Sixty-third General Assembly

Fourth Committee

4^th Meeting (PM)

DIVERGENT VIEWS PERSIST AS NEARLY 30 PETITIONERS DEBATE STATUS OF WESTERN SAHARA,

AS FOURTH COMMITTEE CONSIDERS ‘LAST COLONIAL CASE IN AFRICA’

 

Focusing exclusively on the question of Western Sahara, the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) continued its consideration of its decolonization issues this afternoon. 

The nearly 30 petitioners who addressed the Committee were clearly divided on the merits of Morocco’s proposed autonomy plan, which had led to the latest negotiation process on Western Sahara, after it was submitted to the Secretary-General in April 2007, with many saying today that the plan did not sufficiently provide for the Territory to exercise its right to self-determination.

Speaking on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (POLISARIO Front), Ahmed Boukhari said Western Sahara was not a Moroccan province in need of administrative autonomy.  As a country on the Committee’s agenda, it was engaged in a search for its full decolonization by means of a free and fair referendum on self-determination.  Under the United Nations Charter, the Saharawi were guaranteed the right to freely choose between independence and any other option, including integration into Morocco.

He said Morocco had offered so-called autonomy as the only option in Western Sahara’s decolonization process, daring to set it as a precondition and openly invoking a dangerous political realism as a substitute for international legality.  For its part, the POLISARIO Front was ready to negotiate and he was hopeful that Morocco would opt for serious negotiations.  But substantial future progress would not be possible if that precondition was not removed from the table.

Yet a number of other speakers suggested that Morocco’s plan was the only route for a durable solution to the “last colonial case in Africa”.  One petitioner, who described Morocco’s autonomy plan as the “most serious” of those that had been put forward, said the international community should work on the basis of that plan, which would make viable a political status for the people of Western Sahara.  Ignoring that opportunity would be a deplorable mistake that could lead to decades of more suffering and an even more sombre future.

Another speaker from the Sorbonne University, comparing Western Sahara to other regions where sovereignty issues clashed with questions of autonomy, suggested that what was needed was “managed sovereignty”, rather than invented small artificial States that would nevertheless be satellites of their larger, more economically viable neighbours.  Towards that goal, sovereignty and autonomy had to be reconciled in any negotiated solution.

Many speakers urged the Committee to approach the matter at hand with more urgency given the existence of widespread human rights abuses in the region.  A representative of the Observatorio de Derechos Humanos del llustre Colegio de Abogados de Badajoz denounced the “genocide” of the Saharawi people and the gross violations of human rights being carried out in the cities of El Aaiun, Rabat, Agadir and Marrakech.  He had seen first-hand the “Black Prison of Aaiun”, as well as mass graves where hundreds of Saharawis lay forgotten by the world.

A representative of the Italian Association for Saharawi People said that, while Morocco denied the existence of oppression, journalists and fact-finding missions were not allowed into the territory to verify those claims.  A number of speakers said the mandate of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) should be expanded to cover human rights so that peacekeepers could keep their eyes on violations taking place in the Occupied Territory.  Others said the 2006 report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on abuses in the region should be made public.

Several other speakers described the horrors they had suffered in the Tindouf refugee camps.  Saadani Maoulainine of the Association de Protection des Droites de l’Homme told how she, like other child refugees, had been deported to Cuba from the Tindouf camps at age 10.  After she had completed her studies, she had returned to the Tindouf camps only to find her father had died as a result of systematic torture, while the perpetrators continued to live in impunity.

Also speaking today were Mildred Thulin, former Minister of Parliament of Sweden; Jorge Reinaldo A. Vanossi, former Minister of Justice of Argentina; Erik Jensen, former head of MINURSO; Alberto Ruiz De Azua Solozabal, Mayor of Arrigorriaga and President of Euskal Fondoa; El Mami Boussif, member of the Council of the region of Rio de Oro; Western Saharan student Alouat Hamoudi; and Carmelo Vidalin from the city of Durazno.

Other petitioners included representatives of Instituciones Solidarias con el Pueblo Saharaui a nivel del Estado Epanol; Associacion de Vitoria-Gasteiz; Instituto Hegoa en cuestiones de Accion Humanitaria y Derecho Internacional; Defense Forum Foundation; Association des Amis de la Republique Arabe Saharaouie Democratique; Christian Democratic Women International; Surrey Three Faiths Forum; Freedom for All; Association Sahraouie pour l’Unite et la Reconciliation; Association de Defense des Femmes Sahraouies; and the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. tomorrow, 9 October, to continue its general debate on decolonization.

Background

The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) met this afternoon to continue its consideration of all decolonization issues.  It was expected to hear the remaining petitioners on the questions of Western Sahara and New Caledonia. (Reports before the Committee are summarized in Press Release GA/SPD/396.)

Petitioners on Question of Western Sahara

TXOMIN AURRECOECHEA, Coordinator of Spanish Institutions in Support of the Western Sahara, expressed “profound shame” at being a member of an international community which, once again, had failed this year to ensure that international legality be upheld.  He said the Saharawi people believed in speech and dialogue, as respected by the 83 Governments that officially recognized the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic.  He also thanked Cuba and South Africa for training young people in Tindouf’s refugee camps in line with United Nations guidelines.

He said that the “worst of bad things” was the silence of good people, and he asked those present to break the silence and make themselves heard by their respective institutions and to condemn the Alaouite feudal monarchy’s failure to respect international legality.  Despite difficulties, Saharawis were stronger and more united than ever.  He called on the Government of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to work with the international community to strive for the decolonization of Western Sahara, which remained a colony of Spain.  It was vital for Spain to drastically change its ambiguous posture of recent years and support an agreement wherein the Saharawi people were consulted about their future, including the option of independence.

ANTONIO LOPEZ ORTIZ, Secretary of the National Federation of Institutions Working in Solidarity with the Saharawi People (FEDISSAH), restated his request to extend the prerogatives of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) to monitor and defend Saharawi human rights.  That was a problem of unfinished decolonization, as Saharawis had been prevented from exercising their right to self-determination in 1975 when Spain had “facilitated the illegal occupation”.  In the more than 16 years since the passage of Security Council resolutions 650 (1990) and 690 (1991), the problem had still not been resolved.

He said that Morocco continued to oppose the Baker plan, and had no political desire to respect the United Nations agreements and international law.  The United Nations was at a crossroads, wherein it could either persuade the Moroccan Government to comply with the peace plan or accept its failure in the process and withdraw.  The peace and security of the whole of North Africa was at stake.  Saharawis must be allowed to exercise their rights through a referendum, with observers to ensure fairness.  The international community was too tolerant of Morocco; the time had come to impose a solution.

MARÍA LÓPEZ BELLOSO, International Relations and International Law Researcher, Hego Institute, University of the Basque Country, said that for more than 30 years, Morocco had committed many different violations of international law.  Those had occurred in international humanitarian and human rights law.  Focusing on humanitarian law, she said that the rights of the Sahawari people were violated on two dimensions:  humanitarian organizations did not have access to political prisoners and their humanitarian situations had diminished, owing to a serious lack of basic foods.  In the first case, the prisons were overcrowded and detainees not only lacked medical assistance but were sometimes tortured and raped.  In the second case, children and women were suffering from malnutrition.

She denounced the progressive reduction of aid delivered by major donors, including the United Nations agencies, emphasizing that international humanitarian law recognized the right of victims to assistance, as well as the obligation of the international community to provide it.  In both the Tindouf refugee camps and the non-autonomous Territory, the Sahawari people’s human rights were being violated on many levels, from being forced to live under occupation to political persecution, to a denial of their right to peace and development.  Women were particularly victimized.  It was urgently necessary to provide a fair solution to this unfinished process of decolonization.

ARANZAZU CHACON ORMAZABAL, Associación de Vitoria-Gasteiz, noting that her intervention was based on a report before the Committee on the human rights situation, said that the United Nations had been created by the international community in the spirit of respect for human rights.  The Organization had articulated several mechanisms in that area and the question of Western Sahara fell within that field.  She called for the official publication of the 2006 Report of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

She said that, today, the violation of the human rights of the Sahawari people by the Moroccan authority continued; she had seen this for herself.  Human rights defenders were restricted in their movements.  There was an attempt to register organizations that aimed to defend human rights.  The people were subjected to arbitrary detention and were beaten and tortured.

Nevertheless, she said, it was the direct responsibility of the States gathered in this forum to be involved in the events in Western Sahara.  Transnational companies were part of the exploitation of natural resources in the Territory.  Walls had been built to ensure that the human rights violations could take place in secret.  But while much had been said about the wall in the Middle East, nothing had been said about the wall in Western Sahara, despite the fact that its length was 15 times longer.

ALBERTO RUIZ DE AZUA SOLOZABAL, Mayor of Arrigorriaga and President of Euskal Fondoa, said a solution to the Saharawi conflict could be designed “in a few hours of democracy”, by organizing a referendum on self-determination.   Morocco must accept international law for the good of the Saharawi people, as well as for Moroccans “forced to live under the dominion of a regime anchored in the past”.   Morocco’s offer of a plan for autonomy was barely democratic and positively illegal, as it denied the right to self-determination.  As the former administering Power, Spain bore political and legal responsibility and, therefore, must help find a solution.  Furthermore, Spain must stop providing military equipment to Morocco, as it had done in January and June, in violation of “any code of conduct” on arms trading.

He criticized the European Union for signing a fishing agreement with Morocco, which exploited jurisdictional waters belonging to the Saharawi people.  In closing, he presented a poem by Saharawi exile Ali Salem Iselmu, which read “Tell them that the land is not theirs/that the people do not belong to them/that the rocks need to be free. /Tell them that the desert only knows/the nomads, masters of the sun and the wind.”  At the sixtieth birthday of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Africa should awaken after the colonial night.

JASON POBLETE, Defense Forum Foundation, called for a new, transparent and creative dialogue focused on implementing a concrete and comprehensive plan for a free and fair referendum in Western Sahara.  Asking how any free, democratic nation could fail to support the aspirations of the Sahawaris, he said the people of Western Sahara were only asking for the ability to exercise their universal freedoms.  The United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) had been deployed since 1991, but while the peace had been maintained, the expected referendum had never taken place.  The Baker plan had been endorsed by the Security Council and agreed to by the Western Sahara leaders, but the Moroccan Government had not accepted it, saying that it would “never give up one inch of our beloved Sahara”.

This gaming of the system, he said, had had a destabilizing effect in the Maghreb and should not be tolerated by the United Nations.  A spirit of complacency had meanwhile exacerbated a human rights problem.  Indeed, human rights challenges remained and more attention must be brought to bear on them.  A resolution of the conflict would benefit not only the Sahawari people, but also the Maghreb region, expanding economic prosperity and enhancing the ability to fight terrorist extremism there.  Thus, the Fourth Committee’s work should take on a new urgency.

To create the transparent and creative dialogue, all parties must come to the table with “clean hands and open minds”, and prepared to negotiate in good faith, he continued.  Morocco could, and should, be a regional leader, but it first had to change its posture of obfuscation, which delayed the referendum process.  The United Nations had already invested more than $1 billion on the issue of Western Sahara, and that investment should not go to waste.  The Baker Plan provided a road map for the path forward.  He said that other key interested parties, such as Spain, should be allowed to play a part, and urged the committee to take immediate action to enable the Sahawari people to achieve their dream and freedom.

JOSE MANUEL DE LA FUENTE SERRANO, Observatorio de Derechos Humanos del Ilustre Colegio de Abogados de Badajoz, denounced the “genocide” of the Saharawi people and gross violations of human rights being carried out in the cities of El Aaiun, Rabat, Agadir and Marrakech.  The situation of the hopeless civilian population was desperate.  He had interviewed many human rights activists and victims and seen first-hand the “Black Prison of Aaiun” and mass graves where hundreds of Saharawis lay forgotten by the world.  Furthermore, the situation in torture centres like the Recruit Training Battalion 1 was “unimaginable”.  He described incidents of torture, rape, illegal detention, and terror.

He said that, due to that oppression, many had decided not to collaborate with his fact-finding missions, rendering observation work even more difficult.  Morocco should be forced to allow the presence in the territory of human rights organizations, and a bureau of defence of human rights immediately created in El Aaiun.  The bureau would report to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, investigate and denounce violations and protect unarmed civilians until the decolonizing process was concluded.

SAADANI MAOULAININE, Association de protection des droits de l’homme, offered personal testimony on the suffering she had undergone when she was deported to Cuba from the Tindouf camps at age 10.  Many refugees had been separated from their families and children deprived of the care of their parents, cultural tradition and customs.  In Rio de Oro province, many had been taken away from their families by force.  Her mother witnessed the terrible torture of her father, accused of being a leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (POLISARIO Front), a degrading treatment with lasting psychological aftermath.

On a point of order, the representative of Cuba took the floor to urge the speaker to limit her comments to the agenda item at hand.

Continuing, the speaker said that, in Cuba, the POLISARIO Front had deprived her of the most elemental needs of a child and caused her psychological harm.  She had managed to receive a high educational degree and wanted to complete her studies, but other children did not have that right when they were deported, as their diplomas were “useless” or confiscated by POLISARIO leaders.  She had returned to the Tindouf camps after her studies and found that her father had died as a result of systematic torture, while the perpetrators continued to live in impunity.  She urged the Committee to consider those deported children, as that practice continued in the camps today with “all the devastating psychological effects”.

FRANCE WEYL, Association des amis de la République arabe sahraouie démocratique, said that, since 2005, men, women and young people had been demonstrating in a peaceful intifada on the question of Western Sahara.  Although they were peaceful demonstrators, they had been brutally repressed by the Moroccan authorities.  People were prosecuted simply for chanting slogans and waving flags.  Organizations aimed at upholding the human rights of the Saharawi people were also being repressed.  Confessions had been obtained through torture, and defenders were not allowed to testify.  Trials were expedited and hearings were brief.  The punishment was very serious and the conditions of detention were harsh.  The repression of those people, who were charged with claiming that the population of the occupied territories had the right to exercise their self-determination, was characterized by permanent harassment.

She said that, in July, dozens of people had been arrested or had simply disappeared after a peaceful demonstration.  Despite that, the determination of the Saharawi people to exercise their right to self-determination was strong.  She offered her testimony to support them and urged that their right be protected.

ANNA MARIA STAME CERVONE, Christian Democratic Women International, said that the matter of Western Sahara should have been resolved a long time ago, but given the obstacles directed by Algeria to sabotage any proposal that did not suit it, she claimed astonishment at calls for a free and fair referendum.  Those who heralded the territory’s independence were totally divorced from reality and ignored the recent history of the area.

She said that more than three decades since the conflict had begun, the international community had finally seen in Peter van Walsum a diplomat of great stature who had sufficient courage to state what everyone was thinking -– that independence was an unreal option and impossible.  The only possible solution would come through the recent Moroccan proposal for autonomy.  Mr. van Walsum had not kept silent, preferring instead to express his opinion, despite its costs.  His work should pave the way for other diplomats who could not ignore the POLISARIO’s mistreatment of the Saharawi people, including forcibly sending children to Cuba.

Taking the floor on a point of order, the representative of Cuba clarified that the petitioner was not from Cuba.  She regretted that she had had to interrupt, but she reminded the petitioner to speak only on the topic at hand.

Continuing, Ms. CERVONE said she was not attacking Cuba, but because the POLISARIO had sent children to Cuba, she felt she had to mention it.  The POLISARIO continued to plead for help from the international and humanitarian community.  But what were the reasons for that deportation to an island the children could not escape, when their needs could be met by the sale of petroleum?  The money the POLISARIO gained was instead used to buy arms rather than to provide for those basic needs.  It seemed that Algeria had no interest in resolving the conflict.  She called on the international community to shoulder its responsibilities, and for the “Manhasset talks” to proceed.

ROBERTO GOIRIZ OJEDA, saying that the dispute over Western Sahara had proved “tiresome, wearisome and disappointing” for the whole of the international community, nevertheless expressed appreciation for the recent rounds of talks in Manhasset.  He called on the parties to negotiate in good faith, and, describing his experience as a negotiator for the Canary Islands, suggested that that model could be extrapolated to the Western Sahara situation.  Given the gloominess of the financial and economic landscape, the international community should be obliged to push forward a mature proposal that would capitalize on the negotiating process.

The conflict in Western Sahara was followed with extreme interest in the Canary Islands, which, in addition to being a peace-loving country, had trading links with the parties involved, he noted.  A settlement had to be found that protected natural resources and safeguarded the region’s security.  Responsible diplomacy was needed to find the right path.

SYDNEY S. ASSOR, Surrey Three Faiths Forum, reiterated his plea on behalf of the “same downtrodden people” in the Tindouf camps and said he would not interfere in the political issue.  The inaction of the international community during armed conflicts indicated concern with political jousting only and silence on the humanitarian side effects.  The number of detainees kept fluctuating, and he, therefore, asked permission to visit the camps to count the people there and offer the necessary help.

He said that, despite the massive influx of humanitarian aid, the people in the camps did not benefit fully since vast amounts of food aid was deliberately routed and used for other purposes than initially broadcast by the POLISARIO, which spent more on military projects than the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) spent globally on refugees.  Thus, he called for the immediate international investigation into the misappropriation of humanitarian aid.  In closing, he said he had chosen this “day of atonement”, to ask for permission to give help and assistance as required to “break this wall of shame”.

JOSE M. ROMERO GONZALEZ, lawyer, said he was working to finalize a criminal system established by human rights organizations in Western Sahara to investigate and try crimes committed by leaders of the POLISARIO and the so-called Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic.  He had met with Saharawi people and collected a tremendous number of forensic reports concerning crimes against humanity.  The Saharawi people claimed to have been kidnapped, tortured and massacred by leaders of the POLISARIO.  Thousands of people were detained against their will.  Families were separated and children suffered from the mistakes of their elders, who had put political aims above the lives of their offspring.

He said that the time had come to resolve that appalling situation.  Responsibility had to be accepted.  Casting blame as people suffered and youth grew up schooled by hatred was shameful.  The independence of the Saharawi people was a mere illusion.  The tragedy unfolding there did not promote a settlement.  Their interests were being denied.  The situation had to be addressed in a way that aimed for a lasting solution.  The autonomy plan proposed by Morocco presented a vital opportunity and would make viable a political status for the people of Western Sahara.  Ignoring that opportunity would be a deplorable mistake that could lead to decades of more suffering and an even more sombre future.  The international community must work on the basis of that plan, which was the most serious that had been put forward.

AHMED BOUKHARI, speaking on behalf of the POLISARIO Front, noted that the question of Western Sahara was the last colonial case in Africa to appear on the agendas of the Special Committee on decolonization and the Fourth Committee.  A human tragedy had been unfolding there since 1975.  Finally, the cruellest chapters of that drama were gradually overcoming an imposed silence.  A few months ago, a Moroccan newspaper had published what a member of the Moroccan delegation to the Manhasset negotiations had confessed -- that three or four officers from the Moroccan army had committed war crimes off the battlefield when civilians were thrown from helicopters or buried alive merely because they were Saharawi.

Indeed, he said the whereabouts of more than 600 civilians and 151 Saharawi military had remained unaccounted for since 1975.  The 2006 report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights had said explicitly that the violation of the human rights of the Saharawi people derived from the fact that their right to self-determination had not been respected.

He recalled that even though Morocco had accepted the United Nations-Organization of African Unity settlement plan and MINURSO’s deployment for the purpose of holding a free and fair self-determination referendum -– which contained independence as an option –- it had not honoured its commitments.  It had even rejected the “golden opportunity” to resume the referendum process through the Baker Plan in 2003.  As a result, MINURSO remained in place 18 years after its establishment.  Surrounded by Moroccan flags and forced into international secrecy, it was humiliated and impotent.  How, he asked, had that happened before the eyes of the United Nations?

His people were determined to carry on their legitimate struggle and resistance until they were allowed to exercise their right to self-determination, he insisted.  Today, Morocco was openly invoking a dangerous political realism stained with innocent blood as a substitute for international legality.  It had offered so-called autonomy as the only option in Western Sahara’s decolonization process and had dared to set it as a precondition.  But Western Sahara was not a Moroccan province in need of administrative autonomy.  It was a country on the agenda of the Committee engaged in a search for its full decolonization by means of a free and fair referendum on self-determination.  The Saharawis were guaranteed the right to freely choose between independence and any other option, including integration into Morocco, by the United Nations Charter.

Yet, the last round of negotiations at Manhasset had not moved forward even in the direction of some basic confidence-building measures, because of Morocco’s precondition, he said, adding that if that precondition was not removed from the table, substantial future progress would be impossible.  The POLISARIO Front would continue to cooperate with the Secretary-General and his new Personal Envoy, and he was hopeful that its neighbour would act seriously and opt for serious negotiations.  The POLISARIO Front was ready to negotiate.

LUCIANO ARDESI, Italian Association for Saharawi People, said that, although Morocco claimed that its territorial integrity must not be called into question, Western Sahara did not belong to it.  The 1975 International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Western Sahara found no legal ties between Western Sahara and Morocco or the Mauritanian entity.   Morocco’s proposal of autonomy in 2007 showed that the problem of decolonization still existed because Morocco refused any referendum that included independence.

He said that Morocco also denied the existence of oppression, but journalists and fact-finding missions were not allowed into the territory.  The Fourth Committee and the General Assembly could only reaffirm that right and recognize that the negotiations under way should have self-determination as a goal since no other solution would be acceptable under the United Nations Charter.  Additionally, MINURSO’s mandate should be expanded to cover human rights, so that peacekeepers could keep their eyes on violations taking place in the occupied territory.

MILDRED THULIN, former Member of Parliament of Sweden, said that in 1975 the people of Western Sahara were awaiting the end of 90 years of Spanish colonial rule, but instead of finding freedom, Western Sahara was then brutally occupied.  Thirty-three years later, that was still the case.   Spain carried “huge guilt” for today’s situation by ending the conflict unjustly.  Western Sahara had the right to self-determination and self-governance, and claims made by Morocco had been rejected by the International Court of Justice.  No State accepted Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara,but more than 60 States accepted the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), and he urged other Governments to do the same.  The wall built by Morocco, with thousands of military standing sentry, was indeed a “wall of shame”.  More than 6 million mines had been placed in the desert, which stopped people from moving safely.  Not only was Morocco oppressing the Saharawis, but they were also stealing their natural resources.

Moroccan autonomy was no option, and the Moroccan oppression of Western Sahara must be stopped, she urged.  The United Nations must demand that Spain resume its role as administering Power and take responsibility for a just decolonizing process.  On the issue of natural resources, the United Nations must make public information on countries and companies doing business in Western Sahara.  The United Nations, and not Morocco, must manage the natural resources and denounce the present fishing agreement between the European Union and Morocco to exclude the waters off of Western Sahara.  Additionally, the United Nations must apply sanctions against Morocco for exploiting Saharan natural resources without the consent and control of the indigenous people, as well as for human rights violations.  Finally, the United Nations must demand the release of all political prisoners, demolish the “wall of shame” and apply United Nations Charter Chapter VII “to the letter”.

TANYA WARBURG, Freedom for All, noted that Morocco’s “innovative and enlightened” proposal for an autonomy plan for Western Sahara had led to four rounds of negotiations to fashion a permanent, mutually acceptable solution that would end the human rights abuses, starvation and brutality perpetrated against the civilians detained in the Tindouf camps, and stabilize the region.  But despite the efforts of Peter van Walsum on behalf of the Secretary-General, the Algerian-backed POLISARIO Front had been unable to engage in meaningful and direct talks.

Quoting the analysis Mr. van Walsum delivered to the Security Council on 21 April, she said that “independence for Western Sahara is not a realistic option”.  Freedom for All supported Morocco’s autonomy plan, as it would protect and guarantee the rights and freedoms of all Saharawis while ending the misery of those confined in Tindouf. Emphasizing how the forced detention of those refugees contravened international law and numerous United Nations conventions, she said that the POLISARIO’s continual and deliberate misappropriation of humanitarian aid exacerbated the destitution in the camps.  Meanwhile, it spent more money annually on weapons than the UNHCR spent globally on refugees.  Despite claming to be a “liberation movement”, the POLISARIO Front endorsed and encouraged slavery.  She called for an investigation into the forced disappearances of refugees.

ALOUAT HAMOUDI, Western Saharan student, said his story had not been learned from history books, the media or Moroccan propaganda.  Rather, he had lived it --indeed, he was still living it.  Now in college, he was born in a Saharawi refugee camp.  When his mother was 10, her family had been forced to leave their home under the threat of death by bombing from Moroccan planes.  They had ended up in refugee camps in southern Algeria, where he was born.  When he was a teenager and knew he wanted to become educated, he had had to leave his family for an Algerian boarding school.  After a few years of study, he had received a college scholarship.  He had become accustomed to the concepts of peace and equality.  He was dedicated to returning to his land, which was everything to the Saharawis, even if it was forgotten by the rest of the world.

Saying the abuse of the Saharawi people by the Moroccan authorities must be recognized, he emphasized that the Moroccan regime was trying to convince the humanitarian agencies to stop sending aid to the Saharawi refugees.  The international community had recognized the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination, but had done nothing to implement it.  That double standard should make you laugh if it did not make you cry, he told the Committee.  The region’s sovereignty was for the Saharawi people and would only come about once they could decide their own future.  Otherwise, the gloomy reality of an outbreak of war would be unavoidable.

ALBERTO CID, Senator of Uruguay, said he had come before the Committee on his own as a politician who had long monitored the situation in Western Sahara and as an official monitor in last year’s Moroccan election.  Noting that the relevant parties had been encouraged through several Security Council resolutions to resolve the conflict, he recalled resolution 1813 (2008), which welcomed Morocco’s “serious and credible” efforts to move forward and stressed the need for both parties to hold direct negotiations after four rounds of talks.  The Rio Group, of which Uruguay was a part, had recently released a document that also urged the parties to carry out further negotiations in search of a political solution that was fair, lasting and mutually acceptable to every party involved.  That was his personal hope, as well.

ERIK JENSEN, former head of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO), said there was no “one size fits all” in political procedure, since different circumstances responded differently.  The identification process, launched as part of the Settlement Plan, had become a means of encouraging Morocco and the POLISARIO to interact, create contact and recognize a solution to the conflict that both might voluntarily accept.  As head of MINURSO, he had sought to develop a degree of trust on both sides that would permit direct talks, but he had found that the plan could never deliver an outcome that both sides would voluntarily accept.  Mr. van Walsum had been quick to arrive at a similar conclusion and had urged direct negotiations so both parties could “shape their own consensuality”.

He said that Morocco had provided a reasonable autonomy proposal, but there had been no real progress at the Manhasset talks.  The Security Council called for a mutually acceptable political solution as an avenue for the people of Western Sahara to exercise self-determination, but as Committee members were aware, there were options other than independence.   Morocco would need to make concessions as well as honour its nobler commitments, and POLISARIO would have to forgo “certain aspirations”.  Algeria’s role would also be key to reconciliation and development throughout the Maghreb region.  The alternative threatened destabilization, clandestine emigration, and a real danger of resumed hostilities “which nobody should want”.

CARMELO VIDALIN, City of Durazno, Uruguay, said that a fruitful dialogue should be undertaken for the benefit of both parties.  Wishing to support United Nations efforts to find a solution to Western Sahara, he expressed full agreement with the recent Security Council resolutions that urged both parties to find those common elements that would allow them to resolve the issue.  A spirit of cooperation was essential to achieve real results, and the autonomy proposal by Morocco should be taken as a starting point for further freedoms that might be achieved through patient dialogue.  He affirmed the readiness of the Saharawi to work for peace and concord.  The wishes of the parties could be met, especially if the Governments involved paid attention to the desire of the peoples and not just to their economic concerns.

AYMERIC CHAUPRADE, Sorbonne University, said that his interventions over the last three years had showed that, by taking a long view of history, it was possible to see how the world had become entangled in a conflict that was completely fabricated by the cold war.  In the last year, events had proven him right, as separatism had emerged in the Maghreb region.  Thus, it was important to identify in this forum the risks of not solving the conflict.  While the Manhasset talks may have been a failure, they had been an intellectual victory –- a significant fact given that intellectual victories often preceded actual ones.

Continuing, he recalled that, as the Personal Envoy of the Secretary-General for Western Sahara, Mr. van Walsum had made many trips to the region in an attempt to penetrate the issues at the heart of this conflict.  His conclusion was that independence was unrealizable.  The problems of Western Sahara were seen around the world in such places as Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia.  “Managed sovereignty” was needed rather than invented small artificial States that would nevertheless be satellites of their larger, more economically viable neighbours.  To that end, sovereignty and autonomy had to be reconciled.

He said that Mr. van Walsum had been bold and visionary, and it was high time to listen to Morocco’s courageous proposal.  Moroccans wanted to find a solution to that long-lasting problem.  While sovereignty was one of the foundations of the United Nations, it was increasingly threatened by many forces.  Together, the international community should consolidate the concept of sovereignty.

ANNABA EL MOUSSAOUI, Association sahraouie pour l’unité et la réconciliation, said that those living in refugee camps were deprived of all rights and suffered under the most stringent supervision of the Algerian authorities.  In order to alleviate that situation, she had attended conferences in a town at the border with Mauritania, where many representatives of tribes had gathered to express their refusal for the POLISARIO’s policies.  They were “fed up” with the suffering and with the Algerian secret police, who took advantage of the refugees’ vulnerable situation.

Having participated in those conferences, she had thus contributed to the cause of her country, she said.  The collective return in 2008 had been a positive step and “a national renaissance” for the people of the country and against the policies of Algeria and the POLISARIO Front.  The practical solution was autonomy, as that respected the “specificity” of the Saharawi region and greatly contributed to the rights of self-determination within the framework of democracy, freedom and the respect for human rights.  The international community needed to intervene, in order to save Saharawis still living under the blockades of the refugee camps.

EL MAMI BOUSSIF, Council of the region of Rio de Oro, said that as a Saharawi citizen, he expressed the ambitions of the Saharawi people to live in dignity and in a unified country.  He had chosen to stay in his country to conduct its affairs, thereby choosing unity, development and a decent life for all Saharawi citizens.  That option was right.  Those living in the diaspora lived with discrimination and slogans of violence.  His supreme goal was to unify all the Saharawi citizens and end family separations.  The conflict was the result of the cold war.

Referring to the statement of Mr. van Walsum to the Security Council in April, he reaffirmed that independence was unrealistic, and called for a compromise formula that would enable the right decisions to be reached.  Mr. van Walsum, who knew the ins and outs of the conflict and had had extensive consultations with neighbouring countries like Algeria, had also stated that the status quo was a comfortable way out for many countries, and he had rejected the suggestion that the Tindouf camps be allowed to continue.  How could the international community allow such suffering, which had already lasted for three decades, to continue?  The international community should intervene and allow the reunification of the Saharawi families.

MARSHELHA GONÇALVES-MARGERIN, speaking on behalf of Aminatou Haidar, 2008 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award Laureate, expressed deep concern over the dangerous human rights situation in Western Sahara, in southern Morocco and in the Moroccan territories as a whole.  Since May, the Moroccan Government had committed gross human rights abuses against civilian Saharawis because of their views on Western Sahara and their participation in peaceful demonstrations in support for self-determination.  Those violations had included kidnapping, torture, arbitrary and political arrests, as well as the invasion of homes, imposition of cruel and unfair judgements, banning the establishment of institutions, curtailing freedom of expression and plundering natural resources.  Widespread arrest campaigns had been launched against Saharawi citizens and human rights defenders.  She had been one of the political prisoners who had been released by the Moroccan State since 2006, but many like her had been rearrested and remained in prison today.

She said that human rights defenders were still waiting for the international community to increase pressure on the Moroccan Government to respect human rights in Western Sahara.  Despite the completion of a report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in May 2006, its recommendations had not only not been implemented, they had not been made public.  The Moroccan Government was thus allowed to disregard international norms and continue to commit abuses and violations.

Both sides of the dispute should enter into direct negotiations to reach a solution in accordance with the provisions and resolutions of the United Nations and the Security Council, she urged.  A fourth round of negotiations had failed to reach agreement, which respected the Saharawi people’s right to choose their political future through a democratic, free and fair referendum.  Saying the United Nations was responsible for the stalled state of affairs, she demanded urgent intervention and called on the Organization to search for tenable mechanisms to encourage respect for human rights in Western Sahara, including by expanding MINURSO’s mandate to include human rights issues.  She also called for the publication of the 2006 report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

EL AAFIA HAMMAIDI, Association de défense des femmes sahraouies, said she was there to give personal testimony regarding the suffering in the Tindouf refugee camps.  Deprived of her own children when she came back to Morocco, she said Algeria was using the refugee camps as a “card” to be played for their own benefit.  When the international organizations started sending envoys to the Tindouf camps under MINURSO’s supervision, she felt it was a good opportunity for her and others to join their families and, thus, she supported future programmes for family visits.

Although she was separated from her husband and children, she said she had faced a difficult dilemma -– to stay in Morocco in relative safety or go back to the realities of the refugee camps. In order for tragedies such as that one not to recur, Morocco and POLISARIO should not be allowed to use children as hostages by keeping their parents from them, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights should exert pressure on Algeria so that all the families could avail themselves of the visitation programmes, and not be separated as she had been.

JORGE REINALDO A. VANOSSI, former Minister of Justice of Argentina, said a courageous and resolute approach was needed to solve the problem of Western Sahara.  That solution would have to take into account all the interests at play, including those of the States in the Maghreb region.  To that end, Morocco’s proposed autonomy plan should be studied to see whether and how it could offer the greatest freedom for the Saharawi people.

He said that to be most effective, a plan would have to include safeguards for Western Sahara.  Elections would have to be planned for and the powers and jurisdiction of that autonomy would have to be identified.  If there was no income, nothing would be in coffers to cope with the social responsibilities shouldered by an autonomous region.  While the Moroccan proposal respected the idea of “subsidiarity” -– which stated that everything that could be done by local authorities should not be usurped by federal powers -- the structures of that autonomous local Government had to be articulated from its executive branch to its judiciary.  The proposal should be subjected to negotiation.  It would also be necessary to repatriate the exiled population and to extend an amnesty that had given rise to some thorny issues.  Meanwhile, a transitional government would have to look into those issues.  Finally, the solution had to be pragmatic, and not weighed down by doctrine.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record