Has the UN betrayed the Saharawis?

Reaffirms that the question of Western Sahara is a question of decolonisation which remains to be completed on the basis of the exercise by the people of Western Sahara of their inalienable right to self-determination and independence.

The latest UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/114 of January 18, 2006 even "reaffirms the responsibility of the United Nations towards the people of Western Sahara".

In his most recent report of April 19, 2006, Kofi Annan recalled "the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of October 16, 1975, which concluded there were no valid reasons why the rules for decolonisation and self-determination as contained in General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) should not apply to Western Sahara". This is another testament of the responsibility of the UN towards the Saharawi people and their inalienable rights.

The legal, moral and political responsibility of the UN is clear. The mandate of the UN and its mission is to help achieve the decolonisation of the last colony in Africa on the UN’s list of 16 non self-governing Territories. Such a mandate is included in the UN Security Council Resolutions 658 (1990), 690 (1991) and 1495 (2003) which call for a referendum of self-determination in Western Sahara.

The UN mandate is not to reward the aggressor that violates international law and refuses to abide by UN resolutions. To do so is to betray not only the Saharawi people but the international community as well.

It is rather surprising to read in Secretary-General Annan's latest report his call for "negotiations" to find a "compromise between international legality and political reality". Is this the purpose of the UN? Is this included in its mandate? It is evidently clear to the UN and the international community that Morocco's presence in Western Sahara is illegal. Such a presence is the result of aggression and occupation. Morocco's presence in Western Sahara is not a "political reality" that should be accepted by the UN.

It is indeed an affront to ask the Saharawi people, who have been denied basic human rights and suffered immensely under Morocco's occupation of their homeland, to accept an imposed "political reality" and negotiate a compromise on international law. It is as if the French people were asked to negotiate a compromise with Nazi Germany and the Kuwaitis to do the same with the regime of Saddam Hussein.

However, the UN knows that the Saharawis are not intransigent. It is the Saharawi side that accepted the principle of a referendum with an option of voting for integration with Morocco in 1988. We accepted the Houston Agreements of 1997 that expanded the criteria for voting rights. We even accepted the Baker Plan of 2003, in which we accepted a transitional period under Moroccan sovereignty for a period of five years and we gave Moroccan settlers the right to vote in a referendum supposed to be only for the Saharawi people.

It is difficult to fathom why the Saharawis who are the victims are constantly asked to compromise while Morocco seems to be able to get away with its wrongdoings.

The Secretary-General and his Personal Envoy are asking the Saharawis to negotiate with Morocco but the objective of such negotiations is not clear and the purpose of such negotiations is questionable. The latest UN report states that "Morocco would reject (any plan), unless it did not provide for a referendum with independence as an option". Why did Mr Annan ask the Saharawis to negotiate with Morocco when it is understood that the only solution acceptable to Morocco is that of integration?

It is necessary to remind Mr Annan that Morocco and Polisario have undertaken negotiations both bilaterally and under the auspices of the UN on many occasions since the beginning of this conflict. Both Morocco and Polisario negotiated and agreed to the UN Settlement Plan of 1990 and the Houston Agreements of 1997. The lack of goodwill and the weakness of the UN have allowed Morocco to violate and obstruct such agreements.

The negotiations process has been exhausted. Any new negotiations will destroy 15 years of UN efforts and take the peace process back to square one. This must be avoided because it may lead to rising tension and the resumption of hostilities.