Join on WhatsApp
Join on Telegram
Rabat – The United Nations discussions, normally dry procedural motions, grew heated this week about the Western Sahara dispute. The Moroccan representative to the United Nations and the Venezuelan Special Committee Chair argued about who is eligible to represent and talk on behalf of the Saharawis, according to a UN press release.
The Special Committee on decolonization, officially called the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples, was discussing two draft resolutions about information flow in such territories, when the subject shifted to Western Sahara.
After expressing solidarity with the peoples in non-self-governing territories, Venezuelan Special Committee Chair Rafael Darío Ramírez Carreño encouraged the body to dismiss any and all input from Abba Mohammad, representative of the Laâyoune in the Sahara.
Abba was expected to participate in an upcoming report concerning the conditions of Saharawis, but Carreño cited past UN resolutions that granted authority to speak on behalf of the Saharawi peoples exclusively to Polisario representatives.
The Moroccan representative, Omar Hilale, fired back with accusations that the Venezuelan representative was “…interpreting this in a broad manner as if he [Mr. Abba] represented the entire Sahara. He is representing Laâyoune,” he said.
Carreño again voiced his objection to the report circulated to the global representatives, in which Abba makes requests on behalf of Saharawis. He claimed this was a “violation of General Assembly resolutions” about representation, and must therefore be discredited.
Hilale called a Point of Order, reminding his Venezuelan counterpart that the request to observe the upcoming hearings had already been approved in a previous document. He continued to say that Abba had been democratically elected by the local Saharawi population in a step towards self-representation. He emphasized that these September 14th, 2015 elections were the first such regional elections in Western Sahara, and had been conducted with international observers and with the UN Secretary-General’s approval. Mr. Abba’s report on the economic situation of Western Sahara was meant to provide valuable information for the body.
Hilale called the committee’s attention to Resolution 35/19, which serves as an official UN opinion on the Western Sahara issue. It refers to the Polisario Front as “representative of the people of Western Sahara,” rather than “the” representative, which allows for the possibility of other non-Polisario representatives to speak on behalf of the Saharawis. The Moroccan diplomat affirmed that Mr. Abba was a legal representative of certain Saharawi people, by UN law. “We are not here to decide who represents whom,” he added.
The Chair, however, denied his Point of Order, claiming that only Polisario was “approved” to speak for the Saharawis. He went on to add that the representation of Western Sahara was not this committee’s role at this time, and that they were under no obligation to hear from Mr. Abba.
A representative from Venezuela agreed, and added that it would take an entire resolution through the General Assembly to change this fact.
The Office of Legal Affairs’ representative reminded the Chair that he only had the power to rule on Points of Order, not take partisan stances on resolutions.
The Moroccan representative likewise reaffirmed the validity of his position. He contended that the committee had already agreed to listen to Mr. Abba when it approved the aide memoire, which refers to this Saharawi representative. The Chair again asserted that Polisario was the “sole legal representative of Western Sahara.”
Omar Hilale responded by questioning the Venezuelan Chair’s impartiality. “I know you are not very interested in the legitimacy of elected officials and have a problem respecting human rights, but you cannot impose these rules here.”
The Chair refused to hold such discussions in Committee.
The Moroccan diplomat vehemently opposed the Chair’s ruling. He drew attention to the diverse opinions held by Saharawis, and lamented that the UN would only listen to the separatist position of Polisario. Such behavior would “turn the rules of democracy” on its head. “This Committee is going to lose credibility,” he added.
The Chair concluded by deferring the Western Sahara issue to a future resolution by the General Assembly, moving on to another topic on the agenda.
