many such Territories in the Caribbean and elsewhere in disaster management, governance and other areas. Other United Nations agencies provided mechanisms for the participation of Territories in regional and international programmes, but further such mechanisms were needed.
He thanked MemberStates and United Nations bodies for their assistance to the participation of Territories in United Nations world conferences. United Nations programmes for the Territories must be expanded and the Special Committee should also develop working relationships with the regional commissions which were directly involved in the social and economic advancement of the Territories, as well as other United Nations bodies dealing with similar issues. In the interest of all those matters, he stressed the importance of the resolution on specialized agencies.
PETER CARUANA, Chief Minister of Gibraltar, said this year was the 300th anniversary of the administering Power’s sovereignty over Gibraltar. During those 300 years, the people of Gibraltar had developed and become established as a separate and distinct people, with a culture and heritage of its own. “It is high time that we were allowed to move on from our colonial status”, he said. Both Gibraltar and Spain believed that Gibraltar should be decolonized. However, Spain wished to return the map of Europe to what it was in 1704 and claimed sovereignty of Gibraltar. Spain also argued that, because it had a sovereignty claim, the principle of self-determination could not be applied to decolonization.
He said two fatal misconceptions lay at the very core of those arguments. The first one was that, although the principle of territorial integrity existed in the United Nations doctrine, contrary to Spain’s contention it actually had no application in the decolonization process of the United Nations listed Non-Self-Governing Territories. It was not, according to an International Court of Justice assertion in the case of Namibia, properly and correctly arguable that territorial integrity was a relevant principle in the decolonization process. “There is only one applicable principle and that is self-determination”, he said. It was beyond rational dispute that Spain was not a State representing the people of Gibraltar or the territory of Gibraltar and had not been for 300 years. The principle of territorial integrity could only be applied to prevent the dismemberment of a country today. It simply could not be applied to restore the borders of 300 years ago.
He said Spain’s second misconception was based on the confusion of the issue of decolonization and the issue of the territorial sovereignty claim. Spain’s entire position, in opposing decolonization by the principle of self-determination, was based on the existence of her territorial sovereignty claim. “Where in the Charter, in the United Nations doctrine or elsewhere in international law is it written that a neighbour’s sovereignty claim overrides let alone extinguishes, the inalienable right to self-determination of a colonial people?” he asked. It was not the doctrine or practice of the United Nations that where sovereignty of a colony was claimed by a third party, the rights and competences of the colonial administering Power under the Charter were to be shared with the third party claimant. Only the United Kingdom’s consent was required, and that had been given.
He said that year after year, the Special Committee had been invited to visit Gibraltar. Year after year that invitation was ignored because Spain didn’t want it to visit. Spain objected because it knew that clarity and transparency would be fatal to her untenable case. Just as she objected to the applicable legal principles being established through a referral of the case to the International Court of Justice.
“Every time we address this committee and the special Committee we ask that you should not continue to blindly endorse the annual consensus resolution co-sponsored by our administering Power, the United Kingdom, and the claimant of our sovereignty, the Kingdom of Spain,” he said. That consensus resolution called for bilateral negotiations between them. “We simply do not, and will never, accept that the UK and Spain are free or entitled to negotiate and reach agreements about the future of our homeland, bilaterally between themselves and without regard to our right to self-determination,” he said.
The Committee should not lend its support any longer to an antiquated annual consensus resolution which no longer reflected the position of the parties and which failed to take account of changing circumstances, as well as failing to take account of the wishes of the colonial people of Gibraltar whose protection was its overriding duty, he said. Did the United Nations see its role as the protector of the rights of a colonial people in the decolonization process, or did it see its role as that of a referee in a sovereignty dispute between two of its Member States? Sovereignty of Gibraltar must vest where the people of Gibraltar wish it to vest.
He requested that the Committee’s resolution should call for a visit by the Special Committee on Decolonization to Gibraltar. Moreover, the Committee should refer the case to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion. The resolution should also reflect a call for the Government of Gibraltar, on behalf of the people of Gibraltar, to be fully, properly and safely able to be present in any talks affecting Gibraltar and for its wishes and rights to be respected.
J.J. BOSSANO, leader of the opposition of Gibraltar, said he opposed the consensus decision that called on Spain and the United Kingdom to negotiate his country’s decolonization. Spain, United Kingdom and the United Nations had been hearing the voice of the Gibraltarians for 40 years now, but no one actually listened to what they had to say. They did not want their country to be part of Spain, in any shape or form, and were not prepared to either share their territory with Spain or make any other concessions.
Gibraltar’s decolonization, he said, was exclusively a matter for its people and the administrative Power, the United Kingdom. Spain had no “locus standi” in that process, and had no part in the discussion. The people of Gibraltar had been saying since 1964 that they wanted Spain to have no voice in their affairs. Self-determination was the only legitimate route to decolonization provided by the Charter. The consensus decision before the Committee sought to deny such self-determination and, as such, ran against the highest norms of international law.
Spain argued for its case, he said, by invoking resolutions that do not apply to Chapter XI Colonial Territories, but possibly to ethnic and indigenous peoples within States as they currently existed. Gibraltar stopped being under the sovereignty of Spain in 1704, when Europe was very different from what it is now. In 1977, a process began that resulted in the unfortunate Brussels Agreement and ignored the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. He asked all parties concerned to start listening to those people in accordance with the Charter.
Petitioners on Western Sahara
AHMED BOUKHARI, Representative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (Frente POLISARIO), said Western Sahara had been a Spanish colony from 1884 to 1975. In October 1975, Morocco “in connivance with Spain”, invaded the country in flagrant violation of international legality. That invasion forced the Saharawi people to pursue its legitimate struggle for national independence. Efforts of the international community had resulted in the Settlement Plan of 1990, which was formally accepted by the Frente POLISARIO and Morocco. Moroccan distortions and obstruction to the implementation of the plan prevented the foreseen referendum from taking place.
He said that in July 2003, the Security Council in resolution 1495 endorsed a “Peace Plan for the Self-determination of the People of Western Sahara”, elaborated by the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General, James Baker. The Frente POLISARIO responded positively to the request to implement the plan. However, Morocco rejected the Peace Plan, as indicated by the Secretary-General in his 23 April report to the Council. Morocco had said that it would only accept a solution that would ‘a priori’ exclude the right of the people of Western Sahara to independence and proposed “a final autonomy in the framework of Moroccan sovereignty”.
The question of Western Sahara had reached a crossroads and the international community had the responsibility to choose whether it wanted its efforts in Western Sahara to succeed or fail, he said. His organization had done its utmost in order to provide Morocco with an honourable way out of a colonial conflict that it itself had caused. That had not led to more cooperation by Morocco with the United Nations, but just the opposite, “as we have seen only arrogance, intransigence and intensification of human rights violations in the occupied territories”.
He said the Government of South Africa had recognized his country and established diplomatic relations with it. Its President had said: “It is a matter of great shame and regret to all of us that nevertheless the issue of self-determination for the people of Western Sahara remains unresolved”. The Saharawi people could not be excluded from enjoying the fundamental right to self-determination. Nevertheless, if Morocco persisted in turning its back on the repeated calls by the international community, he said, “our right to participate here with you as a sovereign and free nation in the assembly of nations should not be sacrificed indefinitely”.
KARIN FINKLER, speaking on behalf of the United States Congressman Joseph Pitts, said the situation in Western Sahara remained unresolved because one party had clearly obstructed progress and the international community had allowed that party to do it. It was not only the right to self-determination that was at stake -– there were also reports that Morocco and various businesses had agreed to illegally exploit natural resources of the Territory. For those reasons he had voted for free trade with Morocco only with the caveat that it included only activities in the internationally recognized borders of Morocco.
He welcomed peace-building measures taken by the POLISARIO and said they had not been reciprocated by Morocco. The democratic people of Western Sahara were owed a say in their own future. The continued delay in the referendum had brought disunity in Africa and could destabilize the region. The United Nations must now act to implement the referendum, enforce the results and maintain the Organization’s credibility. A free, fair and transparent referendum for self-determination must go forward. As exemplars of peaceful change, the Sahawaris deserved no less.
MELODY DEVINE, speaking on behalf of United States Congressman Trent Franks, said that in their long wait for a referendum, the people of Western Sahara had already established a democracy promoting fundamental freedoms and valuing education and literacy. Women took active leadership roles in government and business. They were eager to contribute to the international community. Yet they waited.
No new talks were needed, she said, since they would only serve to undermine the agreements already made and international law. Parties must be able to trust that the agreements they entered into would be fulfilled. The right of self-determination was not contingent. The international community had a duty to support it in the case of Western Sahara. “Let the Sahawari vote,” she concluded
SUZANNE SCHOLTE, President, Defence forum Foundation and Chairman, United States-Western Sahara Foundation, said many of those involved with the issue of Western Sahara had become increasingly frustrated by the obstruction by Morocco in preventing progress towards a referendum on self-determination. The occupation of Western Sahara had forced 170,000 refugees to remain in refugee camps. Western Sahara was the only colony in Africa that had not yet been decolonized. From the very start, Morocco had responded to international law by aggression and invasion, and the Frente POLISARIO had responded by seeking a peaceful resolution at their own risk and peril. Displaying a willingness to put themselves at risk, the Polisario had agreed to the Baker Plan, and Morocco had rejected it.
She said it was time for the United Nations to do the right thing and stop the obstruction by Morocco. A deadline should be set for the referendum under the context of the Baker Plan. If Morocco refused to abide by that plan, the referendum should go forward based on the previously approved voter registration list. Should Morocco once again obstruct that referendum, then it was time to call upon them to withdraw from their illegal occupation, something the United Nations should have done in 1975. Otherwise, the United Nations would set a terrible precedent by rewarding Morocco for aggression and invasion, and penalizing the Polisario for honesty and openness, and most importantly, for trusting the United Nations.
PEDRO PINTO LEITE, Representative of the International Platform of Jurists for East Timor, said equal cases should be treated equally before the law. After the independence of East Timor in 2002, Western Sahara had become the most populous of the Non-Self-Governing Territories. The similarities between the two cases were astonishing, as in both cases the colonial power agreed with decolonization but did not comply with its duty to a peaceful transmission of power. Also, a neighbouring State put forward a territorial claim on the former colonial territory and occupied it by force. However, in East Timor the referendum had taken place, but the referendum envisaged by the Peace Plan for Western Sahara did not take place, because of the obstruction by Morocco.
He said the United Nations would certainly lose credibility if, after obliging Indonesia to comply with the United Nations law on self-determination in East Timor, it turned a blind eye to the illegal Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara. He hoped that the Security Council would come to the conclusion that the implementation of a fair referendum according to the original plan, which had been signed by Morocco, was the only legal option. Algeria had been unfairly accused of pursuing its own particular interests when defending the right to self-determination of Western Sahara. The recent recognition by South Africa of the SahrawiRepublic was not an “unnatural alliance” between South Africa and Algeria, as press in Morocco had commented. It was a natural alliance of two countries that held high the peoples’ right to self-determination in international affairs.
JANET LENZ, of the Sahawari Children’s Programme, said she had assisted Saharawi refugees in the camps of western Algeria since 1999. She described the suffering of the refugees from displacement, unbearable heat and loss of personal futures. She also spoke of the loss of loved ones, the abrupt separation of families and the sacrifice of the Sahawari to remain “living in exile in a hostile, cruel desert in order to remain a Nation.”
Justice for these people was in the hands of the international community, she said, which could also redress the horrific violation of human rights that started in 1975 and has continued day by day since then. That is the hope the Sahawari clung to against all odds, unwilling to return to their homeland under the rule of a King who had demonstrated no concern or compassion for their plight.
The only answer to the question of Western Sahara was freedom, she concluded.
LOUIS PASCARAND JR, Reverend of the FaithCommunityChurch, described the life of Sahawari refugee camps in the barren desert that contrasted with the vitality, generosity and optimism of the Sahawari people. He said that those people had built schools and developed a representative government, which guaranteed freedom of expression and equality for men and women alike. He had reminded his own Government of the injustices that had befallen the people of Western Sahara, and of the illegal Moroccan invasion of their Territory, and of Morocco’s breach of its promise of cooperation with the referendum of self-determination.
By rejecting the most recent United Nations plan, which contained many compromises, Morocco had once again snubbed the world community, he said. Meanwhile, it continued to tighten its grip on the Territory, arresting and persecuting human rights activists with the excuse that the occupation increased stability in the region. True and lasting stability, however, could only be accomplished only in a free society. He appealed to the international community
to pressure Morocco to abide by the agreements it had signed. The resolve of the Sahawari to return to a free and democratic Western Sahara was clear. He encouraged the United Nations to take the necessary steps to enforce its resolutions and ensure a fair and transparent referendum.
CHRISTINA DEL VALLE, Representative of Plataforma de Mujeres Artistas Contra La Violencia de Genero, said her organization comprised of some 400 women artists aiming to combat impunity worldwide, using the “arms of music and words”. She expressed full and absolute support for the SahawaranRepublic. Her organization had become involved in a refugee camp in Tinduf, Algeria, invited by the National Union of Saharan Women. She said women in the camp organized training and education under the slogan of “Tuissa”, solidarity among women.
She said that since the first resolution on the Western Sahara had been adopted in 1975, enough time had passed to ask why the right to self-determination had still not been granted to the Saharan people. The only crime of the Western Sahara people was to occupy a territory that was rich in natural resources and had been colonized by Spain. It had been invaded by Morocco, which was a country that had hindered efforts for a solution, including the Baker Plan, for years. Aware of the technical problems of a referendum, she said the main problem was that Morocco continued to oppose a solution. The United Nations could no longer stand by while the rights of the Western Saharan women were infringed. The manner in which Morocco continued to flaunt international law and violate the rights of women, could no longer be tolerated. On the behalf of the women, she said, it was necessary to find a solution and to ensure that justice was done.
ADRIAN PISA (United Kingdom), in exercise of the right of reply to the statement of Spain about Gibraltar, said the long-standing position of the British Government on the matter was well-known. It would continue to stand by its commitment to the people of Gibraltar as enshrined in the preamble of the 1969 constitution of Gibraltar, which required the consent of those people to any change in sovereignty. Related issues could be resolved only through dialogue, with the aim of a better future for the people of Gibraltar.
* *** *