Showing posts with label Group of friends on Western Sahara. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Group of friends on Western Sahara. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

On Western Sahara, UN Security Council Limits Input to "Group of Friends," But Social Media Expands It, AJ Stream


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 25 -- Western Sahara gets little TV network coverage, so when Al Jazeera's hybrid program The Stream scheduled it for November 25 it seemed promising. Of the three guests not in-studio, two unequivocally said Morocco owns it. But by taking questions over the transom, from Twitter and Facebook and submitted videos, the debate expanded.
  France, for example, was only mentioned by one of the show's guests -- but it was brought up online, including France's (implicit) use of veto. Inner City Press tweeted a few questions and this one was taken: “What is role of France, including in banning human rights monitoring by MINURSO?”
   To this, Stream host Femi Oke asked, perhaps rhetorically, why should MINURSO do human rights monitoring if it's only there to hold a referendum? The reality is that MINURSO's mandate is renegotiated and renewed every year - but in process of drafting the resolution, the UN Security Council's African (and other) members are excluded by the “Group of Friends,” which includes Spain even when it is not a member of the Council. Ah, colonialism...
  Alongside the Stream, both show and "after-show," the same crew of pro-Morocco trolls worked the stream, blowing off steam.
  In any event, despite limitations this was a case where social media added to the breadth of a show's coverage. We'll have more on this.

On November 24 after the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's envoy on Western Sahara Christopher Ross was quoted that Ban will travel there in early 2016, Ban's spokesman would not confirm it to Inner City Press. From the November 24 UN noon briefing transcript, video here:
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask about Western Sahara.  You gave the readout of Mr. Ross being in Algeria and on the move.  You may have seen it.  There’s a report by EFE from Algiers saying Christopher Ross confirmed on Tuesday that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will visit the territory in the coming months in an attempt to give impetus to the peace process.  So I know that you’ve said… I mean, he is Mr. Ross.  He is the envoy.

Spokesman:  He is Mr. Ross.

Inner City Press:  Was he misquoted?

Spokesman:  I don’t know if he’s misquoted.  But what I can tell you is that any travel by the Secretary-General is confirmed from this podium in a statement, and that’s what I would say.
On November 18, nine days after Inner City Press asked the UN Spokesman about Morocco's foreign minister saying UN envoy Christoper Ross couldn't or shouldn't visit the desert areas of Western Sahara, the UN Security Council finally met about it.
 InnerCityPro.com was the first to report it, mid-afternoon on November 18, as four Moroccan diplomats huddled outside the Security Council consultations, click here for that.  
 When the Security Council's President for November Matthew Rycroft of the UK emerged with a "Press Element" about the Security Council supporting Ross, and after a question which did not provide any insight into what the Council was saying, Inner City Press asked Rycroft to confirm that the Moroccan minister's comments, that Ross can't visit, had been raised in the Council.
 Yes, he said, and the result is the statement of support for Ross.
 Inner City Press understands that Security Council member Venezuela raised the issue, stating that waiting for Ross' briefing in two or three weeks was not good enough. (Angola's Permanent Representative, it was pointed out, was in Washington DC with his minister.) 
  Speaking for Morocco, Inner City Press is informed, was not its main sponsor France -- they like to not be seen in this role, instead using their "implicit" veto, here -- but rather Jordan. Has Jordan been active on the Western Sahara issue? Or is this a question of Kingdoms?
 Even supports of Morocco - and Inner City Press does speak with them -- have said Morocco's current foreign minister is "not the brightest bulb," as one of them put it.
  The UN has been charged with holding a referendum in Western Sahara, but has yet to do it. In October, when there is usually a Security Council briefing about Western Sahara, there was none. 
 Inner City Press was told it was because UN Envoy Christopher Ross was "in the region." Other sources tell Inner City Press the King of Morocco declined to meet with Ross, preferring to wait out the UN, or at least under the next Secretary General (and next US President).
  Still other sources told Inner City Press the King would travel to Western Sahara on November 6; they call it a provocation. Inner City Press asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Stephane Dujarric about it; he said he might have something later.
  After the King did visit Western Sahara, and as summarized rejected ceding anything toward a referendum; Ban Ki-moon said... nothing.
  On November 9, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman:
Inner City Press: the foreign minister of Morocco, Salaheddine Mezouar, told EFE that Mr. Ross cannot visit the, quote, desert regions of Western Sahara by order of the Moroccan Government.  So is he going to?  I guess I want to ask you to tailor this generic statement to the foreign minister saying…  [cross talk]

Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:  What I'm saying… what I said to Ali, which I will repeat, is that, while he has no immediate plans to visit Western Sahara, he has a right to do so, and that right should not be open to question, whether it's the scope of Mr. Ross' work and his range of activities are set forth by the relevant Security Council resolutions and the Secretary-General.

Inner City Press:  Right.  So… I guess what I'm just saying is, was this statement that you're reading, this is… you're aware of this Moroccan foreign minister statement?

Spokesman:  You've asked me a question.  I've answered it.

Inner City Press:  Okay.

Spokesman:  My answer is a direct response to the question you've asked.
  Before the King's trip, wwhen Ban Ki-moon was touring a photo exhibition in the same UN lobby where now indicted Ng Lap Seng sponsored events (even Wednesday night there was another, trying to sell seats at Ban's table at a Wall Street event in December for $6,000), the UN issued a statement.
On November 5, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Dujarric, video here, UN transcript here:
Inner City Press: On the Western Sahara statement yesterday, two questions.  Is the Secretary-General aware of a plan by the King of Morocco to actually visit Western Sahara on 6 November, which many people, some people call it a provocation, some people say it's totally within his rights but…?

Spokesman:  I've seen those press reports.

Inner City Press:  Is the statement in some way related to that?  What's his message to the King of Morocco in terms of actually going?

Spokesman:  I think the message to the, the message to the parties, I think, is very much in the message.  It's not a statement to the King of Morocco or to the Front Polisario.  It's a message to the partiers to mark the sombre anniversary of 40 years of unresolved conflict.

Inner City Press:  But is a visit by the king at this time helpful to what the statement is trying-- ?

Spokesman:  I think we'll… we may have more to say on that later.

Inner City Press:  Okay.  And also on this, is it true that Mr. Ross, in the course of his journeys, has been unable to meet with the King of Morocco?

Spokesman:  I don't know.  I will see when his last time was.
On October 9 when the UN's Fourth Committee took up the “question of Western Sahara," the first order of business was a procedural fight about who could testify, on what request and on what topic. The speakers, over several rounds, were Morocco and Senegal on the one hand, Algeria and Uganda on the other. 
Uganda, when on the Security Council and otherwise, believes there should be a referendum on independence in Western Sahara; Senegal apparently does not.
  Inner City Press ran to cover the dispute, but UN Security said it couldn't enter through the main entrance to Conference Room 4, but to enter the gallery through the UN lobby. But that gallery door was locked. Finally from a media booth about the Conference Room, Inner City Pressfilmed and tweeted as Moroccan diplomats worked the room, running over to speak with Cote d'Ivoire for example.
 After it was resolved - the witness would speak, but should focus on Western Sahara - two countries got up and left: Burundi and Burkina Faso. They had apparently come to support Morocco, or France. They left before the first speaker on Western Sahara (who in his first line called it Moroccan Sahara). There will be more sessions: watch this site.
  There was also testimony about French nuclear tests in French Polynesia, New Caledonia and several rounds between Spain and the UK about Gibraltar: is it or is it not a tax haven? The room was emptying out. This will be continued.
  In advance of the Western Sahara session in the UN's Fourth Committee, SADR Foreign Minister Ould Salak spoke and took questions at Independent Diplomat on 20th Street in Manhattan on October 8.  In his opening he said France uses it veto on the UN Security Council to block human rights monitoring. Inner City Press asked him about the denial of that by France and its previous Ambassador to the UN, now to Washington. Ould Salak replied that France uses the “Group of Friends” -- the P5 minus China but plus Spain -- so it doesn't have to openly use its veto.
  This puts France's “veto restraint” proposals in a different light - but we'll have more on that in a separate story. In this piece, written at ID on 20th Street, we note that Carne Ross called it the “Group of Enemies” of Western Sahara, and the worst form of diplomacy.
   AFP asked if Ban is going to Western Sahara -- seems Morocco is blocking it (with Ban Ki-moon, it doesn't take much); a Spanish journalists asked about the role of Spain, on which he hope to have more. The Security Council was meeting about Haiti, with its own colonial history. We'll have more on this.
  The UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, MINURSO, which has yet to hold any referendum, was unanimously "renewed" for a year back on April 28, 2015 by the UN Security Council. Inner City Press published Explanation(s) of Vote, below.
   On September 25 when UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met with Spain's King Felipe VI, the UN said Ban "emphasized the need for a renewed push to resolve the situation in Western Sahara." Full readout below. Ban also raised Western Sahara with the President of Mauritania. The word "human rights" was not in either read-out. Here's Spain:
"The Secretary-General met today with H.M. King Felipe VI of Spain. They discussed a number of global challenges, including sustainable development and climate change.The Secretary-General thanked Spain for its support for the UN’s efforts in Libya. He also commended Spain for its role in the Security Council. Finally, the Secretary-General emphasized the need for a renewed push to resolve the situation in Western Sahara."
 There was some "pool" color, concluding that "speaking in English, but hardly audible, Ban and the Spanish King mentioned the 70th anniversary of the United Nations. Felipe VI was wearing today a lapel pin with the logo of the event. "
 And here's Mauritania:
"The Secretary-General met today with H.E. Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, President of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania. The Secretary-General expressed appreciation for the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals and requested Mauritania’s active support in implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

"The Secretary–General and President Abdel Aziz discussed the security and humanitarian situation in the Sahel and the need to enhance regional cooperation to address terrorism, displacement, migration and illegal trafficking. The Secretary-General stressed the urgency of resolving the question of Western Sahara and thanked Mauritania for its continued support to the mediation process.  [He also commended Mauritania’s efforts to promote an inclusive political dialogue in Niger.]"
  And on human rights monitoring? And on Anders Kompass?
Update: the bracketed final line was removed two hours later by the UN.
 
  Back in April, Venezuela said human rights monitoring should have been included, and the African Union should have been allowed to address the Council. Angola, citing Chad and Nigeria as well, echoed this.

  Afterward Inner City Press asked Moroccan Permanent Representative Omar Hilale a series of questions: about what Venezuela said, about the African Union, injured protesters, and why Frente Polisario couldn't speak at the same microphone.

  Hilale asked if Venezuela was the right country to speak of human rights.  Here now is Inner City Press' transcription of Venezuela's explanation of vote:

"The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has voted in favor of the resolution renewing the mandate of MINURSO. MINURSO, as we are convinced of its important role in supervising the cease fire, reducing the threat of unexploded ordnance and mines, fostering confidence building measures between the parties in order to bring about the referendum, that is in step with the primary mandate in step with Resolution 690 of 1991. These efforts and the facilitation and the efforts deployed by the Secretary General are aimed at bringing about an agreement between the parties. MINURSO, to support this, must continue to provide its support to a series of assistance programs aimed at addressing the difficult situation faced by the Sahrawi families that are separated, in many cases, also breathing a new life into direct negotiations between the Polisario Front and Morocco.

"However, we wish to express certain concerns over the procedure used in the drafting of the resolution we have adopted. We are presented a text that was previously agreed upon by the Group of Friends of Western Sahara, which did not address the legitimate concerns and proposals that were made by numerous countries that are interested in this issue, Venezuela among them. These proposals were aimed at strengthening the role of MINURSO and the promotion and protection of human rights of the population in the Western Sahara, bearing in mind the recommendations made by the Secretary General in his report and the features of all the UN missions. It is necessary, then, that the future negotiation processes on the matter before us sees an improvement in the working methods with the aim of helping to bring about a broad discussion that is inclusive and transparent.

"In the context of the proposals made, the amendment that sought to increase the regularity of the review of the topic by the Council was not taken on board. There is also one aimed at reaffirming the responsibilities of this body in bringing about a fair and lasting solution to the situation in Western Sahara, through the holding of a referendum on self determination, that would allow for a process of decolonization, a situation that has has lasted for more than four decades. It is essential that we ensure the implementation of resolution 690 of 1991, which set forth for, provided for the holding of the referendum.

"We are concerned that without a referendum, the process of colonizing Western Sahara will continue including the deterioration of human rights for the Sahrawi people and the illegal exploitation of their natural resources, all of this to the detriment of stability and peace in the region. Further, we lament that the consultations held on this topic were not proceeded by an open meeting in which we could ensure the participation of the special envoy of the African Union for Western Sahara, the former president Joaquim Chissano.

"In the light of the request from that regional organization which, together with the United Nations, is facilitating the negotiation process between the parties, it is a paradox that there is exclusion from the dialogues in this body of a strategic UN ally in the efforts to find solutions to conflicts that affect peace and security in the African continent. We hope that the Council can correct this omission in the short term.

"To conclude, we should like to reiterate the responsibility that this Council has in working with resolve toward a fair and lasting solution to the colonial situation endured by the Sahrawi people, solving it with a move towards self determination in including the option of independence pursuant to international law and working, with resolve, towards a fair and lasting solution according to to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter."

Here is Inner City Press' transcription of Angola's explanation:

"The Security Council has just adopted Resolution 2218, extending the mandate of the United Nations mission for the referendum of Western Sahara. This explanation of vote is made as the coordinator of the African state members of the Security Council, namely Angola, Chad and Nigeria, taking into account the position adopted and recommended to us by the African Union Peace and Security Council with the view of playing a more active and constructive role in the search for solutions to the Western Sahara issue.

"The three African member states of the Security Council voted in favor of the draft resolution convinced that, first, the Security Council is really committed to the self determination of the people of Western Sahara. Second, that the Security Council is committed in ending the current impasse and to the achievement of progress towards a political solution. Third, that the Security Council recognizes that achieving a political solution would contribute to stability and security in the Sahel region. And fourth, that the Security Council encourages the parties to demonstrate further political will towards a solution to continue the process of negotiations, and recognizes that the consolidation of the status quo is unacceptable as stated by other speakers this morning.

"In this context, we would like to specifically encourage the parties to abide by the resolution’s provisions, take them into full account, and that tangible progress be achieved by the holding of negotiations without further delay towards the referendum for self determination of Western Saharan people."

And from China, as transcribed by Inner City Press:

"Thank you Madam President. China supports the extension of the mandate of the UN mission for the referendum of Western Sahara and hopes that the mission will continue to play a constructive role in stabilizing the situation in Western Sahara and assisting the implementation of confidence building measures.

China’s position on the question of Western Sahara is consistent and remains unchanged. Based on the above, China has voted in favor of Resolution 2118, adopted by the Council just now.
China knows that some Council members have concerns about the resolution. While the council members were having consultations on this resolution there should have been more time arranged for it, and there should have been more patience, so as to listen extensively to different opinions, and through more sufficient consultations seek a maximum consensus and get the widest support. I thank you."

 UNlike China, Morocco's Hilale called the African Union "toxic" on this issue, saying that having made up it mind the AU should not address the Council.

  Inner City Press asked how this is different, say, from the European Union addressing the Council about Kosovo. (Hilale said every situation is different: the old "sui generis").

  Inner City Press asked why Polisario couldn't speak at the UNSC stakeout where, for example, private citizen Hilary Clinton recently did. Hilale said Hilary Clinton is with a member state. But so are a lot of people.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

On Western Sahara, 15-0 Vote in UN Security Council But Questions of Human Rights, AU, Morocco PR Answers Inner City Press



By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, April 28 -- The UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, MINURSO, which has yet to hold any referendum, was unanimously "renewed" for a year on April 28 by the UN Security Council. 
 In explanation of vote, Venezuela said human rights monitoring should have been included, and the African Union should have been allowed to address the Council. Angola, citing Chad and Nigeria as well, echoed this.
  Afterward Inner City Press asked Moroccan Permanent Representative Omar Hilale a series of questions: about what Venezuela said, about the African Union, injured protesters, and why Frente Polisario couldn't speak at the same microphone.
  Hilale asked if Venezuela was the right country to speak of human rights. He called the African Union "toxic" on this issue, having made up its mind it should not address the Council.
  Inner City Press asked how this is different, say, from the European Union addressing the Council about Kosovo. (Hilale said every situation is different: the old "sui generis").
  Inner City Press asked why Polisario couldn't speak at the UNSC stakeout where, for example, private citizen Hilary Clinton recently did. Hilale said Hilary Clinton is with a member state. But so are a lot of people.
  Hilale went after Independent Diplomat, saying they shouldn't be allow inside the UN. Inner City Press noted that for example France, the UK and US like ID's work with the Syrian opposition. Hilale insisted, let them do it from outside the UN.
  When Inner City Press turned around, neither the Polisario representative nor Independent Diplomat were in the "Turkish Lounge" area next to the Security Council stakeout -- from which the press, too, was banned, to which the Free UN Coalition for Access has objected. We'll have more on all this.
  On April 22, Inner City Press asked the UN Spokesman
Inner City Press: on Western Sahara, I think it was a week ago, I asked… it was a kind of confirm or deny these reports of a clash between Moroccan security and protesters in Laayoune, you said you'd ask MINURSO [United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara].  Given that a week has gone by and today is the day of the consultations, did you ask them and they say it didn't happen…?

Spokesman:  We owe you an answer.
Mr. Lee, you had asked about Western Sahara:  MINURSO [United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara] has received reports of violence during a protest in Laayoune last week that resulted in protesters being injured.  The Mission has been in touch with the relevant authorities and will continue to follow up.
  Follow up? Why did this take a week?
 On April 22 before the consultations began, a group of Moroccan diplomats greeted Council Ambassadors as they went in. They are, it is acknowledged, doing their job. Polisario was nowhere to be seen. At the stakeout already there was talk that while Polisario should be able to speak at the UNTV microphone -- Hilary Clinton did -- there would be a block.
 On April 21 when Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson met with Kim Bolduc, she was listed not as head of MINURSO but of MONUSCO in the Congo. Photo here. Inner City Press asked and was told it was a mistake.
 On (the lack of) human rights monitoring, on April 15 Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:
Inner City Press: there are reports and I wanted to know whether you or MINURSO [United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara] know if they are true of a, quote, Moroccan crackdown on demonstrations in [inaudible] directed at the idea of there being a human rights monitoring mechanism so it…

Spokesman Dujarric:  We will ask our colleagues in MINURSO.
 But nine hours later, no answer, no information. No monitoring.
 Meanwhile, Inner City Press has become aware that Morocco wrote to the Security Council; Inner City Press has uploaded the letter here.
  On April 10 Inner City Press obtained from multiple sources the advance copy of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's report on the MINURSO mission. We published it in full here and embedded below (unlike others who try to remove things from the Internet, like here).
 On April 13, Ban's spokesman Stephane Dujarric said the report "speaks for itself;" Inner City Press asked how that applies to Paragraph 62 merely reciting Morocco's and the Frente Polisario's positions for and against oil drilling at this time. Video here.
 Dujraric said he had "nothing to add;" he also said that enovy Christopher Ross will help provide more details. On the record? 
  While there has been no formal response to the African Union's request that the UN Security Council at least hear from its envoy Chissano, Inner City Press asks why at a minimum an Arria formula meeting could not be set up? These do not require unanimity, even of some members boycott, as might happen here, the meeting goes forward. We'll have more on this.
  Meanwhile, with regard to claims about then-Office of Legal Affairs chief Hans Corell's 2002 letter, UN Doc. S/2002/161, here are links to two of his publications since,here ("The Responsibility of the UN Security Council in the Case of Western Sahara.” In: International Judicial Monitor, Winter 2015 Issue") and most recently here ("Western Sahara: the EU should reconsider its fisheries agreement with Morocco.” In: New Europe, 12 April 2015.)

 
  

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Nigeria's UN Security Council Presidency in April Has 10 Stakeouts, Candor on W. Sahara, E10


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 30 -- When Nigeria's Ambassador to the UN Joy Ogwu came to the Security Council stakeout late on April 30 after a month as Council president, she paraphrased Shakespeare. All the world is a stage, or the Council is at the center of the play.

  She certainly did her best during the month, in terms of accessibility: she did nine question and answer stakeouts. Including one by foreign minister Aminu Wali on April 28, and Nigeria did ten, on topics ranging from Western Sahara, to Syria and the Central African Republic, Darfur, South Sudan and genocide.

  On Western Sahara, to take that example, Ogwu to her credit came out and said that she had pushed the African Union position, that there should be a human rights monitoring mechanism in the MINURSO mission.

  But the MINURSO resolution is written by a "Group of Friends on Western Sahara" that does not include any African Union members, and no mechanism was included.
  On April 30 Inner City Press asked Ogwu about something France's Ambassador Gerard Araud, who once held a mere three question and answer stakeouts in a month as president,had said: that "The UN has never been a place for 'real' negotiation.  It legitimizes or implements agreements reached elsewhere."
   Ogwu said she disagreed, saying that the elected members of the Security Council have sought and obtained a global mandate. It is good, then, that it is Araud set to leave the Council, in July, and not Nigeria.
  In the run-up to Nigeria's end of presidency reception, multiple sources describe angry communications from the old UN Correspondents Association led by Pamela Falk of CBS demanding to know why they weren't at least initially invited. When it was mentioned that Inner City Press was actually at the stakeout during the month, from within the UNCA Executive Committee came an e-mail described as absurd, on which we may have more. 
 The new Free UN Coalition for Access is not just about free food, and 4:30 pm cocktail receptions as UNCA held on April 30 as Iraq's Ambassador spoke at the stakeout - along with Nigeria's Joy Ogwu. Good month.
  Back on April 2 when Ogwu assumed the UN Security Council presidency Inner City Press asked her about Ukraine being a footnote in the month's Program of Work, and about the predicted fast approval of a new mandate for the MINURSO mission in Western Sahara. Video here, from Minute 21:21
  In the Program of Work the "consultations" on Western Sahara are set for April 17 and adoption of the resolution on April 23. Inner City Press asked if this means it is in the hands of the "Group of Friends," which does not include any African member.
Ogwu replied, "we expect to be fully involved." Given that the African Union position on Western Sahara, will that mean that a human rights monitoring mechanism for MINURSO, as exists in other peacekeeping missions, will be seriously considered? 
  Will the US, which proposed such a mechanism last year, push forward again? Secretary of State John Kerry is visiting both Morocco and Algeria early in April. We'll see.
  On Ukraine, Inner City Press asked if the expect report of UN human rights deputy Ivan Simonovic will trigger a meeting or consultation of the Security Council. Ogwu replied, with due regard for strategic planning, that bridge will be crossed when reached.
  As the second question -- why there is a claim of tradition of UNCA, often the UN's Censorship Alliance trying to get others thrown out of the UN and blocking access to documents on the Internet, automatically getting the first question is and will be addressed elsewhere -- the new Free UN Coalition for Access encouraged Ambassador Ogwu to hold question and answer stakeouts, even brief ones, after closed door consultations, as Luxembourg did (14) in March.
  Ogwu noted the invitation. With agenda items on the Middle East, Central African Republic, Darfur, South Sudan and it seems North Korea, in Arria formula style, such stakeout should be useful. Watch this site.

 
  

Monday, April 28, 2014

On Western Sahara, Nigeria FM Aminu Wali Tells Inner City Press African Union Position Clear Despite Resolution of "Group of Friends" - With No African Members


By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, April 28, more here -- The day before the UN Security Council is set to rubber-stamp the "Group of Friends on Western Sahara" draft resolution which does not have a human rights monitoring mechanism, Inner City Press asked Nigerian Foreign Minister Aminu Wali about it -- and about the fact that the Group of Friends has no African members. Video here.

  Aminu Wali replied, that the African position on Western Sahara is very consistent. The African Union [and predecessor OAU] recognized Western Sahara, that is our position, whether we are on the resolution or not."



  It seems to some strange that there are no African members on a UN "Group of Friends on Western Sahara." But it's worse.  Here is a quote that explains a number of things, by outgoing French Ambassador to the UN Gerard Araud on April 24: "The UN has never been a place for 'real' negotiation.  It legitimizes or implements agreements reached elsewhere."

  "Now I get it," Inner City Press was told by a diplomat who laughed when it was suggested that in the Security Council he was a "colleague" of Araud.

  But what can it mean for the Elected Ten members of the Security Council, or for the five countries this year and every year that come onto the Council thinking it IS a place for negotiation? What about all the hours spent in consultations, not to mention expert level meetings followed by Deputy Permanent Representatives or Permanent Representatives "negotiating"? 
  When one of the Permanent Five members says it's all a charade, there was and is no "real" negotiation, it's either time to radically reform the Security Council, or it's become clear it's time for this jaded representative to move on.

  Some scribes and enablers might - and have - celebrated this statement as a form of punditry. But in the real world, or at least on UN Television, earlier this month Araud told the reporter who posed the sole critical question he took, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent."
  The Free UN Coalition for Access has asked UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric to convey to Araud and the French Mission, prospectively to Araud's replacement Jacques Audibert, the stated UN position that correspondents should be treated with respected. But Dujarric has not. The attacked correspondent tells the Free UN Coalition for Access that "UNCA is dragging it feet" in even deciding to take a position on Araud's attack -- it did take a position and issue a letter to another Permanent Five ambassador.
  In the untransparent annual UN cat and mouse process around Western Sahara, French Ambassador Gerard Araud has repeatedly been asked by usual-friend Human Rights Watch's Ken Roth (and not HRW's UN Director) but continues denying any French role, this year or before, in blocking a human rights monitoring mechanism in the MINURSO mission. 
  Araud spin now is to say he doesn't know what France's position on a human rights mechanism would be until, after a non-transparent process, a draft emerges from the Group of Friends on Western Sahara, which has no African members. 
  Araud has said, "I'll wait to see a real proposal before saying what we think of it. That's what is commonly called 'foreign policy'.... No country in the world takes a stance before knowing the specifics of a proposal. Is it common sense and not dodging. Real world!"
  But get real: on Apri 25, 2013 when Inner City Press asked, Araud on camera said, "how to improve human rights in Western Sahara? We have always said the best way is through bilateral dialogue with Morocco."Video here.
   Note the word "always" -- this is France's position, no human rights monitoring mechanism, just "bilateral dialogue with Morocco." So why does Araud pretend now he doesn't know what France's position is, months before he leaves the UN in July?

 Araud has claimed, "there is not, there has not been, this year or last year or previous years, any French veto threat! It is a fact."  He added, "my 'word' is simply that, contrary to your assertions, France never threatened to veto any proposal. Nothing more, nothing less."
  This stands in contrast below to 2010, when Uganda, Mexico and as now Nigeria were serving on the Council along with Araud, who is now slated to leave in July -- and to April 2011, also touched on below.
 On April 17, 2012, Inner City Press directly asked Gerard Araud about human rights and MINURSO and the then still withheld (Africa-less) "Group of Friends of Western Sahara" draft resolution.
   Araud replied, "There is still I guess one of the Friends that has problems. But I think we are close to an agreement."

  Multiple sources told Inner City Press that France, represented at that stage on the Group of Friends by its expert Mariam Diallo, had been opposing the resolution trying to ensure the MINURSO mission's "effectiveness" and, as before, human rights monitoring of the type other UN peacekeeping missions have. In terms of Araud's assessment that only "one of the Friends.. has problems," Inner City Press was told that there at least two.

 A Security Council member excluded from the Group of Friends, South Africa, said that the Friends have promised to circulate a draft "later today," whether it's agreed to by all the Friends of not. South African Permanent Representative Baso Sangqu told Inner City Press, "Our issue was that the earlier we all get involved,the better for everybody."  And this year?
  An aside on Human Rights Watch: while Ken Roth has tw-asked, HRW's representative at the UN, former of state-owned France 24, has been notably silent on the issue. His last two tweets some from April 17, one passing on a story quoting his boss Ken Roth about North Korea, then other quoting Araud -- on North Korea. (On this topic, the HRW lobbyist purported to be inside or "at" in the closed-door Arria meeting, engaged in trademark selective distribution of information.) How can HRW question UN Ambassador Araud and HRW's "UN Director" stays entirely out of it. Why?
  Back on April 18, 2011, multiple sources told Inner City Press that France opposed any MINURSO human rights monitoring mechanism, counter-proposing only cooperation with the special rapporteurs of the Human Rights Council. 
  On April 27, 2011, Inner City Press aske Araud about the High Commissioner for Human Rights' recommendation that a right monitoring mechanism be included in MINURSO. Araud replies that "Ban Ki-moon's" final report, into which the French chief of UN Peacekeeping had input, hadn't adopted the OHCHR's recommend. That is where the lobbying is -- and it is attributable to France, with refusals to answer questions playing their role.
   Araud opposed a human rights monitoring mechanism in 2010 as well:
  On April 30, 2010, six hours into Western Sahara negotiations in the Security Council, the threat to call the vote was made. There would be three abstentions against the resolution drafted by the so-called Group of Friends: Uganda, Nigeria and Mexico.

A compromise that was apparently acceptable to all 15 members, but was opposed by Morocco, would refer to UN "mechanisms" as a euphemism for human rights.

  Frente Polisario says it could live with this language, and is angry that Morocco has become on this issue the one in "P-5 Plus One." Others wondered if France only agreed to put this language to Morocco because it knew Morocco would shoot it down.

Inside the consultations, Inner City Press was informed, Austria's Ambassador wondered out loud how France, so important in forming the concept of human rights, could be so vehemently opposing the inclusion of the term in the Western Sahara resolution.

French Ambassador Araud responded angrily that no one can teach human rights lessons to France.  
 Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose -- surtout avec Araud.

  Back on on April 30, 2010 at 5:10 pm, Araud noted he should have left for Greentree for the Council's annual retreat with the Secretary General 10 minutes before. This year in 2014, the retreat is earlier in April, before the MINURSO vote. So there will be no excuses. We'll have more on this.
  This year in a multiple French farce, a wire service reporter usually of use to France, Reuters' Louis Charbonneau, has now purported to cover as news his being accused of misinformation by his often-source France. Trying to serve two of the P3 Conuncil members on this issue - and some others -- doesn't work. 
  The threat of a French veto was cited by Charbonneau as the reason for the "Group of Friends on Western Sahara" draft resolution not including a human rights monitoring mechanism.
   Based on that, Human Rights Watch's Ken Roth did what he rarely does: criticize France. 
   Then French Ambassador Gerard Araud did what he rarely does: actually respond to a critique. He tweeted, "Ken Roth your message is wrong! France has not threatened to veto anything! The negotiation has not even started... How can we veto something which is not proposed by the pen holder (which in not France)? You rely on rumors and disinformation."
    The "rumors and disinformation" are those repeated by Reuters' Lou Charbonneau, on whom the French mission often relies to get out its message.  Inner City Press asked, and asks: so who is not telling the truth?
  Meanwhile from Paris the French foreign services "social media" team issues a blog by Anne Chounet-Cambas singing its own praises, citing Williamsburg, Brooklyn and hard rock. If they are the ones staffing Araud's twitter feed, is this what they had in mind?
   This French foreign ministry social media teams map of Morocco and Western Sahara, here, has been noted -- particularly in light of France's recent statements about UN maps and Crimea. We'll have more on this.
   Obscured is all this is why "Ban Ki-moon's" report's recommendation was changed to drop the word "mechanism." UN Peacekeeping is run by Herve Ladsous, a former French diplomat during the Rwanda genocide who is the fourth Frenchman in a row to head UN Peacekeeping. This has not been mentioned by Reuters. 
     Another irony is that on April 17 after a French, US and Australia sponsored Arria formula meeting with Michael Kirby, chair of the UN Commission of Inquiry on North Korea, Kirby said threats of veto should not be allowed to bury human rights proposals. He said a formal meeting (and vote) should be called on referring North Korea to the International Criminal Court.
  But this logic apparently doesn't apply to Western Sahara, or to France as the veto-wielder.  None of this is noted, of course, in pass-through account by Reuters' Charbonneau, demonstrably engaged in censorship, here. Reuters' Charbonneau, who last time quoted French Ambassador Gerard Araud denying any role, this time didn't mention him at all.
   On April 15, Araud told another reporter, "You are not a journalist, you are an agent." While UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric has been asked to convey to Araud and the French Mission the UN position that accredited correspondents should be treated with respect, here, we note that this servile wire by Araud logic is just as much an agent. 
  Araud's anti-press moves on April 15 were of course not reported by this wire -- nor on Western Sahara was the African Union position with which Nigeria's Joy Ogwu answered Inner City Press --rights mechanism needed,video here and embedded below -- in the wire's story.
  Africa is not represented in the Council's "Group of Friends on Western Sahara." Changing that is not a reform you'll hear France talking about, including prospectively at the Council's retreat with Ban Ki-moon on which we'll have more.  Nor is Africa represented or even recognized, it is increasingly clear, on this servile wire. This is how the UN works, or doesn't.

  On April 17, the day of the Security Council first formal consultation on Western Sahara, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Dujarric about a reported crack down on peaceful demonstrators in El Aaiun, then asked Ambassador Joy Ogwu of Nigeria, Council president for April, about the consultations.
   Dujarric said he had no information about the demonstration or crackdown or any letter received; when Inner City Press asked if envoy Christopher Ross would hold a question and answer stakeout, he said probably not. (None happened.) Video here.
  But Inner City Press asked the Security Council's president for April, Nigeria's Joy Ogwu, if human rights monitoring came up. She said in her national capacity she raised it, saying that a human rights monitoring mechanism should be (belatedly) put in the MINURSO mission's mandate, as it is in the mandate of other UN peacekeeping missions. Video here.
  Before the consultations, French Ambassador Gerard Araud engaged in a long discussion with Morocco's new Ambassador to the UN Omar Hilale. Inner City Press, at the stakeout, took and tweeted a few photographs -- Morocco supporters replied with Araud's anti-press phrase of April 15, that anyone they disagree with is "not a journalist;" one even called photographing from the UN stakeout "spying." 
  (That Araud was quoted by Javier Bardem that Morocco is France's "mistress" was in the air. Araud talked about suing Bardem, but has not.)
   Another replied to Inner City Press that Ambassador Ogwu shouldn't have said what she said. We're left wondering if Gerard Araud, before he leaves in July, will say in a Security Council consultation, "You're not a diplomat." And what would happen next. Here is what has been requested: that Dujarric convey to the French mission that position that accredited correspondents should be respected, before the arrival of Jacques Audibert.
  The Security Council is scheduled to vote on the MINURSO mandate on April 23, but it could go until the end of the month, when the old mandate with no right monitoring mandate expires. Watch this site.
  Back on April 16 Dujarric refused to explain, when Inner City Press asked, why Ban dropped a rights "mechanism" from the advance copy of his report. Dujarric refused to say with whom, other than Morocco's King, Ban spoke about the matter between April 10 and April 15, when a new draft without "mechanism" went on the UN's website. Video here.
  Moments later, Inner City Press asked Ambassador Joy Ogwu of Nigeria, April's Security Council president and an African Union member, about the drop of the word "mechanism." She said it will be discussed in consultations on April 17. Video here.
  On April 10, Inner City Press published what was called the advance copy of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's report on Western Sahara, saying that the goal is a human rights monitoring MECHANISM, see here at Paragraph 100.
  Now, the revised report is on the UN's website, with the mechanism dropped. Click here, at Paragraph 100. Earlier on April 17, despite a slew of questions about Western Sahara coming in to French Ambassador Gerard Araud as he held a press conference on human rights, he did not answer those questions nor take any question from Inner City Press. The only critical question Araud took, perhaps by mistake, he replied to, You are not a journalist, you are an agent.  Video here.
  (Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access asked Dujarric on April 16 if this was appropriate. Video here. He said accredited correspondents should be treated with respect, but declined even when Inner City Press noted that French foreign minister Laurent Fabius did the same thing to say he will convey this "respect" position to the French Mission, or Araud's replacement Jacques Audibert, click here for that)
  On April 15, Araud called on France 24 and a Reuters reporter who quoted Araud without mentioning that Javier Barden reported Araud as calling Morocco France's mistress. (Araud talked of suing, but never did.) Nor did Reuters mention that the head of UN Peacekeeping, atop the Western Sahara mission MINURSO, is Herve Ladsous, a long-time French diplomat including at the UN during the Rwanda genocide of 1994.
  So a human rights monitoring mechanism is out, at least from Ban Ki-moon report.
   Morocco's King, after in essence threatening to end the UN mission if human rights monitoring mechanism is included, is now reportedly slated to visit Dakhla, as early as tomorrow. Click here. 
   This comes just after the King announced a new Ambassador to the UN, replacing (and some say blaming) Ambassador Loulichki.
   The new Ambassador will be Omar Hilale, most recently a hardliner on the human rights issue at the UN in Geneva. This comes as France is slated to replace its Ambassador Gerard Araud with Jacques Audibert in July. So for both Araud and Loulichki, this month is a last campaign against a rights monitoring mechanism.
  Araud was slated to give a press conference on April 15, ironically on human rights, on topic on which he convened a closed door meeting at 10 am on April 15, from which even some UN member states were banned.  Araud should have been expected to address these issues -- but he and his spokesman Frederic Jung did not take any question from Inner City Press, and Araud attacked the lone critical question he selected.
   Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access on the morning of April 11 put online the first advance copy of the "Report of the Secretary General on the situation concerning Western Sahara," to be issued as a document of the Security Council under the symbol S/2014/258, here.
  On April 12, the Moroccan government -- but not the UN -- issued a read out of a call by the King of Morocco to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon earlier in the day on the topic of "the Moroccan Sahara," emphasis added:
Tetouan - HM King Mohammed VI held on Saturday a phone conversation with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, says a release of the Royal office.
The talks covered latest developments and the present timetable related to the Moroccan Sahara issue, says the release. On this occasion, HM the King reiterated Morocco's constant commitment and constructive cooperation to reach a final political settlement to this regional dispute, within Moroccan sovereignty.
HM The King further drew the UN secretary General's attention to the imperative need to preserve the negotiations parameters as they were defined by the Security Council, safeguard the presence framework and modalities of the UN involvement and avoid biased approaches and risky options, the statement goes on.
Any straying from this track will be fatal for the ongoing process and holds dangers for any UN involvement in the issue. The conversation also covered HM the King's sustained actions and laudable initiatives for the stability and development of the African continent.
   Inner City Press and the Free UN Coalition for Access asked the UN:
"The Moroccan government has issued its own read-out of their King's telephone call to the Secretary General, this is a request for a UN readout of the SG's call, in light of what Inner City Press asked at the April 11 noon briefing... There are other questions outstanding, as you know, and I have others, but asking this after the Moroccan government's readout, for the UN's read-out."
    Without providing any UN read-out, Ban's spokesperson Stephane Dujarric replied, "I can confirm that the call took place."
  Inner City Press and FUNCA asked Dujarric and his deputy Farhan Haq more pointedly:
"If not the still requested UN read-out, will you comment on Morocco's statement that the "King further drew the UN secretary General's attention to the imperative [to] risky options... Any straying from this track will be fatal for the ongoing process and holds dangers for any UN involvement in the issue" -- since this seems to be a threat to try to terminate "UN involvement" in Western Sahara if an option such as a human rights monitoring mechanism were included in MINURSO, do you have any comment? And, can you state which side initiated the call, and if the advance copy of the Secretary General's report on Western Sahara which I asked about at Friday's noon briefing was discussed?"
    Ban's spokesman Dujarric an hour later replied: "No further comment."

   At noon on April 11, Inner City Press asked Dujarric who has input into Ban Ki-moon's reports, for example if not only the first but the final "Ban" report on Western Sahara will urge a human rights monitoring mechanism. Dujarric refused to explain the process, saying wait until it's over, it is not final until it is final -- not a good sign, some say. Who wrote the first report? Who is changing it? Who CAN change it? Inner City Press asked, without answer. Video here, and embedded below. UN transcript:
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask about the Secretary-General’s position on Western Sahara. There’s an advanced copy of the report, the Secretary-General’s report that was circulated that would be ultimately a more formal document, but it seems to say the goal is a human rights monitoring mechanism, and now there are reports that that’s going be changed. The word mechanism will drop, can you describe what the process is on reports such as this that are ascribed to the Secretary-General. Who has input into them? Once they are sent around are they final, and if they are not, who has input in this case to change them?
Spokesman Stephane Dujarric: All Secretary-General’s reports are ultimately signed off by the Secretary-General’s Office. Any relevant department or mission would have input into it but a report is a final report once it’s final. So I would ask you to wait a day or two until the report is issued, and then we can... you know nothing is final until it’s final.
Inner City Press: Because the consultations would be on the 17th, everything is moving, this is the month to do it. So I wanted to know, since there is a document that’s ascribed to the Secretary-General that says monitoring mechanisms, I just wanted to ask you, does Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon favour human rights monitoring mechanisms?
Spokesman Dujarric: Again, once the report is out, and it’s final, it would be the Secretary-General’s report. Until the report is out, we are not going to comment on it. And once it’s out, it is the Secretary-General’s word, so there’s really nothing to add
  That's called stonewalling in advance, that there will be nothing to add. On April 14, Dujarric not only refused Inner City Press' request for further information about Ban's call with the King: he would not explain why a UN read-out of Ban's call with the acting President of Ukraine was provided, but not with Morocco's King.
   In Paragraph 100 on Page 20 Ban's (first) report says, or said, that the goal is "a sustained, independent and impartial human rights monitoring mechanism." 
  Amid changes, a Western wire -- which has engaged in censorship at the UN, here -- quoted French Ambassador Gerard Araud that "France formally denies any interference with the UN Secretariat."

   This servile wire did not even mention that it can be done within the UN Secretariat, where the Department of Peacekeeping which runs MINURSO is headed by Herve Ladsous, a long time French diplomat. Nor does it mention Araud being quoted by Javier Bardem that Morocco is France's "mistress" - if only to run Araud's denial and litigation threat. 
We will be watching for that.
  As a part of this watchfulness, Inner City Press had published a letter just submitted to the President of the Security Council by "a number of Nordic organisations, from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden," urging the inclusion of human rights monitoring in MINURSO's mandate.
  Even former UN envoy on Western Sahara Peter van Walson has written to French president Francois Hollande urging France to stop opposing human rights monitoring in Western Sahara. 
  Also new this year is the discomfort caused by Spanish actor Javier Bardem asserting that French Ambassador Gerard Araud told him that Morocco is like France's mistress. 
  French foreign ministry spokesperson Romain Nadal has reportedly confirmed that Araud met with Bardem in 2011; Araud has said he would seek permission to sue Bardem. (There is a pattern here.) Now, Jacques Audibert is said slated to take over for Araud by July.
  So this will be Araud's last campaign opposing human rights monitoring in Western Sahara. Earlier on April 10 Araud spoke at the Security Council stakeout about Central African Republic but when Inner City Press asked about the Chadian troops there, charged by the High Commissioner for Human Rights with killing 30 civilians, Araud told Inner City Press to Ask Chad's Ambassador.
  US Ambassador Samantha Power moments later answered Inner City Press' question about the withdrawal of Chad's troops from CAR, video here.

  The April 10 advance copy of the "Report of the Secretary General on the situation concerning Western Sahara" consists of 104 paragraphs and a map.
  To begin with -- Inner City Press will have more than one report on this Report -- there is a recognition of "demostrations aimed at drawing attention to human rights concerns, socio-economic issues and political demands, including the right to self-determination. These were swiftly dispersed by Moroccan security forces. On most such occasions, there were credible reports of heavy-handedness on the part of security forces as well as violence, such as stone-throwing, on the part of the demonstrators."
  The Report says "of particular note was a demonstration that took place in Laayoune on 5 May 2013... Protesters expressed dissatisfaction that Security Council resolution 2099 (2013) did not include provisions to include human rights monitoring in MINURSO's mandate."
Will it be different this year? Watch this site.