Spanish FM Tells ICP Western Sahara Envoy Restored, Talks Peacekeeping, UNSC Run

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 28 -- When Spain's foreign minister Jose Manuel Garcia Margallo came to take questions from the Press on Friday morning, one expected something about the cutbacks and protests. Instead he delivered a litany of bilateral meetings, including with the Polisario Front of Western Sahara and restored UN envoy Christopher Ross.

  Inner City Press asked him if he thought any progress was being made on Western Sahara. He spoke of free determination, consistent with resolutions of the UN.

  Ban Ki-moon's readout of his meeting with President Mariano Rajoy Brey did not mention Western Sahara, but rather expressed "appreciation for Spain’s support" for "UN peacekeeping in Lebanon and elsewhere."

  Inner City Press asked Jose Manuel Garcia Margallo what IS Spain's commitment to UNIFIL in Lebanon? Spain is cutting half of its peacekeepers there. He replied that Spain only maked changes after consulting its allies; he said Spain has peacekeepers in Afghanistan and Somalia as well as Lebanon. Somalia?

Spain is running in two years for one of two Western European and Other Group seats on the Security Council, against Turkey and New Zealand. Turkey would seem assured of victory. If Australia DOESN'T win this October, New Zealand might have a leg up in two year's time. Watch this site.

With Camps Ablaze in Western Sahara, Letter Given to Silent UN Council

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 18 -- As thousands of Western Sahara residents are cut from from food and water in camps outside the towns of El Aaiun, Smara and Bojador, a Polisario Front representative delivered a letter of protest to the UN Security Council Monday morning.

Afterward he told Inner City Press that a meeting had been set up for 12:15 with the head of UN Peacekeeping, Alain Le Roy, who is in charge of the UN's strangely silent mission in Western Sahara, MINURSO.

With UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in Morocco, it is unclear if he or the UN Secretariat will say anything at all.

According to the letter, delivered to October's Council President Ruhakana Rugunda, “more than 7,000 Saharawi citizens, including entire families, settled last week in tents [a] few kilometers from the occupied cities of El Aaiun, Smara and Bojador to protest against the acute deterioration of their social and economic conditions.”

To some, it is reminiscent of the hunger strike which put issue of Western Sahara and its long promised but not held referendum back on the Council's front burner. Since then, silence as returned, with Morocco's King at his Throne Day earlier this year saying that “no a single inch” of Western Sahara will be given up.

When Sudan Omar al Bashir says this, regarding South Sudan, reaction from such countries as the United States is fast, including the threat of increased sanctions. Why is one agreement, some wonder, deemed so much more worthy of Council enforcement that another?

In 2011 South Africa, known to still favor a Western Sahara referendum, will rejoin the Council. But the Permanent Five members can block anything.

The letter continues that “the Moroccan government has decided to resort to inhumane means by impeding the arrival of provisions of water and food to the larger camp settlements and by setting the smaller ones on fire... this exodus of civilians would have devastating consequences on the current mission of Mr. [Christopher] Ross,” the UN envoy.

From the Council, so far, a silence as vast as Western Sahara's desert. If and when there is a formal response from Morocco we will report it here. Watch this site.

Footnote: the literary minded may remember Fernando Pessoa's line in "Mensagem,” that "Who wants to pass beyond Bojador, Must also pass beyond pain." (Quem quer passar além do Bojador, Tem que passar além da dor.) But what will the UN's Alain Le Roy or Christopher Ross say?

On W. Sahara, Council Word Games Trigger 15-0 Vote, Retreat to Greentree

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/sc3wsahara043010.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 30 -- After hours of wrangling over Western Sahara, the UN Security Council past five o'clock on Friday passed a resolution for the annual extension of the mandate of the MINURSO mission there, without the contentious phrase "human rights" being included.

As Inner City Press reported throughout the day, in the Council's consultations room France and its former colony Gabon drew a line in the sand on Western Sahara. Hovering outside the consultations was Morocco's ambassador, as well as a representative of the Polisario Front. After twists and turns, posturing and the calling of bluffs, a compromise was reached and voted on.

There were only three changes to the draft resolution issued by the so-called Group of Friends, made up of France, the US, Russia, UK and Spain. The euphemism "human dimension" wasn't changed, but a reference to the roles of the UN system was added, which some argued meant human rights.

The word "reaffirms" was added to the first paragraph -- very tough -- and the word "existing" was added near the end. That was it, but it was enough for Uganda and Nigeria, and also Mexico, to remove their threats to abstain.

Afterwards, Inner City Press asked Morocco's Ambassador whether he understand the existing mandate of MINURSO to include holding a referendum with independence as an option, and why his country had so vehemently opposed any reference to human rights. He ignored the human rights questions, and said that rather than independence, a political process had begun.

Finally, after repeated dodges, Inner City Press got to ask him again about human rights, and whether Morocco's exploitation of the resources of Western Sahara is illegal. He said Morocco is against the misuse of human rights, and that he would provide figures showing how few resources of Western Sahara Morocco takes out. We'll be waiting.

Inner City Press asked Uganda's Ambassador what he thought of the Group of Friend's process. He said it was outmoded, and that next time an African Union country should be included, and maybe on from Latin America. (This apparently referred to Mexico's position.)

At the end, Polisario's representative came out, and openly denounced France. Inner City Press asked what natural resources are being exploited. Phosphate and fish, was the answer.

Afterwards Christopher Ross joked about Inner City Press' previously description of him as genial (as well as looking strangely like UN top political advisor B. Lynn Pascoe, who it was announced Friday is shortly to go on a delayed trip to Sri Lanka.) Several delegations re-confirmed to Inner City Press its report of China's quip that while it was usually described as with Russia, now French had joined it in its position on human rights.

French Ambassador Araud, who should have answered on this, was long gone, on his way to the UN's Greentree retreat about peacekeeping. A Council member told Inner City Press that Araud off the record had said the French position on Sahara was not necessarily his, but was decided from on high. Nicolas Sarkozy was in China. The annual showdown on Western Sahara now over, the UN breathed a sigh of relief and prepared for the NPT and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday. Watch this site.

And see, www.innercitypress.com/sc3wsahara043010.html

On Western Sahara, Spain for Human Rights Mandate, Polisario Says UN Canceled its Stakeout "for Morocco"

By Matthew Russell Lee
www.innercitypress.com/un7wsahara042610.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 26 -- As France and the UK face off on whether to include a human rights mandate in this week's UN Security Council resolution on the Western Sahara mission MINURSO, Inner City Press on Monday asked Spain's deputy prime minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega if her country supports the inclusion of the right mandate.

Yes, Fernandez de la Vega said. She said human rights must be part of the mandate. Until now, this had not been known to be Spain's position. But even in response to a follow up question, Fernandez de la Vega confirmed the position. Video here.

She was speaking at the UN Television stakeout position on the second floor of the UN's Temporary North Lawn Building, after she met with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. On Friday, Mohamed Abdelaziz, Secretary-General of the Frente Polisario, had met with Ban. The Press was told that he would speak at the stakeout at 5:15 on Friday.

But shortly before that, the UN announced over a loudspeaker that Mohamed Abdelaziz' stakeout had been canceled. Later on Friday, Ban issued a statement about the meeting.

On Monday, Inner City Press was told by a Polisario representative that Mohamed Abdelaziz' stakeout was canceled "after pressure from Morocco" to which the UN gave in. "The UN preferred to issue Ban Ki-moon's statement," the representative said. But by what right, one wondered, could the UN tell or even suggest to a party to a UN mediated conflict to not speak to the press?

There is a history here. Back when the Security Council was on the UN's second floor, the Polisario's representative was speaking before a UN TV camera went suddenly it went dark. When Inner City Press inquired, the UN's response was that it was an electrical problem. But it emerged that a Moroccan former UN official had called UN TV and told them to pull the plug.

Last week, Morocco's Ambassador was seen buzzing around the Security Council, even as they met about Chad. To cover their side of the argument, they point to an OLAF report that the Frente Polisario over estimates the number of people in the camps in order to get more food rations than are needed from the UN World Food Program, and then re-sell the rations for profit.

Fernandez de la Vega, after her statement that Spain supports inclusion of a human rights mandate in MINURSO, said that the big picture us a solution that both parties can agree to, allowing for self-determination. This seems a long way off. Will human rights monitoring be a start? The resolution will be adopted on Thursday. Watch this site.

Footnote: Inner City Press also asked Fernandez de la Vega if Spain's Alberdi, who got the top post at UNIFEM over an Indian candidate in a process determined, some say, by Spanish monetary contributions, is a candidate to head the forthcoming UN gender "super-agency." Fernandez de la Vega said that she is. "Now it's official," a Spanish correspondent said. So too with Spain's position on including a human rights mandate in the Western Sahara Mission?

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un7wsahara042610.html

At UN, Western Sahara Session Goes Late But Words Not Changed, Realism Disputed

Byline: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press at UN
www.innercitypress.com/un3minurso043008.html

UNITED NATIONS, April 30 -- Western Sahara was debated behind closed doors in the Security Council into the night on April 30, the last day of South Africa's presidency of the Council. At 10:29 p.m., the so-called MINURSO resolution was put on the agenda at a televised meeting for a vote, with no changes to the language proposed two days previous. Before the formal vote, Costa Rica and others explained their upcoming rubber-stamp votes. At 10:45, the resolution was unanimously approved.

Following the controversy about Ban Ki-moon's envoy Peter van Walsum issuing a report calling on those in Western Sahara to be "realistic" and not expect a referendum with independence as an option, the Western Saraha resolution got bogged down in a series of disputes, mostly focusing on the 25-word Operative Paragraph 2, which as drafted indicated that the Council "endorses the report's recommendation that realism and a spirit of compromise by the parties are essential to maintain the momentum of the process of the negotiations."

The Polisario Front, South Africa, Panama and Costa Rica said they were opposed to the reference to "realism," wanting it removed or made to apply to both parties. Also on the table was changing that the Council "endorses" the report to merely "takes note." Costa Rica wanted to include "within the framework of international law," and to "call upon the parities to engage in continuous ... dialogue with the UNHCHR" on human rights. But these amendments were withdrawn.

The Polisario Front, and South Africa (and Panama and Costa Rica) are pushing to get in the resolution a reference to human rights, which France, and reportedly the US and UK, oppose. The Polisario representatives said that the UK and US had, in closed consultation, offered to allow reference to human rights, and the France alone opposed it. But France claimed to have support from the UK, US and others of the "Group of Friends." South Africa points out that this Group does not include any African or Arab countries. And so it goes.

At a 3 p.m. press conference, Inner City Press asked South African Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo why, if South Africa opposed the Group of Friends' draft, he wouldn't vote against it. Because those on the ground don't want us to, Kumalo said. And behind the stakeout's coffee machine, the Polisario's representative said the draft "preserves the essentials," while shamefully leaving out human rights.

As the clock moved past ten p.m., and journalists and UN experts on South Sudan drifted away, Ambassador Kumalo emerged. He told the press he was not hopeful of changes being made to the text. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin of Russia returned, to much back-slapping. France's Jean-Maurice Ripert apologized to Kumalo for skipping his end of presidency lunch. He mused about a dinner he was missing. "Anything else, I could leave," he said. "But on Western Sahara, if I leave, I'm dead."

At 10:29, the Council moved toward approving the text exactly as it went into blue two days before. Statements began, with Costa Rica asking why international law was ignored by the resolution, and why the drafers ignored and took no changes from the non-permanent members. Permanent member Russia pointed out that it opposed the amendments because it had no agreement from its capital, that "others" spoke inside the consultations. South Africa's Kumalo echoed Costa Rica, stating that the Group of Friends refused to take any suggestions or changes.

Kumalo asked, are we going to "tell the people of Palestine that they should be realistic? Or to the people of Serbia to accept Kosovo as a reality because of what has happened?" The first of these analogies got Kumalo into hot water earlier in the day. But he repeated it at night, planning to head the next day to Nevada. Kumalo said he found it "curious" that some members speak of human rights in countries not on the Council's agenda, like Myanmar and Zimbabwe, but won't include the phrase with regard to Western Sahara. Then he said, my delegation will vote in favor, with the hope that the people of Western Sahara will one day retain their right to self-determination." And at 10:45, the vote was unanimous, the resolution was approved. Afterwards, the U.S.'s Alejandro Wolff issued many caveats. Burkina Faso issued some. France's Ripert half-explained his country's position. And so it goes at the UN.

Footnote: as dusk turned to night at the Security Council, a theory was advanced that while the U.S., for example, once tried to mediate the Western Sahara issue, now under Elliot Abrams it has decided that Morocco is key to its "war on terror," and therefore "forget human rights."

And see, www.innercitypress.com/un3minurso043008.html