International Relations Budgetary Review & Recommendations Report 2012, Saharawi Peoples' self-determination

Meeting report

Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report on Department of International Relations and Cooperation 2011/12
The Chairperson noted that the Budgetary Review and Recommendations Report (BRRR) report was a culmination of the work the Committee had done on the Annual Report and the Auditor-General’s (AG) report. He asked Members to focus on the recommendations, which flowed from the discussions on the issues pointed out in both the annual report and the AG’s report, which were also reflected in the main body of the BRRR. He stated that page 24 of the report was an overall impression of the annual report of the Department.

Mr I Davidson (DA) stated that the observations 1,2,3,5 & 6 on page 22 were pertinent. He suggested making a side resolution that requested the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO or the Department) to give a report to the Committee.

The Chairperson suggested phrasing Mr Davidson’s proposal as: “Attention is drawn to points 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 and the Department must report to the Committee on progress of the resolutions on those matters.

Mr B Elof (ANC) noted that on page 17, it was noted that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) reported on the outcomes of 2006/2007, but had not finalised the report. The Department was supposed to report back to the Committee on this.

Mr S Ngonyama (ANC) agreed that the matter must be included in the recommendations that it be brought before SCOPA to be finalised.

Ms C September (ANC) stated that it was not appropriate for the Committee to make recommendations to SCOPA, but should instead say that the Committee would write to the Speaker.

The Chairperson agreed that the recommendations were supposed to be about the Department, not other bodies that dealt with the Department. However, he added that if the Report was adopted, it would take the form of a Resolution by Parliament.

Mr Ngonyama said that most of the resolutions did not deal with finances and he believed the Committee had to find a way to profile finances. The other issues were very political.

Mr Davidson stated that the broad resolution focused on matters on which the Committee still needed feedback.

The Chairperson stated that points 3 & 4 of the recommendations on page 25 dealt with assets and asset verification and supply management issues. The financial health of the Department was fine but there were issues with management. That was the reason why the recommendations were captured in that manner.

Members agreed to adopt the BRR Report

Adoption of the report on Cotton Partnership Agreement
The Chairperson stated that the Committee had engagement about three weeks ago on the Cotton Partnership Agreement, in the form of a presentation from the Department.  Although the matter was not properly referred to the Committee at the time, Members had tried to be proactive, despite the time constraints. The deadline for approval was the end of October, and the Committee agreed to adopt the matter, in principle, and the official referral on this was done by the Office of the Speaker two days previously. One issue that was noted was that the Department should desist from delaying, in its own office, on treaties and agreements and then trying to push them through Parliament at the last minute.

Members agreed to approve the Second Review of the Cotton Partnership Agreement.

General comments about treaties
Mr Davidson stated that the Committee was still waiting for a report, promised earlier in the year, on more than 250 agreements that had not yet been ratified by Parliament. He enquired about the progress on this point.

The Chairperson asked the Mr Jerry Matjila, Director General, DIRCO, to furnish a report on the status of the treaties within one month.

Ms September suggested that the Chairperson must send a formal, written request through to the Department.

Mr B Skosana (IFP) stated that pressure should be put on the Speaker’s office to request this Department to ensure that all other departments would give due attention to, and follow due process, in treaties that they entered into.

The Chairperson reminded Members that this issue had been dealt with at a workshop a few months ago. The resolution then was to formulate a framework for the consideration of treaties in Parliament. A proposal was in place that would be brought to the Committee for adoption, with recommendations to the Speaker on how to deal with adoption of treaties. Some treaties, particularly international ones, needed the input of DIRCO, but there was no framework to determine which ones required this.

Saharawi Peoples’ Issue
The Chairperson welcomed representatives from the embassies of The Kingdom of Morocco and Western Sahara.

He stated that the issue of the Saharawi people was an emotive issue, much like the Israeli-Palestinian issue. He added that the Western Sahara was referred to as “the last colony in Africa”. The Committee wanted to discuss the matter and find out what role Parliament could play, and what the country could do to help resolve the problems.

Mr Jerry Matjila, Director-General, DIRCO, noted that the Department had invited the embassies of France and Spain, as key role players in this matter, to comment but they had declined. The Embassy of Algeria failed to give a response to the invitation. He encouraged Morocco to join the African Union and pointed out that Western Sahara was in need of capacity building.

South Africa’s Position
Mr Matjila wanted to summarise the South African (SA) position. He stated that SA’s support for the liberation of the Western Sahara was historical, as it was informed by SA’s own liberation struggle. SA believed the Saharawi people were being denied the right to an opportunity to determine for themselves who should lead them and govern on their behalf. It took ten years for South Africa to recognize Western Sahara, but this was deliberate, because the thinking was that if SA recognised the nation too hastily, it would lose the ability to encourage dialogue between Saharawi and Morocco.

SA’s support for the self determination of the Saharawi was based on a number of principles. These included the centrality of the African Union and United Nations in the resolution of the conflict, the Constitutive Act of the African Union, in particular the principle of the sanctity of inherited colonial borders in Africa, and the right of peoples of former colonial territories to self-determination and independence. Other principles included the respect of international human rights law in the occupied territories, respect of international humanitarian law and support for the provision of humanitarian assistance to the Saharawi refugees in a way that was predictable, sustainable and timely. South Africa wanted to see an end to the illegal exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of Western Sahara in the illegally occupied territory and discouragement of the involvement of foreign companies in such activities, whilst also seeing support for the integration and stability of the Arab Maghreb Union as a building block of the African Union.

Since the signing of the ceasefire agreement between the POLISARIO Front and Morocco, four rounds of direct negotiations had been held. Morocco’s proposal around the Western Sahara conflict was to have an autonomous Western Sahara, under Moroccan sovereignty. However, the POLISARIO Front maintained that any process that led to the convention of a referendum in Western Sahara, with independence as an option, was an acceptable outcome. No agreement had so far been found. SA disputed that the autonomy option, as proposed by Morocco, was the only acceptable outcome. SA reiterated that Western Sahara remained the last colony on the African continent, listed as a non-self-governing territory by the United Nations. SA would continue to support efforts to achieve a just, lasting and mutually acceptable political solution, which would provide for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.
 
The SA government proposed the following steps:
-the utilization of every available bilateral and multilateral engagements to place the matter of Western Sahara on the table
-an active role for the African Union in the negotiations
-increased participation by SA civil society in support of the Saharawi struggle
-assistance of the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) with capacity and institution building
-the lifting of a media blackout imposed in the Western Sahara’s occupied territories, which continued to prevent the international community from seeing the daily misery of the Saharawi people
-the demolition of the landmine-infested 1 800 km long sand wall in Western Sahara, which continued to prohibit interaction between Saharawi families
-increased allocation of humanitarian assistance to the Saharawi refugees in Tindouf (Western Sahara refugee camps).

Mr Matjila concluded that there were three memoranda of understanding (MoUs) between the two countries that were ready for approval. These were a MoU on Diplomatic Consultations, MoU on Youth Sports Development Complex and MoU on Humanitarian Assistance in Landmine Removal.

Discussion
Mr Davidson noted that the Director General had previously recommended, to the Human Rights Council, that there should be a human rights mandate. He asked if this was accepted.

Mr Davidson asked if it had been Morocco that imposed the media blackout.

Mr Ngonyama requested a synopsis of the proposals for autonomy by Morocco.

Ms September asked whether SA had received any backlash with regard to its position in this matter.

The Chairperson asked what it would take to move Morocco and the Saharawi to reach an agreement.

Mr Matjila replied that journalists, according to the United Nations (UN), were supposed to be allowed to report on what was happening in Western Sahara, but they would have to go through Morocco to do so. South African journalists had found it very difficult to get independent media access. He reminded Members that during apartheid, it was hard to report on what was going on in the country, but there was still smuggling of information out of South Africa. However, SA had not developed a system to smuggle information out of Western Sahara. He said that this issue could have been resolved faster had the ambassadors in each country been dealing with each other, but Morocco had refused to send its ambassador back to South Africa after South Africa took a stand on the Saharawi issue, and had not given the South African envoy to Morocco the status of an ambassador.

Mr Matjila asked the Moroccan delegates to tell Members what their definition of autonomy was. He urged all the concerned parties not to pre-empt the issues, but instead hold a referendum in Western Sahara, as had been agreed twenty years previously.

Mr Matjila confirmed that there had been some other backlash due to South Africa’s position. Even at the UN Security Council, SA was the lone voice on the issue of Western Sahara. France and USA cautioned South Africa to be careful not to press the issue too much. The situation had not affected SA’s relationship with Morocco, in terms of trade or travel. SA’s position was basically concentrated on diplomatic lobbying, and Morocco understood this. He stated that the King of Morocco had a lot of political power and influence, and in order that this be resolved, he would have to be on board. He expressed disappointment with Morocco’s decision to leave the African Union simply because Western Sahara had been allowed to join. He urged Morocco to reconsider its decision.

Mr Matjila confirmed that the proposals for a Human Rights resolution, as questioned by Mr Davidson, were not approved.

Presentation by the Moroccan delegation
Mr Saleh Daha, Director: International Cooperation and Economic Affairs, Moroccan Delegation, thanked members for inviting a Moroccan delegation to the meeting. He stated that the delegation did not represent the Embassy of Morocco, even though it did contain a member from the Embassy. Instead, it should be regarded as a Saharawi delegation from Morocco. They hoped to participate in a rich, sustainable and fruitful process in order to shed more light on the Saharawi issue from the social, economic and humanitarian standpoint.

The Chairperson asked that a member of the delegation speak on the specific issue of the right to self-determination.

Mr Daha stated that no resolutions adopted by the Security Council since 1988 on the Saharawi issue ever mentioned the word “decolonisation” in their preamble or in their provisions. All the reports of the Secretary-General of the UN, addressed to the Security Council, also never referred to the decolonisation of the Western Sahara. Thus, for the Security Council, the Western Sahara problem did not follow the decolonization framework, but should instead be regarded as a regional issue that should be finalised by reaching a peaceful settlement of dispute, conformity with the right to self-determination, and negotiation as a framework to the settlement of the dispute, bearing in mind the mutually accepted settlement. The difficulty and complex nature of the identification process of third parties to identify the proper constituents of the Saharawi tribes, and the fundamental differences that characterised the positions of the parties on important aspects of the plan had led the Security Council of the UN to conclude that the proposed settlement plan was inapplicable. In 2000, James Baker, a personal envoy to the UN Secretary General, held a series of meetings in London and Berlin with the parties. Both he and the Secretary General urged all parties to begin negotiating a political solution that could settle the dispute over the Western Sahara. Morocco had accepted the UN proposal for a negotiated, mutually acceptable political solution. However, Algeria and the POLISARIO Front rejected it. Algeria was a key player in this issue but had been uncooperative in negotiating a solution. Morocco, in order to end the impasse, proposed making Western Sahara an autonomous state. The UN later called for the parties to enter into negotiations without pre-existing conditions when the UN adopted resolution 1764, which also recognized the cooperative contribution of Morocco. The active participation of the people of Sahara in the ongoing negotiations showed Morocco’s respect for democracy. The UN had emphasised the need for a spirit of compromise by all parties involved. Again, he stressed that Algeria and the POLISARIO front had been unwilling.

The initiative of autonomy was a result of wide international consultation to gather the views of all the countries involved. Under this initiative, Morocco would guarantee the people of the region their place and role without discrimination and without excluding its body or institutions. The Saharawi population would be able to run their affairs democratically through a legislative, executive and judiciary that would have exclusive powers. The people would also have the financial resources to allow them to run their affairs. The subject of autonomy would be subject to discussions and a referendum, in accordance with international legality. Negotiations along these proposals were not fruitful. He assured Members that all the facts used in his presentation could be confirmed in the UN resolutions. He stated that he hoped that South Africa would be able to help solve this issue for the benefit of all Saharawi people.

Western Sahara Delegation input
Mr Jalil Sidmhamed, Minister for Policy Organization, Western Sahara Delegation, thanked the SA government for their support of the Saharawi people’s quest for self-determination. He said that the history of Western Sahara went back to the colonial period. The country was initially declared a Spanish colony, by virtue of the colonial divisions made at the Berlin conference in 1884. In 1955, when Spain requested to join the UN, the UN requested the Spanish government to declare its colonies, as the UN charter dictated. Spain rejected the demand and continued to colonise the territory. In 1963, Western Sahara was placed on the list of non-self-governing territories, under Chapter 11 of the UN Charter. In 1965, the UN General Assembly adopted its first resolution on Western Sahara. This resolution called on Spain to liberate and decolonise the territory. The effect of the resolution was that the territory was classified as a colony and the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination was recognized by the UN.

In 1975, the first Saharawi independence movement saw thousands of Saharawi people taking to the streets in peaceful demonstrations, demanding independence from Spain. The Spanish responded by forcibly suppressing the demonstrations. In 1975, the POLISARIO Front was formed as an armed movement to fight for the independence of Western Sahara. In 1975, the UN sent its investigative committee to the territory, and made a finding that the Saharawis were demonstrating peacefully and demanding their right to self-determination and national independence.

In 1975, both Mauritania and Morocco claimed sovereignty over Western Sahara, at the International Court of Justice. That Court rejected their claims and issued a landmark ruling stating that the evidence presented did not prove any ties to territorial sovereignty between Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or Mauritania. Both countries rejected the ruling of the Court: Morocco then invaded the northern part of Western Sahara, while Mauritania invaded the South. The result was a terrible war in which the enemy forces used deadly weapons against the native population of Western Sahara. As a result of this illegal invasion, thousands of Saharawi people fled to southern Algeria, where they had been living as refugees in terrible conditions for over 35 years. The Saharawi who lived under Moroccan occupation were subject to a systematic policy of violence, torture, false detention, and denial of social, economic and political rights of the Saharawi.

The Moroccan invasion of Western Sahara led to a direct confrontation between the POLISARIO Front and the Moroccan army that lasted for sixteen years. The Moroccan army used deadly weapons, including the mine-filled sand wall that kept many Saharawi families separated from each other for over three decades. In 1991, Western Sahara signed a peace treaty with Morocco, under the auspices of the UN. The peace agreement provisions were a ceasefire, the release of all political prisoners, and the organisation of a free and fair referendum in which the Saharawi people would determine the political fate of the territory, be this integration or independence. It was for this reason that the UN Security Council deployed peace keeping forces in Western Sahara - the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO).  The mission was mandated to organise the referendum and count the eligible voters. Despite its initial agreement, however, the Moroccan government broke its promise and started to elude this peace plan. Morocco feared losing the referendum, as the Saharawi people would certainly choose independence.

The matter had been deadlocked since that time. The international community was constantly faced with Moroccan refusal to abide by international law, and the inability of the international community to implement its resolutions. Moreover, the most prominent members of the Security Council had been unwilling to take binding action against Morocco to force it to respect international law and legality in the territory.

Since 2005, the people of Western Sahara had resorted to a new form of peaceful resistance within the territory. Thousands of Saharawis organised peaceful demonstrations against the illegal Moroccan invasion and demanded their right to self-determination. One of these demonstrations had been described, by many, as the beginning of the Arab spring.

The violation of human rights in the territory continued to be of concern both to the numerous human rights organisations and to the government of Western Sahara. The Moroccan authorities continued to block the territory from international media and observers, and prohibited peaceful demonstrations. In addition, the Moroccan law criminalised any demands for independence of Western Sahara. The native Saharawi were not allowed to form any independent associations, and unfair trials of Saharawi human rights and political activists continued. All these human rights violations were documented by international human rights organisations that managed to get access to the territory. For example, the JF Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights gave a report this year on the gross human rights violations by the Moroccan police against the Saharawi civilians. The report urged the USA to take action to prevent such violations.

An important factor in the conflict was the fact that Western Sahara was rich in mineral resources, had great potential for offshore oil reserves, and had rich fishing waters.  The economic and strategic significance of the territory had made it an easy target for international greed. The Moroccan government used the territory’s resources to gain international support in the dispute. The Moroccan government had granted fishing agreements to the European Union, and mining and exploration agreements to American and French companies. These were illegal practices that violated international law, particularly the requirement to respect the sovereignty of non-self-governing states.

Mr Sidmhamed expressed hope that the current visit of the UN envoy Christopher Ross to the territory would be fruitful. He stated that the POLISARIO front would continue to call for international support for the self-determination of Western Sahara. The Saharawi people had been fighting for over three decades, against all odds, and would not give up until Western Sahara got its independence.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked why King Mohamed VI was clinging so strongly to Western Sahara. He also asked why Morocco would not allow the Saharawi to hold a referendum to determine their future, and why Morocco wanted autonomy, and not independence. He wanted to know why Morocco had imposed a media blackout on Western Sahara. Finally, he questioned what was needed in order for the impasse to be resolved.

Mr Davidson said that Morocco claimed the term “decolonisation” was not included in the UN resolutions. However, he enquired about the AU’s position on the matter.

Mr Sulliman stated that the AU could help solve this problem, but the problem was that Morocco was not a member.

Mr Davidson wanted more clarity on where Morocco fitted into the picture, since Western Sahara had been a Spanish colony. He asked why there was not adherence to the  peace treaty.

Mr Ngonyama asked for clarification on the conditions that had been deemed unacceptable by Western Sahara.

Ms September wanted to know what the South African Parliament could do for both delegations.

A member asked the Moroccan delegation what primary constitutive elements it would consider to be included in “autonomy”. A question was also asked as to who would participate in the referendum. This Member thought that this Committee possibly could not do anything about the conflict, as it would have to go through the AU.

Ms C Dudley (DA) asked what other compromises needed to be made, apart from the referendum. She too wondered how South Africa could help to move the discussion forward?

Mr Alouat Harroudi, Research Intern: Catholic Parliamentary Liaison Office, stated that the claims by the Moroccan delegation that the term “decolonization” had never been used in the UN resolutions were false. He pointed out that the matter of Western Sahara had been before the UN Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, which was titled “Spatial, Political and Decolonisation Committee.” Every year, that Committee reaffirmed the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination. He also pointed out that the Moroccan delegation had claimed that the UN resolutions did not call for the self-determination of Western Sahara. He disputed this, saying that all the resolutions, from 1964 to date, contained a clause that called for a political solution that would give the people of Western Sahara “the right to self-determination”.

Mr Harroudi said that the historical narratives were not relevant, because each side could give its own version. This was a legal issue that had been going on for over 40 years. In the 1960s, Spain proposed an autonomy plan that was rejected by the Saharawi. Later on, Spain accepted the UN resolution for a referendum and counted the list of voters, which at that time was 70,000 eligible voters to vote for the independence of Western Sahara. However, Spain changed its mind on this point in 1975, when Morocco and Mauritania invaded the territory.

The POLISARIO Front already had made a compromise in 2000 and 2004, when they accepted the James Baker Plan 2, which involved autonomy under Morocco for four years, after which there would be a referendum where the Saharawi people would decide whether they wanted to be an independent state. As part of that plan, the POLISARIO also accepted that the Moroccan settlers who came into the territory in 1975 could vote in the referendum. In spite of this, the Moroccan government rejected the plan. This showed that Morocco was afraid of the referendum and did not trust its own people.

Ms Sarah Shihadah, Human Rights Advocate, stated that she was an American who had been working in the refugee camps in Western Sahara. She said that the human rights violations in the territory were hard to deny. She cautioned the Committee against calling for a compromise, because it implied symmetry, and said that this was not a meeting of two parties with equal leverage, or a matter of two sides who were equally wrong. How they thought about this issue would shed a lot of light on whether it was possible to have both justice and a mutually acceptable solution, and she suggested that perhaps this was a case where the two were not reconcilable.

A member of the Moroccan Delegation remarked that earlier on, the Western Sahara delegation mentioned that there was a list of voters at the UN. He pointed out that two thirds of the people on that list were living under Moroccan sovereignty. The main issue here was representation, and the question was raised whether the two thirds who were living under Moroccan sovereignty had mandated the POLISARIO Front to speak on their behalf. The government of Morocco had conceded that they be included in the resolution because they were the ones who had paid the price. Morocco had accepted their request, and that was why the delegation had been able to attend this meeting.

He stated that media representatives worldwide went to Western Sahara to cover a myriad of issues, including allegations around human rights. He stated that he had personally accompanied representatives from the South African Broadcasting Corporation to cover the issue of Western Sahara, for a programme called “Eye on Africa.” He had copies of this program on DVD available for Members.

Another member of the Moroccan delegation stated that the UN did not give the mandate of human rights to the MINURSO, simply because they had trust in the Moroccan human rights organisations. Moroccan human rights organisations and observers were very transparent, and reported on violations against victims of both sides. These observers were even the source of information for the POLISARIO Front.

A member of the Moroccan delegation thanked the Committee for the opportunity to interact with their “brothers from the other side.” He believed that South Africa could help by continuing similar efforts to facilitate discussions between the two parties. He urged Members to visit Western Sahara to see the developments in the area.

Ms Naima Konchi, Lawyer, wanted to speak from the perspective of a Saharawi woman. She said that the both the war and the human rights violations were politically motivated. For instance, Morocco still did not know how many people were in the refugee camps, because the POLISARIO Front refused the UN request for registration of the refugees. She was in possession of a document from the UN stating that, since the beginning of the conflict in the 1970s, Algeria and the POLISARIO Front had refused to allow the registration of the population. This suggested that the POLISARIO Front wanted to be able to give false figures on their population. The Front was denying their people access to humanitarian assistance and their right to repatriation, since the refugees in the camps had no rights to be repatriated to Morocco.

Mr Matjila stated that for this issue to be resolved, Morocco would first have to join the African Union, because then it could follow AU rules that required respect for colonial boundaries. He emphasised the principle of non-interference of external parties, in order to allow Africans to solve African issues. He stated the need for political reform in Morocco. He asked the parties to abandon their preconceptions on whose ideas were right, and whose were wrong. There was a very important lesson to be drawn from the Arab spring, that no amount of repression could crush the people’s will.

Mr Matjila said that the UN Security Council also had to be forthright on the issue of human rights. The UN needed to go back to its Chapter on fundamental freedoms. The UN must discourage the exploitation of natural resources of any occupied territories, until the issue was resolved. There was a need for continuous, direct and uninterrupted consultation, an approach that had been successful in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In addition, France and Algeria needed to be guarantors in this process. There was also a need for the release of political prisoners. He reiterated that a referendum was vital to the conflict resolution, and added that it would be quite simple to identify constituents by going back to the Spanish colonial registration roll and update it. It was also possible to carry out a headcount of the population, as had been done in South Sudan. He added that there was a need to remove travel restrictions in the territory. Finally, he urged South Africa to avail its negotiation skills to assist both parties.

A Member of the Committee suggested that the committee visit Western Sahara to assess the situation on the ground.

The Chairperson suggested incorporating this discussion in the following meeting, when the information was still fresh in Members’ minds. He requested that both presentations be forwarded in writing before 29 October, so that the Committee could refer to them in their discussion. He said that members of the delegations could attend these later meetings, but would not be allowed to participate.

He clarified that the Human Rights Council of the UN was in fact the one that had proposed the inclusion of a human rights mechanism attached to the MINURSO mission. South Africa supported this proposal in the Security Council meeting in 2011, although in prior years the proposal had been rejected by other countries, including Morocco.  The Chair of that Commission still called for the inclusion of the human rights mechanism in the MINURSO mission.

The meeting was adjourned.