A tale of aid and refugees
[picture: your dinner's ready]
The UNHCR has, according to Algerian and Sahrawi press reports, decided to raise the number of emergency rations it will send to the Tindouf refugee camps. For long, the camps were supplied on the basis of a figure provided by Algeria (as the host country), which hovered around 150-165,000, with the latter being the most frequently quoted number. However, the UN was not allowed to make a formal census of the area, because of what Algeria and Polisario said are security concerns, and also because Morocco has not agreed to a similar census of the territories under its control (which are being rapidly settled with Moroccans from the north).[picture: sahrawi woman getting water from cisterns]
The Moroccan government claims that this refusal to conduct a census is an attempt to hide that the real refugee numbers are far lower -- anywhere from 15,000 to 75,000, depending on the mood of the Moroccan source -- and that the international aid is being pilfered and sold to the benefit of Algerian and Sahrawi leaders. Proof of this has been scarce, however, and what little misuse of aid has been documented -- a couple of bags of UN food that were found on a market in Mauritania a few years ago -- was well within the margins of error accepted elsewhere, in other refugee situations. Also, as pointed out in the Crisis Group reports, Sahrawi refugees have been getting the same emergency rations for 32 years (rice, lentils, water), and it is not unreasonable that those who can, try to trade their staple foods for other kinds of food, so as to round out their nutritional intake. (UN surveys point to severe health problems due to the one-sided diet.)Rabat's Western allies have leaned heavily on the UN to get it to accept Morocco's numbers rather than Algeria's or Polisario's, both in order to cut costs for the operation, and -- Sahrawis say -- to pressure them into being more politically amenable, by using starvation as a weapon against Polisario. Recently the World Food Program caved and surrendered the higher figure, cutting rations to 90,000. This was supposedly what was needed to feed the "most needy refugees", and the agency at the same time politely refused to get involved in the dispute about the total number. (It is true that at least a small number of refugee families has become self-sufficient over the years, through trade and labor, some of them now living in northern Mauritania.)
[picture: flash flood in the camps, feb. 2006]
The cuts, however, quickly led to severe shortages in the camps, and what everybody agreed was already a very difficult health and nutrition situation rapidly deteriorated. And then bad luck struck: torrential rains, in the middle of the Sahara desert, wiped out parts of the refugee camps, leaving some 50,000 refugees homeless, according to UN figures, and destroying what little food stockpiles there were. Repeated distress signals were sent out by the UN bodies, and Sahrawi sources started sounding almost panicked in their calls for food and water. Still, Western nations responded only with limited and erratic help, leaving Algeria to cover most of the deficit. Sahrawi sources viewed this as yet more confirmation that the cut in aid was essentially political in nature: when even the UNHCR and WFP sent emergency appeals, the food shortages could clearly not just be Polisario propaganda, and yet, donor nations would refuse to send what they had provided without protest only years before. (And of course Morocco stood firm in its calls for further reduced food aid, but, as a hint to policy-makers in Rabat: you're not making any friends in the "Southern Provinces" by attempting to starve their relatives in Tindouf.)[picture: after the rains, feb. 2006]
Now, anyway, the UNHCR has decided that the number of "most needy" refugees is probably closer to 125,000. It remains unclear what this number is based on, but hopefully it will stop the continuing food crisis. In the absence of a proper census, and of resolve on the part of donor nations and other parties concerned, Sahrawi refugees will continue to be fed by trial-and-error. And in the absence of political pressure to provide for Western Sahara's self-determination, it will go on for the forseeable future. Enjoy your lentils.
12 comments:
"because of what Algeria and Polisario said are security concerns"....like what ? knowing the real number of refugees ! I have another question: why algeria, the peace loving country and big defendent of people's right to self detrmination (except for its own people's right to democracy), doesn't allow sahrawi refugees to have U.N refugee ID ? Another question: why the oil filthy algerian army and intelligence, which is spending billions de dollars on russian weapons (to the point of becoming its top customer), doesn't spend few millions in building descent homes and providing descent services to the camps ?
Well, I admit I know the answer to that one...because refugees should "bake" in the algerian desert (thanks Alle for the word), they should live miserably so that Spanish and others, when they visit the camps, have pitty on them.
Hypocrisy has still a long life in this case.
anon -- "[security concerns] like what ? knowing the real number of refugees !"
Yeah, perhaps. Total population is relevant to military calculations, and even more relevant to referendum calculations. And, of course, to foreign aid. My guess is that the real reason is a mix of all of them combined, plus general paranoia and reluctance to accept outside scrutiny on the part of both Algeria and Polisario, plus the equal-status demand inherent in asking Morocco to undergo the same procedure.
"I have another question: why algeria [...] doesn't allow sahrawi refugees to have U.N refugee ID ?
They have the SADR's ID cards, which are valid in Algeria and other countries that recognize Western Sahara. Not terribly useful elsewhere, of course, but neither is a Tindouf refugee ID.
"Another question: why the oil filthy algerian army and intelligence, which is spending billions de dollars on russian weapons (to the point of becoming its top customer), doesn't spend few millions in building descent homes and providing descent services to the camps ?"
Because it's the oil filthy algerian army and intelligence, and not the World Food Program.
Algeria is buying about half of the food & stuff for the camps, and has financed electricity, roads, equipment and medical care, and much else. It is, contrary to the Moroccan government, actively lobbying for increased humanitarian attention to the refugees' needs.
But since the Algerian government is what it is, i.e. a military-intelligence joint venture, being nice to refugees will never top its list of concerns, at least not for as long as there are still new, cool MiG models up for sale. Also, there is no lack of needy Algerians, and spending too much on Western Sahara is not popular.
In short, no one thinks that Algeria's military is interested in the Western Sahara issue mainly because it cares so much about the Sahrawis -- it doesn't even care about Algerians. You're fighting straw men here. The real issue is whether aid to the refugees should be a matter of partisan push-pull or handled professionally; neither Morocco nor Algeria want the latter, but both pose as if they do.
Finally, I don't think I came up with the word "bake", however much I wish I did.
Sorry, I just found out that "baking" was indeed used by Will in a june 21st post.
WFP use the figures they like to it seems.
In 2004 they themselves estimated the number of refugees to be 158.000 people. See section 4, page 5 in their project proposal for 2004-2006.
This number was based on "child vaccination and primary school attendance records together with the list of eligible voters" compiled by Minurso.
"WFP and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) carried out a population assessment during their joint mid-term evaluation in September 2003. Using child vaccination and primary school attendance records together with the list of eligible voters compiled by the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, they
concluded that the total number of refugees was closer to 158,000".
It would be very interesting to hear someone from WFP explain how they have done their maths this time in order to get to such different numbers...
laroussi -- thanks, i had not seen that one. i guess that must be the closest thing to a census they've done; bizarre thing for the WFP to go from a calculated 158,000 to 90,000 on a hunch, whatever the truth of the matter.
I wonder why is Algeria involving itself in this conflict..Surely because of political calculations and not out of love for human rights and/or compassion for its guests..I don't believe now that Morocco is a model for any emerging nation or government but nor is Algeria or Mauritania or even the Polisario..I doubt they're going to be any different from their surrounding neighbors as far as their governance goes..This conflict is about power and control..This is not about culture or identity..Moroccans and Sahrawis are both of Berber and Arab descent..A mixture of both I must say..The Polisario's claim of the Sahara is no more legitimate that Morocco's and vice versa and since diplomacy has failed so far in solving the issue one must wonder..What's next? Is armed conflict the only solution? I hope not..Or else we will assist to more bloodshed and suffering..In vain..
This conflict is about power and control..
Yes, true. Name me a conflict that isn't.
This is not about culture or identity..
No, untrue. It is very much about culture and identity for the Sahrawis fighting it; it is about power and control for the other parties. (And nationalism, vested regime interests, and the occasional principle.)
Moroccans and Sahrawis are both of Berber and Arab descent..A mixture of both I must say..
Certainly. And so are Moroccans and Algerians, but I would be very surprised if Moroccans didn't object if Algeria took over the country pointing to their common ethnic heritage. If Sahrawis are really close to anyone, it is the Moorish population of Mauritania, not Moroccans and not Algerians.
The Polisario's claim of the Sahara is no more legitimate that Morocco's and vice versa
Perhaps it is or perhaps it isn't. The important thing is that the Polisario's claim that the population itself must be allowed to decide is more legitimate than Morocco's claim that it must not be allowed to do so.
Self-determination has been a cornerstone in international law and decolonization, and it has been implemented in every ex-colonial region in Africa except Western Sahara, when they weren't granted independence outright. Self-determination can also mean choosing Moroccan sovereignty, but it can never mean being forced to accept it -- or being forced to accept independence.
As a young Moroccan friend of mine said earlier this about the Western Sahara:
"It's not about the Saharawis being Moroccan or not. It is about oil, phosphate and fishing".
True enough. If the Spaniards hadn't found phosphate in Western Sahara it would have been a proper nation many years ago.
Yes, true. Name me a conflict that isn't [about power and control].
Well. Don't you say that the Sahrawi struggle is all about identity..So there you got it!
No, untrue. It is very much about culture and identity for the Sahrawis fighting it; it is about power and control for the other parties. (And nationalism, vested regime interests, and the occasional principle.)
[...]
Certainly. And so are Moroccans and Algerians, but I would be very surprised if Moroccans didn't object if Algeria took over the country pointing to their common ethnic heritage.
Alle, I find it troubling that you refute my arguments with a true/false kind of reponse. There are no clear cut justifications/arguments here. It's all grey! What is it to be "Sahrawi"? If it's not about ethnicity..The very legitimacy of the POLISARIO Front could be questionned and it is actually questionned. We have two Sahrawis factions here: an Algerian sponsored crowd (RASD) and a Moroccan counterpart. I can already see how a newly created Sahrawi nation will be fully independent and self relying (after all Algeria and Spain did support the RASD out of pure compassion and civility). This is all a dirty game - a political one I must say. And what disgusts me the most is the fact that thousands of innocent people are caught in the middle of it. Let's hope this ends with no bloodshed..
There are as many or as few rights and wrongs in this conflict as there can be in any conflict. (For example, saying that Sahrawis are split evenly is a claim that could easily be proved either right or wrong by asking them outright in the referendum, which remains ready-to-go since 1999.)
It is not just a grey zone, incomprehensible, even if one should maintain a healthy distance to the claims of any party to it.
Morocco has rejected any referendum that would put at stake its "territorial integrity" -- W. Sahara being part of this latter. Whether I think that a referendum is a fair solution. Well, it depends. One issue with a referendum is who's entitled to vote in it. And boy, you know how the debate heats up when this topic is raised. Each party has its own list and look at the opponent's with mistrust and scepticism. I do not feel a fair referendum could take place under current circumstances. Back to you..
Referendum: if you can come up with another way to let the population chose between Morocco and independence, i.e. practice effective self-determination, then let me know. (And post a copy to Minurso.)
As for deciding who can vote, that was set down already in the peace plan: any above-18 non-Spanish person who was in the census taken the year before Spain left, and others who could prove that they had been resident there but not counted (and their children, of course). No party has its "own list"; Polisario has simply said that they want the UN resolution to apply as written, while the Moroccan government first played along, and then suddenly said that they additionally want to add everybody else they've brought into the territory after 1975 -- which is not a list so much as a stalling manouvre.
Lists according to the peace plan's criteria were drawn up by the UN after meticulous identity control of several hundred thousand people, and came up with a set number of approximately 85,000 people in 1999. The referendum could have happened that winter, if Morocco had only allowed it. It could still happen this winter; the lists are still there, and updating them to bring in anyone of the same families who have turned 18 since, and remove those who have died, would take a month or two tops.
Post a Comment