Saharawi Republic Developments and its Relations with South Africa

Meeting report

PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
14 March 2006
SAHARAWI REPUBLIC DEVELOPMENTS AND ITS RELATIONS WITH SOUTH AFRICA

Chairman: Mr D J Sithole (ANC)

Documents Handed Out:
Presentation document on the Saharawi Republic

SUMMARY
HE Mr QUEI Bachir, Ambassador of the Saharawi Republic, addressed the Committee on the occurrences in Saharawi and Western Sahara. Mr Bachir outlined the history of the struggle between the Saharawi Republic and Morocco, and thanked South Africa for having recognised the Saharawi Republic as a legitimate state. Mr Bachir commented on the human rights violations occurring in Western Sahara to the Saharawi people, and on the conditions in refugee camps in Algeria. He thanked South Africa for the humanitarian assistance that has been provided. The Department of Foreign AffairsLabour Ambassador and Chief Director: North Africa, then addressed the Committee, commenting that though in some respects the conflict is simple as it is an issue of decolonisation, in other respects it has become complicated. This is due to the passage of time and Moroccan migration to Saharawi Territory, leading to questions of who is eligible to vote should there be a Referendum in Western Sahara. Mr Saley commented that South Africa needed to engage its partners to recognise the Saharawi Republic, and to put pressure on the UN and EU to do the same. The Committee questioned Mr Bachir and Mr Saley, and it was decided to constitute a sub-committee of three members, one each from the ANC, DA and IFP, to look at how to develop a motion to put to the House with regard to Saharawi, as a Committee.

MINUTES
Briefing by Ambassador Bachir, Saharawi Republic
Mr Bachir noted that he spoke on behalf of the last people in Africa still struggling for decolonisation. He outlined the key dates in the history of Western Sahara, which was under Spanish colonisation until 1975. In 1975, a United Nations Resolution was passed asking Spain to organise a referendum in Western Sahara, to vote for either self-determination by the Saharawi or integration into Morocco. This did not occur, and Morocco and Mauritania both laid claimed to different parts of the territory. The United Nations was called in again to determine whether Western Sahara, pre-colonisation, was empty or was occupied by the Saharawi. It was determined that it was occupied by people with their own tribal organisation and no links to Morocco or Mauritania. However, both countries invaded the territory. In 1979 a peace treaty was signed with Mauritania, who pulled out of the territory.

In 1981 the Moroccan King declared he accepted to reconsider the proposition of a Referendum of self-determination. This did not occur, however, and in 1991, a new Moroccan King came to power who refused the idea of a Referendum.

In 2003, the Baker Plan was put forward. This provided an intermediate solution whereby the territory was given five years of autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty, after which a Referendum would occur in which people could decide whether to integrate with Morocco or become self-determined. The Saharawi agreed to this proposal, but Morocco refused. In the eyes of the international community, this constituted a failed last chance for resolution. It was in this context that South Africa recognised the Saharawi Republic as a legitimate state. South Africa was followed by Kenya, Uruguay and Ecuador, and to date more than 80 countries recognise the Saharawi Republic.

Mr Bachir noted that a key development occurred in 2005, when the Saharawi began peaceful protests in the occupied territory. Demonstrations occurred in all major cities, and Mr Bachir noted that Morocco responded with brutality. Whilst showing the Committee photographs of human rights abuses, Mr Bachir commented that these uprisings were important as people have lost their fear. The Saharawi have also achieved diplomatic victories as the Saharawi Republic is recognised.

Mr Bachir noted that, politically speaking, things now stand at an impasse due to two reasons. Firstly, Morocco’s refusal to recognise the Baker Plan and to accept a Referendum and secondly, the failure of the UN to impose its resolutions on the Moroccans.

In terms of human rights, Mr Bachir stated that the situation is worrying. The territory is closed to international delegations, and Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have commented on the situation. It is hard for Saharawi’s to find work in the territory, and the upcoming possibility of a visit from the King of Morocco has resulted in increased security measures and repression. The majority of the Saharawi people are in refugee camps in Southern Algeria, where recent floods have destroyed houses, schools and hospitals, leaving 12 000 families homeless. Mr Bachir commented that humanitarian assistance from abroad, including South Africa, has aided the situation, and thanked South Africa for its assistance.

Mr Bachir noted that the presence of a Saharawi Embassy in Pretoria showed that co-operation and exchange were occurring. He ended his briefing by commenting that one of the most important issues is to establish a situation where South Africa can share its experiences of transition with the Saharawi people.

Briefing by Ambassador Saley (Department of Foreign Affairs, SA, Chief Director: North Africa)
Mr Saley described his experiences in the liberated zone of Western Sahara, where he had recently been. He spoke of the presence of a sand wall, 2400 km long, which is heavily mined and has Moroccan forces situated along it. This wall, which was built in 1991 or 1992, contributed to the stalemate. The UN mission to the territory aimed firstly to monitor and ensure the continuity of the ceasefire and secondly to proceed with preparations for carrying out the referendum.

Mr Saley said that this was a simple conflict as it was a decolonisation issue. When Spain left the territory, the Madris Accord handed over the administration of Western Sahara to Morocco and Mauriatnia. Resistance to this occurred through Polisario, a Saharawi group, and Mauritania pulled out. On their withdrawal, Morocco occupied the part of the territory they had previously administered. An International Court of Justice ruling claimed Morocco did not have this right.

Mr Saley went on, however, to explain that in some ways the issue is also a complex one, due to the question of deciding who is to vote in the Referendum: who is a Saharawi? The last census was carried out in 1974, and covered 74 000 people. Since then, many Moroccan immigrants had arrived and claimed nationality. The United Nations set up an identification commission in which Polisario and Morocco would each nominate one notable from each tribal area. These two notables would hear oral testimonies, in the presence of the UN, based on lineage, in order to decide if individuals were Saharawi or not.

Mr Saley explained that subsequent to this, individuals who had been identified as non-Saharawi had appealed, and the UN rejected many of these appeals. This created a situation where, in the advent of a Referendum, Morocco would have lost as few Moroccans would be allowed to vote. This situation, Mr Saley claimed, explained the new King’s change of heart over the notion of a referendum.

Mr Saley said that South Africa’s biggest contribution was the recognition given to the Saharawi Republic on the 15 September 2004. This acted as a signal to the world, and led to others recognising the Saharawi Democratic Republic. Morocco had since campaigned to get some countries to de-recognise the Saharawi Republic, and had had some success with this.

Mr Saley noted that the situation has wider implications for the region. The borders between Morocco and Algeria had been closed since 1994, and Moroccan forces are situated along borders. The situation was dangerous and there is a need for South Africa to focus on the situation. If there were to be conflict in this region it could have wider implications for Africa. Antagonism between Morocco and Algeria bedevils resolutions such as Nepad and the African Union.

Mr Saley said that South Africa’s commitment to providing humanitarian assistance was valuable as the terrain in which people live is inhospitable, and they survive mainly due to the interventions of NGOs and international assistance. South Africa’s contribution makes a difference. In addition, the support provided to the Saharawi Embassy in Pretoria is valuable.

Mr Saley then considered what the way forward was at a multilateral level. He said that the issue is solid in terms of legality, and if South Africa has a multilateral policy then the issue of Western Sahara should be viewed in this light. On a bilateral level the issue was one of decolonisation. There is a need for South Africa to engage with its other partners in order to get them to see the situation in this way. Currently no UN or EU members recognise the Saharawi Republic, and there is a need to put pressure on them.

The Chair thanked Mr Bachir and Mr Saley, and opened the floor for questions.

Questions from the Committee and Responses
Mr Mulder (FFP) commented that the phases gone through in the territory signified a classic self-determination struggle. He added that the Republic should try to avoid finding oil until they were independent, as that would complicate matters. He then questioned that on the one hand settlers were to be allowed to vote, but on the other there was the issue of the balance having shifted, and asked for clarification.

Mr Bachir replied that the process of settlers and identification had been a long one. In 1991 it was agreed that the 1974 census was to be the basis of identification. When the process started, Morocco objected. The Saharawi Republic would not disallow any Saharawi from voting, even if they knew they would vote for integration with Morocco, as that is their right. However, Morocco had placed a lot of people in Western Sahara and the Saharawi Republic wished to prevent these people being presented to the UN as Saharawi. Mr Bachir stated that settlers who can prove they have continuously been in the territory since before 19999 will have the right to vote. This had been done in order to give people who had built a relationship with the Saharawi a chance to vote.

Mr Bachir then noted that in terms of oil, Morocco had been bringing companies in to look for offshore oil. The Saharawi republic managed to get all but one company to pull out, but that one company is still a serious issue.

Ms S Camerer (DA) then noted that she recalled being addressed by the Polisario ten years ago, and that little had changed, apart from the failed Baker Plan. She asked which countries that are UN members recognise the Saharawi Republic. She also wished to know where the Saharawi population was situated. As the government is in exile in Algeria, she wondered if most Saharawi were there. Finally, Ms Camerer noted that Morocco had threatened to withdraw their Ambassador from South Africa, and queried whether this had occurred.

Mr Bachir noted that the list of countries was in the document handed to the Committee. He added that Latin American and African countries formed the majority. English speaking African countries tended to recognise The Republic, while French speaking African countries did not, though some did.

In response to Ms Camerer’s query about the government in exile and refugees, Mr Bachir said that 70% of the territory is controlled by Morocco, while 30% constitutes a liberated zone. Some nomadic people inhabit this area, but the terrain is inhospitable. In 1975, many people escaped the territory. At that point the Polisario Front was unable to assist, and so the Algerian Government provided support.

A further issue was raised around this point, where a Member who had visited Saharawi refugee camps in Nigeria in the 1990s had noticed large numbers of women and children. She was concerned with how long this drawn out situation had been affecting women and children.

Mr Bachir responded that as men were fighting on the front line when the Polisario Front began resistance, it was mainly women and children who ended up as refugees. He added that this is still the case today.

Mr Saley responded that it was hard to tell, officially, whether the Moroccan Ambassador had withdrawn. The South African government had not been formally informed, but the Ambassador is not around, and the Moroccan government has not gotten back to South Africa about arrangements for a replacement South African Ambassador to Morocco.

Mr B Holomisa (UDM) asked that as South Africa was the first to recognise the Republic, what steps had been taken by South Africa to lobby other countries? He noted that if the African Union had a single resolution with regard to this issue, then a better case would be able to be presented to the UN General Assembly, and then to the Security Council.

Mr Saley noted that though South Africa was not the first country to recognise the Saharawi Republic, since then there have been more. India had rescinded their recognition, but there has since been a change of government and it was expected that their recognition would be re-established.

A member of the DA queried why Spain had handed the Administration over to Morocco.

Mr Bachir responded that a legal advisor from the UN had stated that Morocco had no sovereignty over Western Sahara, Mr Bachir added that, in terms of Administration, the territory is still viewed as being administered by Spain.

Mr Saley noted that Administrative Control was handed over by Spain shortly after Franco’s death, and that Polisario had engaged Spain militarily and Spain wanted to leave Western Sahara quickly. It was in this context that Spain gave Administrative control to Morocco and Mauritania.

An ANC member was interested in people to people relations within Western Sahara. She questioned the role of civil society in terms of how active NGOs were, and of international organisations working with the Saharawi. She noted that the media does not highlight this issue, but also that no days have been set aside for the issue. She was especially concerned with the issues affecting people who are not politically active, and queried how active civil society was in addressing this.

Mr Bachir replied that media coverage was very active in Spain and Algeria. The South African media did report Baker’s appointment.

Mr Saley noted, in terms of civil society, that when he flew in to the liberated zone the individuals on his chartered flight reminded him of anti-Apartheid activists. He noted that it was important to encourage greater contact between Saharawi civil society, and people in South Africa.

A further issue raised was the position of the Arab League on this situation. In addition, it was asked why the UN security council and the EU were not supporting this issue. This question was later re-opened by another member of the council who asked what lay behind the UN’s attitude to the Saharawi Republic. She commented that the UN recognised the South African struggle long before 80 countries did, so was curious as to the UN’s reticence in this instance.

Mr Bachir replied that since the very beginning the Arab League did not wish to be drawn into the question of Western Sahara.

In response to questions about the UN’s position, Mr Bachir replied that the influence of France was impeding the Security Council form enforcing its resolutions, as France was unconditionally on the side of Morocco. In terms of UN members other than France, Mr Bachir commented that there is a belief that there is a link between the stability of Morocco and the incorporation of Western Sahara into Morocco. Mr Bachir stated that he believed, however, that in terms of Moroccan stability it was better to resolve this issue.

A member then asked why it was that there was talk of integration into Morocco, and queried why this was even an alternative. She wondered why it was not possible to fight only for Saharawi independence.

Mr Bachir replied that there was now an international commitment on the part of the Saharawi Republic to give peace a chance in this way. They are hoping the UN will organise a Referendum. Mr Bachir stated strongly, however, that the Saharawi Republic will not wait forever, and that this has been stated by the President.

Mr Saley added that the options of integration or self-determination had been determined in the OAU, and this was carried over to the UN.

A further issue raised was that of cultural links between Morocco and the Saharawi: were there reasons beyond the economic that Morocco would not let go of the territory?

Mr Saley responded that even to his untrained eye the cultural differences between the Saharawi and the Moroccans were obvious, and that there were differences in language.

The Chair then thanked the presenters, and put forward a proposal to the Committee. He proposed that a small sub-committee be set up. The Chair emphasised that it was time to consider the possibility of expressing themselves as a Committee and as an institution of Parliament. He proposed this be done through creating a sub-committee of three people to look at how to develop either a Motion or a Statement to put to the House with regard to the Saharawi issue, as a Committee, not as members of different parties.

Ms Camerer said that while she had no problem with this in principle, she asked that the sub-committee report back to the Committee before putting anything to the House. She was also concerned with who would be on the sub-committee.

The Chair proposed putting forward a member form each of the ANC, the DA and the IFP to constitute the sub-committee. This was agreed upon, and the meeting was adjourned.