On W.
Sahara, ICP
Asks UN Why
Ross Didn't
Go, If Ban
Canceled
By Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
December 7 --
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, video here, transcript below.
On
December 7,
after UN
Deputy
Spokesperson
Farhan Haq
offered a
canned answer
on Western
Sahara, Inner
City Press
asked why Ross
hadn't gone
there, and if
Ban canceled a
visit in
November. Transcript here:
UN
Deputy
Spokesperson
Farhan Haq: we
provided the
details of
Christopher
Ross’ recent
visit to the
region, where
he visited
Algeria,
Morocco and
Tindouf.
The way that
he proceeds
with his
travel, of
course, is
according to
his own
discretion,
and we have
defended and
continue to
defend his
right to
travel
throughout,
including to
all of Western
Sahara.
There are some
areas that he
didn't visit
this time
around, but
that, again,
like I said,
is at his
discretion,
and we will
continue to
insist upon
his freedom to
visit those
areas.
Inner City
Press: I
wanted to
follow up on
the Western
Sahara.
Given that the
Moroccan
foreign
minister was
quoted
publicly in
EFE and there
was a whole
Security
Council
meeting
basically
about that
quote, can
you… what does
it mean that
he didn't try
to go?
It seems to be
kind of a
concession
that he
couldn't go,
as many
people… some
people read
it. And
I wanted to
ask you one
separate
question.
You can answer
them both at
once.
Can you
confirm that
the
Secretary-General
was, in fact,
going to visit
Western Sahara
and had
received
Moroccan
approval in
November but,
due to his own
schedule, did
not go?
Deputy
Spokesman:
First of all,
on Christopher
Ross, as I
explained to
Ali just now,
we defend his
right to visit
throughout the
territory all
the places
that are part
of his
mandate.
This is a
mandate, mind
you, that was
given to him
by the
Security
Council, which
also has
defended his
right to
conduct his
work in
accordance
with his
mandate.
In terms of
the judgment
calls that he
makes as he
goes about his
travels, it's
his own
decisions as a
professional
diplomat to
determine how
to go about
his schedule,
but he knows,
in doing that,
that he is
free to go
where he is…
where he
intends to,
and that we
support
that.
Regarding the
Secretary-General,
no, we don't
have any plans
to visit
Western Sahara
to announce on
his behalf.
Inner City
Press:
And can
Christopher
Ross speak to
the press
after his
briefing
tomorrow?
Can you at
least ask him
for that
because there
seems to be
some
confusion.
Deputy
Spokesman:
We'll
certainly
check.
That's his
choice, of
course, but
we'll
check.
Back on
November 24:
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 Press filmed
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.
, 
