Inner
City Press
asked US
Ambassador
Susan Rice on
April 25,
after the
resolution on
the
rights-less
mandate was
approved by
the Security
Council, if it
would be
possible to
get “the whole
story.”
Ambassador
Rice
replied, “the
story's done,
we have a
resolution.”
But of
course, the
story is NOT
done. Inner
City Press
spoke to other
ambassadors on
Thursday
afternoon.
Some bragged
that Rice had
been undercut
by the State
Department,
that she'd
proposed the
human rights
monitoring
without full
support in
Washington,
and had to
walk it back
after
Morocco's
response,
which included
canceling
military
training
operations
with the US.
Two
well placed
ambassadors exclusively
told
Inner City
Press of
another
explanation,
though: that
once Morocco
tried (and
failed) to get
(American) UN
envoy on
Western Sahara
Christopher
Ross replaced,
there had to
be some
response by
the US, and
this was it.
This
makes the
introduction
to the
“Friends” of
Western Sahara
of a
resolution
with rights
monitoring
included, and
then its
withdrawal,
make more
sense: it was
a message.
Not
exactly as the
Frente
Polisario
would have you
believe -- a
pure human
rights message
-- but a
message
nonetheless.
Was the
message
received?
Watch this
site.
Footnote:
We've
extracted from
the video of
French
Ambassador
Gerard Araud's
April 25
stakeout,
mostly about
Mali, the
question on
Western Sahara
by Inner City
Press, and
Araud's answer
and put
it online,
here.
Araud said
France “didn't
oppose” human
right
monitoring in
the UN
mission's
mandate, but
“that's
typical UN
approach.”
It is
rare for
France, glad
to have a veto
on the
Security
Council, to
criticize the
UN. But
perhaps its muscle
flexing in
Mali, if
not the
shameful
endgame in
Central
African
Republic and now Guinea
Conakry,
has given
France a new
attitude at
the UN.
Araud
claims there
has been “a
steady
improvement on
human rights
in Western
Sahara” -
that's not at
all clear from
Christopher
Ross' reports
- and to “ask
the penholder”
(that is, the
US, see
above).
, 
