SAHARA PRESS SERVICE

Chahid El Hafed, 06/10/04 (SPS) The President of the Republic, Mohamed Abdelaziz, considered that the persistence of The Kingdom of Morocco in its policies of intransigence and "obstruction" to the UN's peace process in Western Sahara " is a dangerous step to the unknown", to the whole region.

In a letter he addressed Tuesday to UN's Secretary General, Kofi Annan, the Head of the State recalled all the UN's process for the settlement of question of Western Sahara, condemning Morocco’s “shameful attempt to deflect the attention of the international community from the truth, by looking  for an “scapegoat” to her unacceptable obstructing policies to the UN efforts".

On another hand, he stressed that the exercise by the Saharawi people of their right to self-determination through a free and fair referendum "was and it is still" the legal way for a just, peaceful and final settlement to the conflict, recalling that "The two formula aimed at this objective and approved by the Security Council are the settlement Plan, complemented by the Houston agreements, which was accepted by the F. Polisario and by the Kingdom of Morocco, and the Peace Plan".

Commenting the memorandum Morocco distributed in the United Nations on the light of the expected discussion of the Saharawi question within the Security Council, the President of the Republic estimated that Rabat is attempting "to blame one of the observer of the peace process in a clear attempt to falsify the facts and the nature of the question of Western Sahara as a decolonization problem".

Further he estimated that "If the Moroccan Government persist on its rejection to the Peace Plan  under the false argument that she did not accept it, the UN Security Council should then persuade Morocco to resume the settlement Plan  implementing  process, since it was  a mutually  accepted political solution", which was qualified as optimum and balanced.

On another hand, Mr. Abdelaziz reaffirmed Polisario Front disposition to fully cooperate with the UN in its efforts to resolve the Saharawi question, recalling that the international organisation has always considered that "the problem of Western Sahara is one of decolonization which opposes the Saharawi people and the Kingdom of Morocco as, in conformity with UNGA resolutions 3437 (1979) and 3580 (1980), occupying power".

" Polisario Front will continue its cooperation with you and with the Security Council the United Nations in order to implement either the settlement Plan or the Peace Plan ", that remains the two viable "formulas" approved by the international community, he said.

"We believe that there is no more room for further discussions .It is time to implement what has been achieved  during 18 years of invaluable efforts and at the cost of more than 700 millions of dollars", he concluded.
 
Read full text original  in English.

"His Excellency
Mr. Kofi Annan
Secretary general of the United Nations
United Nation’s Headquarters
New York

Bir Lehlu, October 5, 2004

Mr. Secretary general
I am writing to your Excellency to draw your attention to the serious situation in which the unacceptable attitude of Morocco has led the Western Sahara peace process.

As your Excellency knows, we have been cooperating from the very beginning of United Nations involvement  in Western Sahara, in good faith with you and with your predecessors, Mr. Perez de Cuellar and Mr. Boutrous Ghali, in order to  secure a just and lasting resolution to the conflict over the decolonization of the Territory.

To this end, the United Nations have laid down some  abiding legal principles and uncontested  facts.

First, as a decolonization problem, the question of Western Sahara should be resolved in the framework established  by the UNGA resolution 1514 (XIX) concerning the granting of independence to the colonial countries. This principle, reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice’s legal opinion of October 16, 1975,  has been the core of all UNGA resolutions with regard to the question of  Western Sahara.

Second, the United Nations have consequently recognized to the Saharawi people  their  inalienable right to self-determination and independence. Morocco military invasion  of our country was a blatant violation of the international legality

Third, the United Nations have identified the parties in the conflict, namely the Polisario Front and the Kingdom of Morocco, which has illegally occupied the Territory  on the aftermath of the  Madrid agreements of November 14, 1975.

These agreements , as stated in the UN legal department opinion of January 29,2002, “ did not transfer sovereignty over the Territory, nor did it confer upon any of the signatories the status of an administering power – a status which Spain alone could not have unilaterally transferred. The transfer of the administrative authority over the territory to Morocco and Mauritania in 1975 did not affect the international status of Western Sahara as  Non-self-Governing Territory”

On these basis, the United Nations, in cooperation of the OAU, initiated in the framework of General assembly resolution 4050, a joint mission aimed at obtaining the agreement of the two parties to a peaceful resolution  based in the implementation of the principle of self-determination.

As a result, the two parties reached in June 1990 a Settlement Plan which objective is ”to allow the people of Western Sahara to freely choose through a free and fair referendum organized and supervised by the UN in cooperation with the OAU, between independence and  integration into Morocco” .The Settlement Plan was  unanimously approved by the Security Council in resolution 650 (1990) and in April 1991 resolution 690 it authorized the sending of a Mission (MINURSO)to Western Sahara  to carried out the mandate giving to it by the Council.

The Settlement Plan was and it  is still, not only a mutually acceptable political solution but also a mutually agreed solution endorsed by the Security Council. It was not an imposed solution.

However, Morocco ‘s lack of political will and of good faith provoked several deadlocks and stalemates, thus  preventing a smooth and orderly implementation of the Plan.

First, in December 1991, she raised the question of voters despite the fact that with regard to this  sensitive matter, the two parties have voluntarily accepted the 1974 Spanish census as unique basis for the identification of voters.

Your predecessor, Mr. Perez de Cuellar introduced in December  a new set of eligibility criteria without seeking the acceptance of the Polisario Front. Mr. Boutrous Ghali worked out a compromise which took into account the unilateral changes to the original settlement Plan

Once again, and as a proof of good faith and spirit of cooperation, we have agreed on the new criteria and its interpretation as laid down by Mr. Boutrous Ghali. This compromise was accepted voluntarily by the two parties. It was not imposed upon them. Few months later, however, the peace process entered into a serious deadlock  as a result, once again,  of Morocco news demand of modifications to the letter and  spirit of the Settlement Plan  on the pretext of the so-called contested tribes 

Early 1997, as stated in your report S/2002/178  “upon assuming [your] functions as Secretary general, you appointed James A. Baker III as your Personal Envoy in march 1997, and asked him to reassess the feasibility of implementing the settlement Plan. After a tour of the region, during which he met with the leadership of the two parties and the neighbouring countries , Mr. Baker informed you that, despite the difficulties and delays in the process, neither side has indicated any willingness to pursue any political solution other than the implementation of the settlement Plan”.

Your decision to appoint former US Secretary of State, James Baker, as your Personal Envoy, was received by both parties and by the international community  as strong message aimed at moving  the peace process forward.

Mr. Baker carried out his mission with great talent and rigor. As a result of a four rounds  of direct negotiations between Polisario Front an the Kingdom of Morocco, the two parties signed the Houston Agreements. During the entire negotiating process, Mr. Baker would kept the two neighbouring countries, Algeria and Mauritania, informed  of the progress achieved, in their capacity as “observers” of the peace process.

The Houston agreements were a mutually accepted reconfirmation of the validity of the settlement Plan and the modification  introduced to it by your predecessors. Again, they were not an imposed solution. 

The great value and positive implications of the breakthrough reached in Houston, were stressed by your Excellency in the  report submitted to the Council. As stated in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the  report S/1997/742, “With these agreements… the main contentious issues that have impeded the implementation of the settlement plan have thus been satisfactorily addressed…These achievements create the conditions to proceed towards the full implementation of the settlement Plan..”

In February 2000, the MINURSO accomplished  the identification process, thus making possible and viable the holding of the referendum on self-determination  according to reasonable  timetable.

Despite all of this, and against all odds, Morocco decided to undermine the fruit of the  tireless  efforts your Excellency and Mr. Baker had carried out on behalf of the international community. Therefore, Yourself, Excellency, had no other choice but to recognize and consequently to inform the security Council, as stated in paragraph 48 of your report of 19 of February 2002 that “Morocco has expressed unwillingness to go forward with the settlement Plan”. 

The Moroccan volte-face was a major setback to all the progress achieved hitherto by the United Nations to resolve the question of Western Sahara. Morocco unwillingness to cooperate with you and to abide by the Security Council resolutions has not weakened the resolve and hopes of the international community to see steeled  once and for all a simple problem of decolonization.

Your Excellency and your Personal Envoy received the setback as a new challenge and decided to continue trying to overcome the  new deadlocked situation.

As a result, a new formula was on the table, namely the Peace Plan for the self-determination of the People of Western Sahara.

As  your Excellency and the Security Council members are aware, the Peace Plan introduced new elements which constitute a drastic depart from the settlement Plan, mainly the clauses related  to the electoral body of the referendum on self-determination that would be held at the end of a long and- taking into account the bloodshed that took place in East Timor- very risky  transitional period of four years.

The departure from the settlement Plan was, one might say,  motivated by Mr. Baker’s good faith to encourage Morocco to return to the peace process from which she had  deliberately drifted.

Nevertheless, the Polisario Front gave a tangible proof of sincere cooperation  by accepting the Plan  in its integrality as a package, as Mr. Baker presented it to the parties,  not open to further negotiations. The Security  Council, in its resolution 1495 (2003)  expressed its strong support to you and to the Peace Plan and called upon the two parties to accept it and implement it.

Morocco, the occupying power, chose not only to reject the Peace Plan but also  to try to  impose on the United Nations a solution to the conflict that  excludes the independence, an option which stems from the very meaning of the principle of self-determination.

As yourself stated in paragraphs 51and 52  of your report of April 2004, ”The main objection of Morocco to the peace plan seems to be that in the referendum to determine the final status of Western Sahara, one of the ballot choices is independence. However, independence is also one of the two ballot choices under the Settlement plan  which Morocco had accepted.”(paragraph 51)

 “It is difficult to envision a political solution that, as required by Security Council resolution 1429 (2002), provides for self-determination but that nevertheless precludes the possibility of independence as one of several ballot questions.”(paragraph 51)

 Morocco’s behavior, together with the unwillingness of the Security Council  to take a resolute action  in conformity with the powers allowed to it by the Charter in order to secure  the full cooperation of the two parties, were probably factors that led to  Mr. Baker’s resignation. His departure  was interpreted by Morocco government as the  “result  of the tenacity of its diplomacy”.


Your Personal Envoy, whose resignation we have deeply regretted,  has nevertheless left  for  the United Nations  a precious legacy, his Peace Plan , which paved the way for a lasting political resolution of the conflict. Furthermore,  he has left his personal judgment as to  the very causes   of the current failure of the peace process. In his interview broadcasted last  August 19, 204, by the American TV channel, PBS, Mr. Baker said , “

"For 10 or 11 years Morocco said publicly and privately that she wanted the Settlement plan and wanted the referendum and then toward the very end, right after the voter list had been made, the voters had been identified, she said, well,  it's no longer applicable, we're not going to go forward with the Settlement plan".

Regarding Morocco’s rejection of the Peace Plan, he said: "The Moroccans concluded that they aren't even willing to risk a vote under those circumstances”.

He went on to elaborate on the very heart of the conflict by sayoing: "I don't know of hardly any country in the world that as a matter of international law, international recognition, recognizes Morocco's claim to the Sahara. Morocco will never receive the imprimatur of international legitimacy for her occupation of the territory unless she works out some arrangement that is blessed by the international community"

Mr. Secretary general,

The Government of Morocco, instead of   reconsidering its intransigent attitude,  has recently engaged itself   in a course of action which, if it is not deterred, could plunge  our region into a dangerous situation that may have incalculable consequences. Morocco’s shameful attempt to deflect the attention of the international community from the truth, by looking  for an “scapegoat” to her unacceptable obstructing policies to the UN efforts, is a dangerous step to the unknown  that we strongly condemn.

In her Memorandum recently addressed to your Excellency prior to the consideration of the situation on Western Sahara by the Council within the coming weeks,  Morocco tries to lay blame on one of the observers of the peace process, in a clear attempt to falsify the facts and the nature of the question of Western Sahara as a decolonization problem that has long been on the agenda of both the General assembly and the Security Council.

Upon assuming your functions as Secretary general, Your Excellency and your Personal Envoy, requested  the two neighbouring countries, Algeria and Mauritania, to contribute to the success of your mission  aimed at overcoming the stalemate which has impeded the implementation of the settlement Plan.

Both countries were associated with the efforts as “observers”. As stated  in paragraphs 5 and 7 of your report S/1997/742 of September 1997, you have established ground rules which the parties had agreed to when Mr. Baker initiated his mission.

In the framework of these rules, the direct negotiations would be between  Polisario Front and the Kingdom of Morocco, identified as the two parties. Algeria and Mauritania, were identified  as “observers”, which would be kept informed of developments ,but would take part in the discussions only on issues directly affecting them”. These issues were related to the repatriation of refugees and confinement of troops.

The Moroccan attempt to transform a decolonization problem, which concerns the people of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco,  the occupying power, into  a  “bilateral dispute” with one of  the peace process observers is a new proof of a lack of good faith and a ridiculous trick used once again in order to mislead the Moroccan people and the international Community. We strongly reject this attitude that is neither responsible nor will change the perception of the United Nations as to the very nature of the conflict and the means to resolve it.

Mr. Secretary General
In this context, Mr. Secretary general, the Polisario Front would like to underscore  its well known  position.

1.    The United Nations considers that the problem of Western Sahara is a decolonization conflict between  the Saharawi people on the one hand and the Kingdom of Morocco as an occupying power, on the other,  in conformity with UNGA resolutions  3437 (1979) and 3580 (1980).

2.    Consequently, the exercise by the people of Western Sahara of their tight of self-determination through a free and fair referendum has been and must remain  the legal course of action in the hands of United Nations to peacefully resolve the conflict.

3.    The two formula geared  to this objective and approved by the Security Council are the settlement Plan, complemented  by the Houston agreements,  which was  accepted by the F. Polisario and by the Kingdom of Morocco, and the Peace Plan. The cease fire has been agreed on  and accepted by the two parties as a step towards  the holding of  the referendum on self-determination on self-determination and, as such, cannot be dissociated from it. In other words, United Nations presence in Western Sahara, cannot be transformed by Morocco obstruction to the peace process into  a mere observation of a colonial occupation.  If the Moroccan Government persist on its rejection to the Peace Plan, while hiding behind  the false argument that she did not accept it, the UN Security Council should then persuade Morocco to resume the Settlement Plan  implementation  process, since it was  a mutually  accepted political solution.


This position has been reaffirmed to your Special Representative, Mr. Alvaro de Soto.

The Polisario Front will continue its cooperation with you and with the UN Security Council  in order to implement either the Settlement Plan or the Peace Plan. The two formulas were the result of long  negotiations  lead by three UN Secretary generals and by your Personal Envoy.  We believe that there is no more room for further discussions .It is time to implement what has been achieved  during 18 years of invaluable efforts and at the cost of more than 700 millions of dollars.


I should be grateful if your Excellency would have the content of this letter annexed to  your coming report to the Council as an official position of the Polisario

Please, accept, Mr. Secretary general the expression of my highest considerations.

Mohamed Abdelaziz
Secretary general of the Polisario Front". (SPS)

060/090/100 061226 OCT 04 SPS