News

Human Rights: Tamek moved, Lmrabet appeal due today
(SPS, AFP, La Tribune Algeria)

Saharawi Prisoner of Conscience Ali-Salem Tamek has threatened to start another hunger strike following his move from the Sale to Ait Melloul prison, where he has lost the rights and conditions of a political prisoner that he had spent months campaigning for in Sale. "I launch a request to all Human Rights defenders and to all militants asking them to support me with all possible means so that I go back to the prison of Sale and so as to get back my legitimate and humble rights", he said. Sale prison has reportedly been partially cleared at short notice to make way for an influx of detainees picked up in connection with the terrorist bombs in Casablanca of 16th May.

Meanwhile, jailed journalist Ali Lmrabet is currently hospitalised having lost 17 kilos during his hunger strike. His appeal is due to be heard today – with the European Commission among others taking a “close interest” in the human rights aspects of the case.

Oil: shifts in the balance
(Stavanger Aftenblad-Norway, Financial Times, Upstream Online)

In something of a “double whammy” for the Moroccan government’s designs on Western Saharan offshore oil, another survey company has expressed its concern over the political risks of the Rabat-sponsored project, while Fusion Oil, contracted to undertake oil exploitation for an independent Western Sahara, has received the backing of a big player in the global oil industry. Meanwhile, Kerr-McGee and TotalFinaElf have announced they intend to proceed with 3D seismic surveys of Western Sahara’s seabed, following examination of the results of the 2D survey carried out by now-repentant TGS-NOPEC of Norway last year. But they are reportedly finding it rather harder to find a contractor than they did two years ago.

“I can confirm that we are sceptical of entering into contracts off Western Sahara” said Jan Soevik of the seismic company Multiwave. “We are very careful with this and wish to maintain high ethical standards” he continued, saying that the company “don’t want to risk something similar” to the wave of protest divestment that hit seismic company TGS-NOPEC last year after its involvement in the controversial oil exploration “licensed” by the Moroccan government in Western Saharan waters.

Meanwhile, UK firm Premier Oil has done a deal with North-West Africa specialist Fusion Oil which includes an option to participate in future exploration of Western Sahara’s oilfields after Saharan independence. The deal sees Fusion receive $10 million and also covers stakes in offshore exploration in Gabon, Guinea-Bissau and Mauritania. Deepwater oilfields offshore Mauritania are expected to go into production in 2 years time, yielding 75,000 barrels a day. This has heightened interest in Western Sahara’s oil.

In October 2001, Morocco signed exploration deals with Kerr-McGee of the USA and TotalFinaElf of France for Western Sahara’s waters. In February 2002, the UN Under-Secretary General for Legal Affairs wrote that while those contracts were not illegal, further exploration, or any exploitation of oil and gas would be if “in disregard of the interests and wishes of the people of Western Sahara”. In May 2002 the SADR signed a deal with Anglo-Australian company Fusion Oil which gave Fusion rights to offshore oil exploitation when an independent Western Sahara takes its seat at the UN – thus not involving any scramble to profit from the resources while the political status of the territory remains unresolved.

Premier Oil attracts considerable criticism for its involvement with the military regime in Burma. So it’s good to see them involved in Fusion’s project in Western Sahara, which explicitly supports international law and the rights of the Saharawi people. The oil industry is concerned about cleaning up its image – the best way to do this is with acts, not just words, and this is such an act.

Overview: Baker’s Plan – for Peace?

Now Baker’s proposals and report are publicly revealed and the responses back…it is another rejection, although this time by both of the main parties. Baker now attempts to offer the parties ‘something of what they both want’, a bit of a compromise. Not a bad result for an illegal occupying power. Does this prove that if you dig your heels in enough and look big and bad to the people at the top, your actions then become legitimate?

The original settlement plan and Houston Accords held that the parties had to agree on everything every step of the way. Baker now sees that this is a futile condition. In his report Annan urges the security council to see, as a last resort if they would be willing to enforce something. Clearly they are fed up. If only the original plan could have been followed. But it seems as though Morocco’s obstructions and refusals have gone on for so long that they finally have been accepted as a matter of fact. And there are impatient sighs at the UN that these two just cannot agree.

But, the compromise isn’t good enough for Morocco in any case. A ‘political solution’ is what they are out for and they don’t see this as getting one they want. They do not oppose a referendum, they never have, they are just waiting for it to occur only when they are 99.9% sure the vote in the referendum will be in their favour. As Driss Basri said in a recent interview, “I was for the referendum only in a tactical way”.

What they do oppose is the meaning of self determination set out in the ICJ opinion of 1975, as they twist its definition to fit in with their desires. In the Moroccan’s response self determination really means autonomy, and in this case autonomy means the Western Sahara absorbed into Morocco, the Saharawi culture and people gradually assimilated into Morocco’s own.

The Polisario rejected the proposal, reminding the Security Council once again of their rights according to international law and the deal promised 30 years ago and, never materialising because of the lack of political will at the UN in the first place. …. They are offering further concessions, to agree to a fast track appeals process if they can return to the settlement plan…..

Mauritania’s response is extremely noncommittal and brief, just a few lines indicative of the fact that they probably would rather be left out of this conflict. Algeria objects with some scepticism, but it too must be getting tired of the lengthy stalemate, it believes the plan may have something to work from; anything at this point is better than nothing.

After a whole year of “rollovers” in the Security Council, James Baker has produced a new initiative strikingly similar to that rejected in July last year. Although the stated purpose of the Peace Plan is self-determination, in addition to the voter list prepared in 2000, and those on the UNHCR repatriation list – which together make up “the people of Western Sahara” referred to in the International Court of Justice ruling in 1975 - the referendum will include those residing in Western Sahara since December 30, 1999.

The difference with this plan is that instead of 5 years under Morocco, as in the previous Draft Framework Agreement, now there will be 5 years under a ‘Western Sahara authority’, elected by Saharawis only, with powers to collaborate in matters regarding economics and law, including formation of a police force. However, this leaves Morocco in charge of external security and defence, which explicitly includes the authority to preserve the territory and combat any secessionist attempts from within…

Now, might Morocco’s idea of what constitutes ‘secessionist’ be a little problematic here? considering that the official Moroccan line is that the Polisario are a set of ‘secessionist terrorists’ anyway, holding the Saharawi in the refugee camps against their will? We can see that “Peace Plan” may be a misnomer for these proposals: there is every chance that they would lead to violence if implemented.

Imagine that pro-independence demonstrations in occupied Western Sahara are met with violence from some elements of the Moroccan settlers – encouraged or coerced by Moroccan security forces out of uniform (as is alleged to have happened already). Tension mounts, the Western Sahara Authority police use force to contain the trouble… Might this be a pretext for Moroccan armed forces intervening to “safeguard” the territory against “secessionists”? Would we see battles between the Moroccan army and the Western Sahara Authority police, Moroccan security forces rounding up refugees and “secessionist sympathisers”… The UN would doubtless deplore the breakdown in the process and call for peace – but would it intervene? Would Morocco’s trade agreements with the EU and the USA suffer?